BREAKING: Judge Rules In Favor of Arizona's Early Voting Signature Verification Process and Drop Box Provisions

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club took their complaints about Arizona's processes for comparing early voting signatures and unstaffed drop boxes to Yavapai County in hopes of getting a favorable decision. It failed today.

Superior Court Judge John Napper denied the Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and granted the MSJs filed by the Secretary of State and intervenors. This ends the case short of a trial.

The dark money organization challenged the process outlined in both the previous and current Elections Procedures Manual of matching the signature on an early ballot envelope to one of multiple examples in the voter's registration record. (The alternative would be comparing it to only the original voter registration form signature.) AZFEC also claimed that  drop boxes for early ballots could only be inside offices or actively monitored 24/7.

Judge Napper reviewed the EPM processes with the new statutes recently passed by the state Legislature, and found that the lawmakers had blessed the EPM's provisions. For example:

The Judge similarly found that "the Legislature has not required that these drop-boxes always be monitored. The decision to use staffed but unmonitored drop-boxes is within the discretion of the Secretary."

"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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts. 

Blehm BREAKING Fresh Ground; Gets Sanctioned In a Legislative Petition Challenge Case (READ Minute Entry)

Nomination petition challenges rarely - if, ever - result in sanctions or attorneys' fees awards. Kari Lake attorney Bryan Blehm decided to expand into these lawsuits this year, and today got sanctioned for basing the lawsuit on a non-existent residency clause in the Arizona Constitution.

Butler is running for the House in Legislative District 4. Busch/Blehm contended the Constitution required her to have lived in that district for at least one year. However, the requirement (in statute) is that she needs to have lived in Maricopa County for at least one year. (She has.)

Superior Court Judge Danielle Viola order Blehm and his client, Shelby Busch, to reimburse Kelli Butler $4,798.05 of her court costs and attorneys' fees for filing the frivolous legal action to kick Butler off of the ballot.

"Here, Busch/Blehm pursued the candidate challenge alleging a residency requirement when the plain language of the Arizona Constitution does not contain a residency requirement. Butler encouraged Busch/Blehm to dismiss the claim based on the express language of the Arizona Constitution. Busch/Blehm failed to meet and confer. Busch/Blehm later failed to dismiss the claim or notify Butler that it would be dismissed until after the Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed."

(Having worked in the nomination petition challenge area since 1992, sanctions against the attorney and/or the client is nearly unheard of.)

Butler and her attorney, Andy Gaona, had asked that Blehm's actions also be reported to the State Bar - where he is already facing disciplinary actions for his Lake case(s). The judge did not address that in the Minute Entry (below)

"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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts. 

BREAKING: Arizona AG CHARGES "Fake Electors" With Felonies For 2020 Actions

(This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.)

In addition to the 11 Republicans who were initially legitimately serving as Arizona's Trump slate of electors, the Attorney General has charged seven other individuals. Those people's names will be released once they are all served. (The only thing we currently know of the 7 yet-unnamed defendants are that 5 of them identify as male and 2 as female.)

Washington Post's Yvonne Wingett-Sanchez has reported that the 7 are "former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman." (That matches our previously-reported 5 male/2 female breakdown.)

Unindicted co-conspirator #1 is Trump. Unindicted co-conspirator #2 is fmr Senator Kelly Townsend, for organizing the Joint Resolution (SCR1002) declaring the AZ-11 as the real electors. (30 GOP lawmakers signed on to it.)

Unindicted co-conspirator #3 is 1 of the signers of that Concurrent Resolution and one of the organizers of the infamous Rudy Giuliani/Jenna Ellis "hearing" at a downtown Phx hotel. Several to choose from, it might be Mark Finchem.

Unindicted co-conspirator #4 is a Trump campaign atty who didn't get indicted (like Eastman, Ellis, Giuliani and Bobb), but wrote memos. That is likely Kenneth Chesebro, who had been extensively interviewed by AZ AG's office.

Unindicted co-conspirator #5 is an Arizona attorney who worked for the Trump campaign and unsuccessfully filed suit against the (legitimately elected) Democratic electors (along with the state and Maricopa County). That would be either local attorney Dennis Wilenchik or his son Jack. (Here are Jack's comments to Arizona's Law back in December 2020.

.

 

"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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: AZGOP Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Accept Kari Lake/Mark Finchem Appeal; Repeats Attacks On Dominion Voting Machines (READ Amicus)

The Gina Swoboda-led Arizona Republican Party today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to accept Kari Lake and Mark Finchem's appeal to revive their effort to ban electronic voting machines from Arizona elections this year.

