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