“We have more votes than Kris Mayes. It’s up to the courts to decide to count them.” – Abe Hamadeh
Recent analysis of uncounted provisional ballots in November’s attorney general race make a compelling case that Abe Hamadeh received more legal votes than Kris Mayes.
The 2022 faceoff between Hamadeh and Mayes serves as one of the closest races in Arizona’s history. It’s on par with one other historically significant race that was ultimately overturned, even after both the Maricopa County Superior Court and a Democratic Secretary of State had declared a winner: the 1916 gubernatorial election.
However, the year-long contention of that election had to do with the design of the ballots confusing voters on their vote. This time around, just over 100 years later, the issue concerned voters whose votes were denied to them due to government missteps and failures with election administration.
Last Tuesday, the Mohave County Superior Court granted Hamadeh oral arguments in his motion for a new trial challenging the outcome of his election based on hundreds of allegedly disenfranchised voters. That will occur in about a month, on May 16. Hamadeh shared that they have over 250 affidavits from allegedly disenfranchised voters at present. The vote margin difference is 280.
🚨BREAKING🚨
The Mohave County court has ordered Oral Arguments for our Motion for a New Trial on May 16.
My legal team will expose the government’s withholding of evidence that undermined the rule of law.
According to all counties’ data, there are roughly 8,000 provisional ballots outstanding. Hamadeh led on day-of voters statewide, winning an average of 70 percent of the votes. Provisional ballots may heavily favor him, due to the additional fact that day-of votes were generally 2 to 1 Republican.
“All data points suggest that it favors Republicans,” said Hamadeh.
It appears that, due to the mass tabulator failures, there were less voters but more provisional ballots cast this past election year. Rejection rates of these provisional ballots increased sharply across several counties: Santa Cruz County’s rejections increased from one out of the 117 provisional ballots cast to 83 out of the 139 provisional ballots cast. Pima County’s rejection rate doubled.
Despite Pinal County having a comparable number of provisional ballots cast in 2020 and 2022, their rejection rate increased from 59 to 63 percent.
Yavapai County more than doubled its rejection of provisional ballots this past election than in 2020 based on non-registration, despite having a significant decline in voter turnout (over 87 percent versus just over 75 percent).
Further data will be published in full as court proceedings continue. Hamadeh shared that his legal team is awaiting some data from several counties, which he said would bolster their case.
“As more data comes in, it’s getting worse for the government and looking better for us,” said Hamadeh.
Another development that could impact Hamadeh’s case is the divorce between Democrats’ top election lawyer, Marc Elias, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Elias is engaged in an ongoing federal lawsuit fighting for the voting rights of those voters whose registration was canceled. Elias is fighting for all provisional ballots to be counted — an outcome that would be favorable for Hamadeh’s case, when it was originally intended to be favorable to Democratic interests.
Hamadeh’s legal and analytics teams estimate that over 1,000 voters had their voter registration erroneously canceled due to government system issues. That’s separate from the 8,000 provisional ballots outstanding.
Hamadeh’s team also discovered 750 high-propensity voters whose registrations were wrongly canceled. Of that number, only 176 showed up on Election Day.
“It’s really a screwed up situation,” said Hamadeh. “If you can imagine, the disenfranchisement is even bigger than what we’re arguing.”
Bureaucratic mismanagement resulting in voter registration failures is nothing new, especially for Maricopa County. In 2020, thousands of voters were nearly disenfranchised by intergovernmental miscommunication.
Hamadeh dismissed the argument from some outlets that high-propensity voters should’ve taken more steps to ensure they were registered, saying that doesn’t excuse the government’s failure.
“If you’re on PEVL [Permanent Early Voting List] and you expect your ballot to come but it doesn’t, you’re disenfranchised,” said Hamadeh.
Hamadeh referenced one case he called “egregious,” where a father paying his college daughter’s vehicle registration unknowingly had his registration transferred to a different county — all because his daughter was going to college in a different county.
“Without any notice by the way, he never got any notice. And we know he never intended to go to Coconino because he doesn’t have a house there or anything,” said Hamadeh.
There was also the case of Howard, a visually-impaired disabled veteran whose voter registration was canceled through bureaucratic error, unbeknownst to him, and left him without his voting power in this last election. Hamadeh insisted that Democrats’ refusal to see Howard as the victim in this case was hypocritical.
“The media and Democrats are trying to say this is voter error. But in every single election incident, just two years ago, they were arguing against these voter registration cancellations,” said Hamadeh.
