Kari Lake's attorneys are not bothered that the Arizona Supreme Court flatly told them that there is no evidence in the record that more than 35,000 ballots were illegally injected into Maricopa County's November election. They tripled down on that allegation in last night's Response to Motions for Sanctions, and they are asking the Justices to reconsider their refusal to consider the appeal of the dismissals of the chain-of-custody count. (Such a Motion to Reconsider is clearly disallowed by court rules.)
Lake's attorneys complain that the opposing counsel did not try to rebut the unsupported claim in their sanctions motions. "Nor can anyone doubt that Lake honestly believes that electoral misconduct and illegal votes determined the outcome of the 2022 gubernatorial election. As such, sanctions are not appropriate."
In their March 22 Order, the Supreme Court asked the parties to only address the "unaccounted for ballots" claims in yesterday's Response and next weeks' Replies.
"The parties shall address as a basis for sanctions only Petitioner’s factual claims in her Petition for Review (i.e., that the Court of Appeals should have considered “the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total of ballots at a third party processing facility”), and not legal arguments (i.e., pertaining to the burden of proof or purported conflict in the lower courts). The record does not reflect that 35,563 unaccounted ballots were added to the total count." (emphasis added)
Lake's Response then goes into detail as to why they honestly believe ballots were injected - explanations that were (or should have been) in the Petition for Review that the Court considered.
HOWEVER, long-standing court rules PROHIBIT Lake from filing a Motion for Reconsideration. Once the Supreme Court denies a Petition for Review, that is the final word. (Rule 22(f) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) The Order denied review of the chain of custody issue.
Additionally, that Lake's attorneys are repeating arguments is significant because Lake also asks the Justices to reconsider their declining to accept the appeal from the trial court's dismissal and the Court of Appeals' agreement. The Supreme Court clearly had reviewed the record before making their determination that the injected ballots argument was unsupported; the Justices would not want to review new arguments being made now, even if a Motion for Reconsideration was permitted.
The defendants have until April 12 to file their Replies to this new filing. Meanwhile, the Superior Court judge is waiting for permission from the Supreme Court before re-addressing the Motions to Dismiss the signature verification issue.