The amicus ("friend of the court") brief was co-filed by the AZGOP and the state GOPs from Georgia and Delaware. It reshuffles the arguments already made by Lake/Finchem in their Petition (and the wrongly-designated Motion to Expedite), arguing that the lower courts in this and other election cases are inappropriately disposing of cases by ruling that the parties do not have standing.

The new brief even claims that the U.S. Supreme Court may have inadvertently started that trend when it refused to take Texas's 2020 challenge of how Pennsylvania conducted the election (won by Biden). "Especially if it was this Court that inadvertently created this problem of lower courts refusing to decide legitimate election challenge cases and controversies brought to them, a course correction is now desperately needed to ensure elections are conducted in accordance with law." (There is some irony in how Georgia's and Delaware's GOP parties are weighing in on this Arizona case.)

The amicus brief also reiterates renewed attacks on Dominion voting machines and their certifications. Those attacks have not been found to have any merit, but Lake/Finchem's team - and, now, Gina Swoboda's AZGOP - is claiming to have recently discovered new information to support them. Swoboda became AZGOP Chair after having served in the Arizona Secretary of State's Office.

The Supreme Court is set to (privately) conference Lake/Finchem's appeal on April 19. Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit is considering separate appeals from Lake's and Finchem's attorneys - including Alan Dershowitz. They are challenging the $122,000 in sanctions imposed after the case was dismissed.

"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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATE: Appeals Court DENIES Hamadeh's 2022 Election Contest Appeal (READ Opinion)

The Arizona Court of Appeals today DENIED Abe Hamadeh's Election Contest appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the judges found that the Mohave County Superior Court did not err in his (delayed) rulings.

They also criticized Hamadeh for not speedily pushing the case:

"A virtual firestorm of challenges followed the 2022 general election. Those flames have subsided. The winners were announced and took their oaths of office more than 15 months ago. This case, one of the last embers still glowing, does not burn hot enough to warrant relief.

Despite the urgency inherent in resolving issues affecting the validity of an election, Abraham Hamadeh1 chose a slow road, allowing the remaining embers to cool. Rather than seeking special action review of pretrial rulings, Hamadeh waited until after the trial to file an appeal focusing on his asserted need for accelerated discovery and a trial continuance."

Hamadeh blasted the decision, pointing out that his legal team had filed a Special Action. However, the Special Action referenced in today's opinion would have been on the pretrial rulings, whereas Hamadeh had filed his petition to try to speed the trial court judge up in issuing a final decision.

Hamadeh promised to keep fighting, but did not specifically indicate whether he would appeal this decision. (He is about to get sanctioned in a separate case that he had filed, and that could then be appealed, as well.)

 "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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Arizona Supreme Court Swiftly DENIES @AZAGMayes Motion to Reconsider the 1864 Abortion Ban Decision

UPDATE, 4/26, 5pm: BREAKING: Arizona Supreme Court Swiftly DENIES AG's Motion to Reconsider the 1864 Abortion Ban Decision

The one-sentence Order was "en banc", meaning the entire Court considered the Motion. (No opposition is recorded.)

As noted below, Motions for Reconsideration are very rarely granted. However, because of the quick ruling, it only delayed the closure of the case by a couple of days. The Court will likely issue the Mandate to the lower court next week. By agreement of the parties in a related case, the 1864 ban is to go into effect 45 days after that Mandate is issued. That delay was agreed to to allow the AG or other parties to try to raise further issues in the lower court (Pima County Superior). 

************

UPDATE, 4/24, 2pm: Especially in light of today's vote by the AZ House to repeal the 1864 ban, I've been asked by several to explain what the "personhood" law is. Here's the brief rundown:

The impact of the "personhood" law could be similar to the 1864 total ban Toma just permitted the repeal of. And, similarly to the 1864 ban, a judge could "revive" the 2021 "personhood" statute.

"Personhood" law, from 2021. Makes (non-IVF) fertilized  egg into a "child" for ALL (non-abortion) laws. Prelim injxn now in place, but Toma-Petersen yesterday told judge he should let it go into effect.

**************

UPDATE, 4/23, 10pm: "BREAKING, IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO RECONSIDER: AZAG Mayes Asks AZ Supreme Court To Reconsider Decision On Arizona's Civil War Era Ban On Abortions; Legislative Leaders Ask Federal Court To Let "Personhood" Statute Take Effect"

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tonight asked the Arizona Supreme Court to RECONSIDER its decision allowing Arizona's 1864 abortion ban to go into effect.

While the Motion is unlikely to sway the Justices' minds - it was a 4-2 Opinion (below), the AG has  delayed the law from going back into effect (by delaying the issuance of the Mandate).