Meet Howard from Mesa, AZ
He’s a combat veteran who has voted in every election. He showed up to vote on November 8 but was given a provisional ballot.
Howard fought for our country and our rights but Maricopa County told him his vote will NOT count. Watch his story👇 pic.twitter.com/qcGglUi9yh
Then there’s the 269 voters who showed up on election day with their mail-in ballot and checked in — but never had their vote counted. Yet, on the county’s end, those check-ins reflect votes cast. Of those 269 who dropped off mail-in ballots that weren’t counted, 149 were Republicans, 53 were Democrats, and 67 were “other.” Hamadeh reported that many of those voters told his team that their votes weren’t counted.
With a 280 vote margin between Mayes and Hamadeh, any of these contested provisional or mail-in ballots may result in the first race overturned in nearly a century.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the city of Phoenix is at fault for the homeless crisis, most evident in the massive encampment downtown known as “The Zone.”
Judge Scott Blaney ruled that city officials had done nothing to improve The Zone, declaring it a public nuisance. Rather, Blaney declared that the city had created and maintained The Zone. Blaney added that the actions undertaken by the city, allegedly to address the homeless crisis, had served only to grow its bureaucracy and throw money into government and nonprofit programs that haven’t yielded any discernible results.
“With few exceptions, the action items about which city representatives testified centered around the creation of more bureaucracy, additional staff positions, and obtaining additional funding for programs to vaguely address homelessness in general,” stated Blaney. “The Court received very little evidence — if any — that the City intends to take immediate, meaningful action to protect its constituent business owners, their employees, and residents from the lawlessness and chaos in the Zone.”
Blaney ordered the city to abate The Zone by permanently removing the encampments in public rights of way; cleaning up the biohazardous materials including human feces and urine, drug paraphernalia, and other trash; and removing individuals committing offenses against the public order. Effectively, the judge ordered the city to enforce existing laws.
The city has until July 10 to achieve material results toward compliance with the court’s ruling.
In the 23-page ruling, Blaney agreed with arguments posed by the plaintiffs, made up of residents and business owners in The Zone: that the city stopped enforcing laws within The Zone, resulting in increased violent crime, property crime, prostitution, public indecency, public drug use, a blocks-long biohazard, fire hazards, and environmental destruction.
Notably, Blaney agreed that the owners of Maker Kitchens had the right to install the dinosaur statues on the right of way adjacent to its building to discourage the homeless from re-establishing their encampments after the city did a cleanup to do gas line work. Blaney ruled that the city had arbitrarily enforced its laws so as to ignore violations by the homeless on that land and yet demand removal of the statues.
Blaney ruled that the city couldn’t force the restaurant to remove the dinosaur statues until it cleaned up The Zone or the court issued a further order.
Blaney ruled that the city had “abused its discretion through the arbitrary application of the law and provision of taxpayer funded security in The Zone.” He also ruled that the residents and business owners who filed the lawsuit had a strong possibility of receiving damages on the basis of irreparable injury, should the city not provide relief by mitigating The Zone.
🦕These mysterious dinosaur statues will likely face extinction after the City of Phoenix and nearby homeless population want them removed from ‘The Zone’. They popped up earlier this week along 9th Ave in the public right of way. More tonight @FOX10Phoenixpic.twitter.com/LxfNRZzpwg
Blaney agreed that city leaders erroneously applied the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Martin v. City of Boise, which determined that municipalities couldn’t enforce public camping laws against the homeless when no adequate temporary shelter options existed.
The judge further noted that the city had wholly ignored the residents’ and business owners’ proposals to resolve the homeless crisis, an outdoor shelter space, presented in January 2020 — just before the crisis “really got out of hand.” However, the city ignored all proposed plans to mitigate the crisis until one month before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, last October. That’s when the city approved the construction of a “sprung structure” containing 200 additional shelter beds.
Yet, Blaney stated that the city’s proposed shelter options were either designed as temporary, being seasonal, or as speciality situations, being intended for domestic violence survivors or COVID-19 response.
At one point in his ruling, Blaney surmised that violent, organized crime had taken root in The Zone. AZ Free News reported that gangs run The Zone, assaulting and charging encampment space rent to the homeless.
