UPDATE, 8/18, 4:45pm: "STRANGE DAZE INDEED: Hamadeh Attorneys Explain The 22 Catch-22s In Their Election Contest Predicament, Ask Court Of Appeals Not To Dismiss"
The Abe Hamadeh legal team explained to the intermediate Court of Appeals judges why the Superior Court judge's and the Supreme Court Justices' possible actions mean that their direct appeal should not be dismissed.
Confused? You are not alone, and this episode of "Soap (Opera in the Courts)" will probably not clear things up.
But, this paragraph sums up the strange procedural posture of their case:
In other words, if the superior court issues final judgment while jurisdiction to hear the special action is pending—and the special action is ultimately denied—then the appeal may proceed in the normal course in this court, the only difference being that it will have commenced more quickly than if Contestants had waited for final judgment to issue. And to be fair, no one knows when this will occur, which is one of the reasons Contestants filed a special action. Arizonans need a speedy resolution to this case of statewide magnitude that could change the outcome of the Attorney General’s race.
All three levels of Arizona's judiciary could now issue orders on the main case, its direct appeal and a related Special Action. ALL AT THE SAME TIME. (It is unlikely that the four judges and seven justices would hop on a zoom call to coordinate their actions. But, strange daze call for unusual actions.)
Oy.
*****
UPDATE, 8/16, 4:45pm: "TAKING OFF THE KID GLOVES: Hamadeh Explains To Supreme Court It Must Take Special Action Because of Trial Judge's "Dilatory Conduct", Apologizes For Errors In Petition"
Abe Hamadeh's legal team is done being polite about the trial judge's delays in finalizing the Election Contest in the Attorney General's race. In their Reply this afternoon, they repeatedly cite Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen's "dilatory conduct" and argue that their Special Action Petition to the Arizona Supreme Court is the fastest way to get the matter resolved this year.
Their Reply also apologizes for the "unintentional error" that prompted Contestee Kris Mayes and the Secretary of State's Office to ask for sanctions (details below) last week.
The Supreme Court Justices will now decide how to handle this matter - likely without oral argument. As they did early this year when Kari Lake inexplicably filed a Special Action Petition with them, they could deny it and rely on the regular appeal process to play out. Because of the unusual circumstances, they could accept it, or maybe accept it for the limited purpose of ordering Jantzen to immediately finalize his decisions.
Not surprisingly, legislative GOP leaders Warren Petersen (Senate President) and Ben Toma (House Speaker) also weighed in with a friend of the court brief, explaining what previous legislatures intended to allow in ballot inspections and discovery and taking shots at Secretary of State Fontes' Response. The legislature hired outside counsel Kory Langhofer for the brief (below).
ORIGINAL ARTICLE, 8/11: "Fontes Attorneys Ask Supreme Court To Deny Special Action, Sanction Hamadeh Legal Team For Multiple Misrepresentations (READ Responses)"
Attorneys for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and (Contestee) Kris Mayes responded to Abe Hamadeh's effort to get the Arizona Supreme Court to consider the appeal of his Election Contest. In addition to suggesting that it is not yet time for the Supreme Court to consider the case, Fontes' counsel claims that there are two key misrepresentations of what has transpired in the slow-moving legal battle that warrant sanctions.
Last week, we wrote about the Hamadeh legal team's unusual action of going to the Supreme Court trying to unmuck the case at the same time they are (still) waiting for the trial court judge to finalize his judgment and for the Court of Appeals to take up the matter. We pointed out some of the reasons that a Special Action Petition to the Supreme Court may cause further issues.
Today's separate Responses from Fontes and Mayes hammer many of those same points. However, Fontes' Response also makes a detailed plea for the Justices to sanction Hamadeh. It cites two misrepresentations of the record: (1) claiming that they had asked Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen for a final, appealable order in December when the motion explicitly said they wanted a non-final order (because they expected to file their motion for a new trial), and (2) claiming that the trial judge in Kari Lake's Election Contest had partly granted relief from judgment in May.
"The blatant nature of this deceit cannot be ignored, especially given – in the context of this election challenge – the damage such misinformation can do and has done to our Democracy. It needs to be admonished now, so that it does not leach into whatever appeal Petitioners file, or worse, out into the world for others to absorb. Sanctions are necessary here to protect the integrity of our judicial process and destroy the spread of misinformation in pursuit of justice before it irreversibly takes root."
Mayes' Response also cites the misrepresentations and requests the Justices award sanctions.
Portions of Hamadeh's Contest are now at all three levels of Arizona's court system. Superior Court Judge Jantzen has neither signed an appealable judgment denying Hamadeh's requested relief nor ruled on a handful of other outstanding issues. However, Hamadeh's Notice of Appeal is (a) in waiting at the Court of Appeals, and (b) freezing Jantzen from finalizing the case. (Once an appeal is filed, the trial court has very limited jurisdiction to act. (Mayes and Fontes have asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the first appeal - which is not yet deemed "filed" - and have asked the trial judge to issue final rulings.)
And, the Supreme Court is now waiting for Hamadeh's team to file a Reply by Aug. 16.
Hamadeh attorney Jen Wright has explained to both the Court and Arizona's Law how frustrating this limbo has been for them and the difficult procedural posture they are in. And, she is right.
All of this frustration will soon be in the Supreme Court's lap. A quick answer is expected.
This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.
"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment