“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.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes advocates for keeping porn-laden books in K-12 classrooms.
Fontes claimed that those opposed to sexually explicit content in classrooms were insecure and that the concept was “anti-American.”
“If you’re so insecure in your beliefs that you think you have to ban books, perhaps you should revisit the actual strength of your ideas and values,” tweeted Fontes. “Banning books is anti-American.”
If you’re so insecure in your beliefs that you think you have to ban books, perhaps you should revisit the actual strength of your ideas and values. Banning books is anti-American.
Fontes remarks were indirectly aimed at SB1700, which requires the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to create and upkeep a list of banned schoolbooks posted to their website and authorize parents to submit for inclusion on the ADE banned book list any books containing lewd, sexual, gender fluidity, gender pronouns, grooming, or pedophilia normalization content.
State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-LD17), the bill sponsor, accused Fontes of not reading the bill.
“SB1700 doesn’t ‘ban books,’” tweeted Wadsack. “It protects the innocent hearts and minds of children from indoctrinated porn being taught in their public government schools. Stop sexualizing children. Parents have had enough!”
Clearly, you didn’t read the bill. #SB1700 doesn’t “ban books”. It protects the innocent hearts and minds of children from indoctrinated porn being taught in their public government schools. Stop sexualizing children. Parents have had enough!
— AZ Senator Justine Wadsack (@Wadsack4Arizona) March 11, 2023
The Senate passed SB1700 last Thursday without vocal opposition from Democrats. However, Democrats argued during the Senate Education Committee that State Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) claimed that the bill would prevent children from learning about basic anatomy. Wadsack dismissed that claim, noting that the focus of the bill was to keep lewd content out of schools.
Elijah Watson — an activist with Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, and former activist with the Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and Arizona Democratic Party — claimed that the bill’s aim to ban porn was a “slippery slope” to censorship of great literary classics like “Of Mice and Men.” Watson said that the bill would ultimately prevent “tough but necessary discussions.”
Lisa Fink, president for Protect Arizona Children Coalition, testified that multiple books that would likely be subject to the prohibited books list included depictions of both children and adults in sex acts. One book highlighted by Fink, “Beyond Magenta,” depicts a six-year-old enjoying oral sex.
“Alarmingly, there is no immediate clarification for these pictures that this is illegal and damaging behavior,” stated Fink. “The book displays graphic language, violent sex, and graphic depictions of oral sex committed by children.”
Chris Kotterman representing the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) claimed that this was “unprecedented state control of curriculum.” Kotterman issued a veiled warning that the ADE wouldn’t always be run by a Republican individual, indicating that the prohibited books list would be weaponized against those advocating against sexualized content.
A group of transgender activists argued in opposition to the bill.
Erica Keppler, a transgender individual, claimed that gender fluidity is a “natural phenomenon.” Keppler claimed that any book using any pronouns, even in their correct usage, would be subject to the bill’s ban. Austin Davidson, another transgender individual, said that books affirming the lifestyles of fellow transgender individuals were necessary.
Alicia Messing, who signed a pledge to teach Critical Race Theory regardless of law or parental consent, said that teachers should dictate what students learn, not parents. Messing’s remarks made national headlines.
“We all have advanced degrees. What do the parents have? Are we vetting the backgrounds of our parents? Are we allowing the parents to choose the curriculum and the books that our children are going to read? I think that is a mistake,” said Messing.
Do you agree?!? 👍👎 “We all have degree advanced degrees. What do the parents have? Are we vetting the backgrounds of our parents? Are we allowing the parents to choose the curriculum and the books that our children are going to read? I think that is a mistake.” pic.twitter.com/Vyp0SxZUY9
It’s unlikely that any legislation of this nature — wholeheartedly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats — will become law. Gov. Katie Hobbs has engaged in a veto streak against Republican-led legislation.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A judge will decide next week whether Arizona voters will see an initiative on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot to approve what the Arizona Free Enterprise Club calls “radical” election procedure changes.
