UPDATE: Nightmarishly Slow Pace Hampering Three 2022 Election Contests (ANALYSIS)

Arizona's Law has a dream that all of the 2022 Election Contest cases will be completed before 2024. However, slow walking Republican plaintiffs and slow paced courts are combining to make that look less likely (than it should look).

Let's get updated on where each case is and discuss where some grease could be applied.

1) Kari Lake, contesting the Governor race:

(UPDATE, 7/9: The Court of Appeals has transferred Lake's appeal from Division 1 (Phoenix) to Division 2 (Tucson). Please click here for further explanation.)

Although we hesitate to put this idea in the universe, but the grease needs to be applied to Lake's attorneys, Bryan Blehm and Kurt Olsen. Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson quickly ruled in the 2nd trial last month. Lake filed a Notice of Appeal on May 31, but has FAILED to file anything since then to move it along. 

The Notice of Appeal indicated that they *might* try to transfer it to the Arizona Supreme Court or otherwise try to move it along; they have done neither. In fact, they have ignored their obligations under Rule 11 of ARCAP (the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure). They were required to order transcripts by June 14 and then were required to notify the parties by June 16.

The Clerk of the Superior Court has until the end of this week to transmit the record to the Court of Appeals.

2) Abe Hamadeh, contesting the Attorney General race:

(UPDATE, 7/9: Mayes responded to Hamadeh's request for a scheduling conference (the "nudge the judge" move), and Hamadeh quickly replied. Mayes suggested the conference is not needed because there is no further discovery or trial permitted under the accelerated election contest statutes. Hamadeh retorted that it is in the interest of expediency in case his long-outstanding motion for a new trial is granted.)

Unlike the other two cases, this one has not yet made it from the Superior Court level to the appellate level. We need an 18-wheeler of grease, because it needs to be spread around. Judge Lee Jantzen has had Hamadeh's Motion for a New Trial pending since February. When pressure was mounting in April, he set it for an oral argument... a month away. It has now been five weeks since he listened to the parties re-hash their January arguments. 

We published an article back in April talking about the apparent confusion about when the election contests require immediate attention and when they do not. Combined with the optional nature of the court rule for election cases and the lack of transparent enforcement for the *(Arizona) constitutional* requirement that matters be decided within 60 days, we have a wreck that was waiting to happen. The wreck has occurred in this case, and Hamadeh's (expanded) legal team tried the nudge the judge move last week. (Hamadeh's steady stream of "supplemental authority" filings have been a minor contributing factor, giving the judge a bit of cover for the stagnant case.)

3) Mark Finchem, contesting the Secretary of State race:

(UPDATE, 7/7: The trial court record for the 2nd Finchem appeal (re: sanctions) has been sent to the Court of Appeals. Finchem is now on the clock to finish the consolidation. (July 17))

Finchem's case  - the one hampered by a combination of bad facts, bad theories and interesting lawyering - is also stuck somewhere in the murky world between trial court and Court of Appeals. It has been a "Zombie Appeal" for the past several months, as explained in this February article. (I am not sure what impact grease could have on a zombie, but....)

Rather than trying to push the appellate process after being given 2nd chance, Finchem's attorney asked for it to be put on hold while he waited to be sanctioned by the now-not-in-a-rush trial court judge. Those sanctions eventually did happen ($48,000), but now attorney McCauley has apparently filed a second appeal and the Court of Appeals is asking him to merge the two. 

Neither the Court of Appeals nor the Superior Court Clerk seems to know how to handle this odd move, and they appear to be wary of again breathing life into Finchem's moribund appeal. (Like Lake's counsel, Finchem's seems to have blown through the Rule 11 deadlines, too. So, the Clerks' hesitance is understandable.)

Conclusion: So, legal grease might help. But, different attorneys, different judges, and different procedures might help in the future, too. As we have noted - here and in previous articles - there are several ways statutes, rules and processes can be improved for future elections/contests. Arizona's Law has already begun to explore some options with the courts and will continue to work on them. It's a dream that can come true, stay tuned.