“The evidence also strongly suggests that the City created and maintained the dire situation that currently exists in The Zone through its failure, and in some cases refusal, to enforce criminal and quality of life laws in The Zone,” said Blaney. “The City’s refusal to meaningfully enforce statutes and ordinances in The Zone has created a classic ‘siren song’ to certain individuals that are enticed at their peril by The Zone’s drugs, sex, and lack of societal rules.”
The court’s ruling comes days after the city promised it would arrange some kind of meeting on the issue at some point following back-to-back murders in The Zone.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Phoenix plans to establish single-stall, 24/7 street restrooms for the homeless. The first will appear midway this year as part of a pilot launch at a new homeless shelter established in Bradley Ranch in South Phoenix.
Each restroom costs about $135,000 to $150,000 to start, with installation costs ranging up to $50,000. Another potential future site would be at University Park.
The city announced its initiative several weeks before the Maricopa County Superior Court rejected the city’s petition to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that they’d failed to manage the homeless crisis.
These toilets won’t look like porta-potties; rather, these restrooms will each be contained in a steel, oval building called a “Portland Loo.” These restrooms were contrived by a city of their namesake: Portland, Oregon. The hope was to prevent the homeless from relieving themselves on public streets.
These restrooms are partially open-air: they have grating at the top and bottom to discourage illegal activity, and the steel type is graffiti-proof. They also have blue lighting to prevent occupants from locating a vein to shoot up drugs.
However, the intent of the Portland Loo doesn’t appear to match up with its reality. In its hometown, residents view Portland Loos with contempt for their unsanitary quality. Non-promotional pictures taken by journalists and city dwellers reveal that these restrooms aren’t as graffiti-proof or resistant to drug use as marketed.
Early champions of the Portland Loo outside of Oregon have also run into unforeseen problems. San Diego, California had to remove one of these restrooms in 2016 due to resident complaints. Though the Portland Loos were easier to clean and usually thwarted illicit activity inside its walls, their presence attracted a whole host of undesirables for San Diego locals: criminals, drug users, and general transients.
Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Inger Erickson, along with the Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) and Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), submitted the proposed pilot program. They noted that a brick-and-mortar, two-stall public restroom would cost more: around $400,000 to $500,000.
OHS explained during a Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee meeting earlier this month that it would weigh the pilot restroom’s success against cost of installation, cleaning and maintenance, temperature control in the summers, and utility hookups to determine if future Portland Loos will be installed throughout the city.
Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari urged OHS to install another Portland Loo immediately at University Park. Ansari said that constituents notify her constantly of sanitary issues, such as drug use and backups, as well as availability issues at current public restrooms.
“I think we need to be innovative with these issues. That’s why the typical stuff isn’t working,” said Ansari. “I think as opposed to losing another year during the summer heat, let’s pilot one in a park where we do constantly have people reaching out about, ‘Why do we have limited bathroom access from 4 to 8, inside a recreation center? It’s very challenging actually to use the bathroom currently at University Park.”
Since day 1 in office, I’ve been pushing to bring more public restrooms and access to cold water across our city.
I believe it is a basic amenity that the 5th largest American city should provide.
Our research shows that the Portland Loo is a clean, safe & smart solution. https://t.co/zBlmzOra2Y
Two major water rights cases that date back to the 1970s are being reassigned to another judge, the first such change in more than 10 years, the Arizona Supreme Court announced last week.
Judge Scott Blaney of the Maricopa County Superior Court will take over the Gila River System and Source case as well as the Little Colorado River System and Source case, both of which were first litigated in the late 1970s. He replaces Judge Mark Brain effective Feb. 4 as what is commonly known as Arizona’s Water Judge.
The cases Blaney is taking over are general stream adjudication proceedings to determine the extent and priority of water rights in the Gila River system (Maricopa County case nos. W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4), and in the Little Colorado River system (Apache County Superior Court case no. 6417).
The Gila River General Stream Adjudication civil case began in the 1970s as a series of petitions to the Arizona State Land Department to determine, or adjudicate, conflicting surface water rights for the Salt, Verde, Gila, and San Pedro rivers.
The petitions were eventually transferred to the superior courts of the individual counties where the petitions were originally filed, but a 1981 Arizona Supreme Court order consolidated all four cases into the Gila River case. The justices also ordered the matters would be heard in Maricopa County.
Similarly, the Little Colorado River Adjudication began in the late 1970s when mining company Phelps Dodge Corp. filed a petition with the state land department to determine water rights to the Little Colorado River system and source. The litigation was later transferred to the Apache County Superior Court as the county where the largest number of potential claimants reside.