Judge Joseph Mikitish of the Maricopa County Superior Court has set Aug. 5 for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause as to why he should not grant a request by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) to invalidate more than half the signatures submitted earlier this month on initiative petitions for the proposed Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act (AFFE Act).
Mikitsh’s hearing stems from a lawsuit filed July 22 by AFEC, which argues the AFFE Act would upend Arizona’s election administration and voter registration laws, curtail current safeguards with the initiative and referendum process, and reduce candidate contribution limits while promoting more taxpayer subsidies to certain ‘Clean Elections’ candidates.
According to AFEC’s lawsuit, the political committee Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections (ADRC Action) filed an application in February with Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs for a serial number necessary to commence a petition drive in hopes of getting the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act on the statewide ballot for the 2022 General Election.
Then on July 7, Hobbs was presented with nearly 52,000 petitions sheets containing a purported 475,290 signatures of qualified electors, of which at least 237,645 must be deemed valid to get the AFFE Act on the general election ballot.
But state law requires that all circulators who are not Arizona residents along with all paid circulators regardless of residency must register as circulators before they may begin collecting petition signatures. The circulators must also affix their unique circulator registration ID number to each petition they circulate.
AFEC contends, however, that more than 1,000 of the circulators who collected signatures for the AFFE Act initiative were non-compliant with at least one state election law. Some of the compliance issues involved incomplete registration forms while other circulators allegedly did not write their “full and correct registration number on both sides of the sheet,” as required by law.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Hobbs to disqualify all petition signatures obtained by circulators who were not registered in compliance with state law. It also asks Mikitish to bar the state’s 15 county recorders from verifying any signatures on petitions in which the circulator’s registration number was not properly affixed.
“Petition signatures obtained by individuals who failed to strictly comply with
one or more provisions of applicable law are legally insufficient,” the lawsuit states. “Injunctive remedies are necessary to prevent irreparable injury to the
Plaintiffs and to ensure that the Defendant fully and effectively discharges the duties imposed upon her by state law.”
The lawsuit does not supply a tally of the disputed signatures, but AFEC’s Executive Director Scot Mussi said Monday that well over half of the signatures submitted by ADRC Action were collected in violation of Arizona law.
“That should be more than enough to invalidate this initiative,” Mussi said.
Among the provisions of the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act is one which would restrict legislative election audits such as the one Senate President Karen Fann approved last year. It would also allow same-day voter registration
In addition, it would prohibit any law being enacted calling for voters to show identification when dropping off a mail-in ballot at a polling station or election center.
Another provision of the Act is a requirement that elections officials accept tribal IDs when registering voters and confirming their voting eligibility, even though county recorders do not have access to tribal membership databases.
Election-related legal challenges are heard by the courts on an expedited basis. Mikitish’s show cause hearing comes more than three months before the Nov. 8 election, but the case must be resolved by the end of August to ensure the counties have sufficient time for printing and delivery of early ballots and ballots which are sent to voters under the Uniformed and OverseasCitizens Absentee Voting Act.
Even if the AFEC legal challenge fails, many elections observers doubt that voters will approve the initiative. The problem, they note, is that the Act includes so many different provisions that voters will find enough objectionable that they will reject the whole initiative.
Co-plaintiffs in the case are AFEC’s Mussi and Aimee Yentes, both of whom are registered voters in Arizona. Meanwhile, Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections (ADRC Action) has been named as a Real Party in Interest in the lawsuit.
AFEC is an Arizona nonprofit corporation organized and operated for the promotion of social welfare, within the meaning of IRS Code of 1986, section 501(c)(4). The organization engages in public education and advocacy in support of free markets and economic growth in the State of Arizona.
The Democratic primary for secretary of state race is heating up after reports that Reginald Bolding will release opposition research on Adrian Fontes in the near future.