The Motion is below. It makes the case that the justices went against their own textualist approach to statutory construction. "But even if this Court does not reconsider its ultimate conclusion, it should at a minimum revise certain statements which conflict with this Court’s statutory interpretation principles and may have troubling consequences for future interpretive disputes."

 not yet available, but The AG's Office also told a federal court considering the impacts of the Supreme Court's opinion on the separate court challenge to the 2021 law banning abortions because the fetus has a genetic abnormality.

There is a separate federal court challenge to Arizona's 2021 law banning abortions because the fetus has a genetic abnormality.

AZ GOP legislative leaders argued to the federal court tonight that not only does the new total ban make that court challenge moot, but that Judge Douglas Rayes should also allow the accompanying "personhood" law to go into effect. That provision would treat fetuses as equivalent to a child in other statutes.

The AG's Office concurrently filed its Supplemental Brief and urged Judge Rayes to reimpose the preliminary injunction against the Reason Provision. It also notes that there is nothing pending on the personhood provision - it has been enjoined by the court as vague - and that the new decision should not change that.

Rayes asked the parties to brief the impacts of the Planned Parenthood decision on the Isaacson case.

************ 

BREAKING: In 4-2 decision, AZ Supreme Court LIFTS THE STAY on Arizona's Civil War Era Ban On Abortions

Opinion, more: https://t.co/qhlZFKduoj pic.twitter.com/n0iyY841VX

— Arizona's Law (@arizonaslaw) April 9, 2024

****

The Arizona Supreme Court has confirmed that it will hand down its long-awaited decision on whether Arizonans are now subjected to the Civil War-era anti-abortion law. The Opinion will be released at 10am on Tuesday.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade two years ago, Arizona's battle over the 1864 law that mandates a 2-year minimum sentence for any abortion provider (with exceptions for life of the mother) took shape.

Arizona's pre-Roe injunction was lifted by a Pima County trial court judge in September 2022. However, the Court of Appeals reversed it in December 2022, stating that it must now be harmonized with the statutes that the Legislature had passed regulating abortion during the period between Roe (1973) and Dobbs (2022).

That is the appeal that is about to be decided by the Arizona Supreme Court Justices (all appointed by Republican governors).

And, it comes in the wake of an interim announcement bv a coalition of abortion rights groups* that they have collected more than 500,000 signatures to place a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights on the November ballot. (Less than 400,000 valid signatures are needed to qualify.)

Here is some background to prepare for tomorrow's decision:

1) The Supreme Court staff attorneys' summary of the issue to be decided, with good background of the rollercoaster that got us to this point.

2) The Court of Appeals' Opinion that the justices are reviewing.

3) The oral argument from December 12, 2023, before the Arizona Supreme Court.

*Disclosure: This article is written by attorney Paul Weich, who is a volunteer coordinator and informal advisor in the coalition's signature-gathering process.

SANCTIONS SCOREBOARD UPDATE: Fontes Attorneys Seek $36k In Sanctions Against Hamadeh and Attorney Heath (READ Application)

UPDATE, 4/4, 3:30pm: "SANCTIONS SCOREBOARD UPDATE: Fontes Attorneys Seek $36k In Sanctions Against Hamadeh and Attorney Heath (READ Application)"

Wasting no time, attorneys for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes asked a judge to assess $36,820 in sanctions against unsuccessful AG candidate Abe Hamadeh and his attorney, Ryan Heath.

The judge dismissed the wide-ranging lawsuit on Monday (below) and indicated that she would award the sanctions. Fontes' outside counsel Craig Morgan filed the detailed Application the following day. Similar requests will be coming from the Attorney General's Office and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (representing named defendants AG Kris Mayes*, and Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors and Recorder, respectively.

Heath had asked for sanctions against successful AG Kris Mayes; Judge Pineda denied that request in Monday's Minute Entry.

* Correction: Two consolidated cases were dismissed on Monday. The AG's Office represented the AG in one and both the AG and Secretary of State in the other. Gov. Hobbs was initially part of one of the lawsuits, but was dismissed earlier. And, per the Minute Entry, Maricopa County will be asking for sanctions against plaintiffs David Mast and Tom Crosby, along with attorney Heath. The other Defendants are seeking sanctions against Hamadeh and Heath.

***********

ORIGINAL ARTICLE, 4/1, 8am: "BREAKING, SANCTIONS SCOREBOARD UPDATE: Judge DISMISSES Hamadeh/Crosby Cases, Ready To Award Sanctions"

Abe Hamadeh, Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby, David Mast and their counsel (Ryan Heath) are all on the hook for sanctions in a couple of cases dismissed this morning attacking Maricopa County's handling of the 2022 elections. 

(This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.)

"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. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.