Blaney, a graduate of the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, served on the civil and family court benches of Maricopa County Superior Court since 2018. Prior to that, Blaney worked in private practice from 2003 to 2015 before becoming State Judge Advocate for the Arizona National Guard and general counsel for the Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA).
The state’s Water Judge is assisted by an appointed Special Master who hears disputes arising out of the cases, such as objections to hydrographic survey reports and other legal and factual issues designated by the judge.
Court records show the current Special Master is Susan Ward Harris, who was appointed in 2015. She has a master’s degree in hydrology from the University of Arizona’s College of Science as well as a Master of Law degree from Georgetown University.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
Kari Lake plans to appeal her lawsuit against governor-elect Katie Hobbs in her capacity as secretary of state and Maricopa County.
Maricopa County Superior Court declared in a ruling issued on Christmas Eve that Hobbs was governor-elect because Lake presented no “clear and convincing evidence” of election misconduct or fraud.
“[Election workers performed] their role with integrity. Not perfectly, as no system on this earth is perfect, but more than sufficient to comply with the law and conduct a valid election,” wrote Thompson.
My Election Case provided the world with evidence that proves our elections are run outside of the law. This Judge did not rule in our favor. However, for the sake of restoring faith and honesty in our elections, I will appeal his ruling.
On Monday, Maricopa County sought sanctions against Lake and her attorneys, Brian Blehm and Kurt Olsen. The trio could owe up to $696,000 to cover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the county and secretary of state’s office. The county asserted that Lake kept up a “sustained attack on Arizona’s elections” long before this recent election, and filed her lawsuit in bad faith.
The county cited a since-deleted tweet from Lake, which shared a report compiling claims from “legal experts” that Judge Peter Thompson’s ruling was “ghostwritten” by the likes of top Democratic election attorney and principal Russiagate figure Marc Elias and others.
Lake would be far from the first facing sanctions for disputing an election in recent years. There are at least three other parties with outstanding sanctions.
Prominent among Lake’s claims of election malfeasance were missing chain of custody documentation for Election Day ballots in violation of the Election Procedures Manual (EPM) and inducing Ballot On Demand (BOD) printer issues by using 19” instead of 20” ballots.
We know exactly how it occurred.
Somebody in Maricopa County either let it happen or made it happen.
Hopefully, the appeals court gives this damning admission the attention it deserves. https://t.co/WnAj29mFbL
Thompson preceded his 10-page court ruling by acknowledging voters’ “anger and frustration” over the “inconvenience and confusion” at vote centers, but issued a reminder that his duty was to weigh Lake’s claims and the actions of Maricopa County and the state against the law.
“[T]his Court’s duty is not solely to incline an ear to public outcry,” wrote Thompson.
In order to prevail, Lake needed to prove that alleged misconduct such as EPM violations and BOD irregularities were intentional, conducted by an officer making or participating in a canvass, intended to change the election outcome, and resulted in a change in the election outcome.
The ruling reviewed the testimonies of Lake’s witnesses: Mark Sonnenklar, a Republican National Committee election attorney; Heather Honey, a supply chain auditor and consultant; Clay Parikh, a Northrup Grumman cybersecurity expert; David Betencourt, a temporary technical election support employee (“T-Tech”) with Maricopa County; and Richard Baris, director of Big Data Poll.
With the exception of Honey, Thompson determined that these witnesses completely failed to relay personal knowledge of intentional or unintentional election misconduct. Honey testified that Runbeck Election Services employees introduced about 50 ballots of family members into the stream.
However, Thompson determined that Honey’s claims were insufficient to meet the burden of proof because these ballots weren’t clear and convincing evidence of affecting the election outcome. Thompson noted that Maricopa County in its testimony clarified that it only granted Runbeck permission to submit general public ballots, not those family member ballots.
“Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence,” wrote Thompson.
Thompson declared further that Lake didn’t offer sufficient evidence to contradict the testimonies of Election Day director Scott Jarrett or County Recorder Stephen Richer.
In response to the ruling, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chair Bill Gates declared that Lake sought media attention, not a remedy to the election.
“Plaintiff Lake’s lawsuit was never about well-pled facts and evidence. Instead, it was the continuation of a made-for-TV tirade from a candidate who cannot or will not accept the fact that she lost,” said Gates. “Arizona courts have made it clear that frivolous political theater meant to undermine elections will not be tolerated.”
