The Arizona Supreme Court today decided that the Arizona GOP did not file a "groundless" post-election suit in 2020, and unanimously reversed $27,000 in sanctions levied by both the trial and intermediate courts.
The lawsuit was the one that waited until after the election and mandated hand count audits to challenge Maricopa County's decision to select 2% of voting centers to audit instead of polling places. The AZGOP knew of that decision prior to the election, but had not challenged it.
Justice John Lopez wrote the opinion for the Court, and soundly rejected the lower courts' determinations that the case was sanctionable.
"Facially, Petitioners’ claim is more than “barely” colorable in this context. Petitioners correctly point out there is a plain-language conflict between § 16-602(B), which requires a precinct hand count, and the 2019 EPM, which permits a voting center hand count."
Lopez however emphasized that the Court was not finding that the then-EPM did impermissibly contradict the statute; only that the GOP's claim was not groundless.
Similarly, he dismisses the lower courts' unanimous decisions that the lawsuit (and, appeal) was/were sanctionable because it needed to be brought BEFORE the election. "Fairly debatable", he states.
The Court did not find that Superior Court Judge John Hannah's findings that the case was "futile" and "meritless" were clearly erroneous. However, they did find that that did not reach the level of groundlessness necessary to justify the sanctions award.
And the Opinion warns future judges to not base sanctions on political motive. "Our courts should be cautious that, in their zeal to ensure that election challenges are properly grounded in fact and law under the guise of defending an “election’s legitimacy,” they do not inadvertently inflict real damage to our republic by slamming the courthouse door on citizens and their counsel legitimately seeking to vindicate rights, which is also important to maintaining public confidence in elections."
The AZGOP had posted a bond for the sanctions, and will now be able to get that bond released back to them (their surety).
**********
Original article, 3/14: "UPDATE: AZ Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Grandaddy of All Elections Sanctions Cases; Near Finality On AZGOP's 2020 Case"
The Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on the grandaddy of all elections-related sanctions cases, and the Republican-appointed justices seemed skeptical of the AZGOP's post-2020 lawsuit that prompted the sanctions.
The arguments were heard on the road, at ASU's College of Law.
Representing the AZGOP, attorney Dennis Wilenchik echoed earlier arguments that the sanctions for a bad faith filing were only based upon "the political motivation". Jack Wilenchik had warned the Superior Court judge that he would was in "dangerous First Amendment territory into which the Court should not dream of treading".
Judge John Hannah accused Wilenchik and the AZGOP of "gaslighting" and sanctioned them approximately $18,000 for the "futile" and "meritless" suit. The Court of Appeals not only affirmed those sanctions, but added $9,000 more for the "muddled" appeal.
Arizona statutes refer to a post-election hand-counted audit of 2% of voting precincts. However, the then-in-place Elections Procedures Manual recognized that some counties had moved to voting centers, and that an audit of 2% of those would satisfy the law.
The AZGOP knew in September of Maricopa County's intent to audit voting centers, yet did not file the challenge until after the audit was conducted and the official canvass of the election was fast approaching.
Both lower courts found that the lawsuit was groundless because it was against "the wrong parties at the wrong time, and sought the wrong relief", Assistant AG Karen Hartman-Tellez told the justices.
To reverse, the Supreme Court justices would have to greatly redefine the interpretation of Arizona's sanctions statute in order to overrule both lower courts' detailed findings, and likely carve out some special exception for elections law cases.
An opinion in this 2020 elections case is expected within the next few months. (Certainly before a new batch of post-elections cases are filed in November.)
No comments:
Post a Comment