By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Republican Party of Arizona (AZ GOP) won’t be punished for challenging the 2020 election. The court vacated the attorney fees awards issued by the trial court and court of appeals, and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.
“Petitioners’ claim was not groundless and arguably was made in good faith,” ruled the court. “‘Raising questions’ by petitioning our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws and noting the potential consequences of the failure to do so — particularly in the context of our elections — is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘long shots.’”
In a press release, the AZ GOP said the ruling was a victory for election integrity. The case concerned the party’s lawsuit against Maricopa County election officials’ administration of the mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election.
“This ruling reaffirms the fundamental legal principles that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action,” stated the party.
The AZ GOP’s lawsuit against the county sought declaration that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM), passed under then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, violated state law directing precincts to be the sampling source for the hand count, rather than voting centers.
The AZ GOP sued to prevent the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from canvassing the votes before the late November deadline.
In the ruling, authored by Justice John Lopez, the court determined the AZ GOP hadn’t brought a groundless claim, and that therefore the trial court and court of appeals had erred in awarding attorney fees against the AZ GOP.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was wrong to find the AZ GOP’s claim was groundless over several criteria: the party failing to name the secretary of state as a defendant, seeking mandamus relief unavailable as a matter of law, and improperly contesting a pre-election procedure.
“It is untenable to invoke an alleged procedural defect like the one in this case — readily remediable and, in fact, remedied one day after the complaint was filed — to irrevocably mar a complaint as groundless,” wrote Lopez. “Whatever the Secretary’s interest in Petitioners’ declaratory action, it was fairly debatable whether Petitioners’ naming of the County as a defendant in their complaint was adequate, and, regardless, the parties agreed to the Secretary’s intervention just one day after the complaint was filed.”
Lopez wrote that the requested mandamus relief was fairly debatable, not groundless.
“Thus, because the Maricopa County election officials enjoyed no discretion in the discharge of their hand-count duties — a prerequisite to mandamus relief rather than a legal disqualifier — the trial court erred,” wrote Lopez. “[W]e only hold that Petitioners’ requested mandamus relief was not groundless because it was at least fairly debatable, even if a ‘long shot,’ whether the County was obligated to conduct a hand count consistent with [the law] or an arguably conflicting EPM provision.”
Lopez further wrote that the trial court erroneously assumed that the challenged hand count constituted a pre-election procedure subject to the election-law time bar. The judge noted that the 2019 EPM also doesn’t include hand count among its pre-election procedures.
“[T]he hand-count protocol continues past the election’s conclusion. In fact, although the statute directs the sampling from precincts, the actual selection of polling places does not commence until after the election,” wrote Lopez. “The merits of Petitioners’ claim are not before us; therefore, we need not determine whether, or to what extent, the election-law time bar applies to a procedure, like the hand count, that straddles the election. We merely conclude that Petitioners’ post-election claim was not groundless because whether their claim was time-barred by our jurisprudential election-law procedural rule is at least ‘fairly debatable.’”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