The news prompted Fontes to issue a video to dissuade the significance of whatever Bolding plans on releasing. He didn’t elaborate on what the opposition research would entail, but he assured the public that the potential controversies had no bearing on his ability to serve.
Fontes alleged that Bolding was acting out in anger due to recent media reports on his dark money ties, and because media revealed that a supporter of Fontes filed a complaint on the dark money issue. Fontes also called for Bolding to drop out of the race.
“He is going to try to levy some personal attacks on me, on things that have nothing to do with the office, on irrelevancies, which is what desperate politicians will do,” said Fontes. “Know this: there is no Democrat in this race that is better to beat Mark Finchem in the fall.”
Bolding hasn’t addressed the claim of his dropping opposition research. Instead, the minority leader tweeted that not every post on Twitter contained real information.
Everything you see on twitter isn't real. Like "internal" polls. 🤣
Bolding came under scrutiny this week after reports emerged that his campaign was propped up by dark money from the political action committee (PAC) of his voting rights nonprofit: Our Voice, Our Vote Arizona. The nonprofit’s PAC funded campaign ads for Bolding. Dark money refers to funds whose sources aren’t disclosed.
In an interview with ABC15 last week,Bolding denied that his nonprofit was a dark money group on the technicality that his nonprofit markets itself as a voting rights organization, and that he doesn’t run the PAC arm.
“There’s definitely a separation between community organizing and dark money entities that have been designed to change the election outcome,” said Bolding.
The Phoenix-based market research firm, OH Predictive Insights, is polling Arizona Democrats about Bolding and Fontes. One of the questions discussed Bolding’s dark money controversy at length.
@NateSilver538 OH Predictive Insights is sending out a "poll" to AZ Democrats regarding the AZ SOS Democratic primary between Bolding and Fontes with this strongly worded question. pic.twitter.com/AGkiLUFHWU
The news of Bolding’s ties came several weeks after reports came out that Bolding raised more than any other Democrat among state House candidates and officeholders.
Our Voice, Our Vote is part of Activate 48, a coalition of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) organizations. Several other members of Activate 48 endorsed Bolding and campaigned for him: Living United for Change (LUCHA), Mi Familia Vota, and Chispa.
One recent Activate 48 mailer for Bolding included the Planned Parenthood for Arizona (PPAZ) endorsement. Both Bolding and Fontes served on PPAZ’s board in the past.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Former Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes declared that Arizona should eliminate its voting precincts and adopt all-mail voting.
Fontes proposed the ideas during a half-hour debate with House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) hosted by Arizona Horizon on Wednesday.
“We need to have vote centers across the entire state so anyone can vote anywhere,” said Fontes. “Do we need reform? The simple answer is yes, but that reform needs to come in a continuation of the progress Arizona has had for 30 years, not stepping backwards like some people want.”
Fontes also proposed that the state should adopt Maricopa County’s ballot tracking system and send voters text messages when mail-in ballots are mailed to the voter and received by the election department.
Bolding appeared to disagree with Fontes.
“One thing I do think is extremely important is that we have to provide Arizonans with choices. And we have to make sure that we have free, fair, and secure elections,” said Bolding. “We have to make sure our systems are working for everybody.”
That wasn’t to say that Bolding disagreed with mail-in voting. Bolding insisted that vote-by-mail is secure, and that Arizona is a prime example of that fact.
Fontes responded that his proposal for vote centers would still provide options for those who want to vote in-person rather than by mail. He insinuated that Bolding didn’t understand all-mail voting because he lacked the election administration experience.
“It’s very clear to folks with the experience in these offices that when we say ‘all ballot by mail’ we have to have an option for replacing messed-up ballots, ballots that folks want to change, for example: they can bring them in, turn them in, and get new ballots,” said Fontes.
Bolding pledged to register high school seniors to vote as soon as they turned 18 and improve the state’s lobbyist database. He said that partisanship has reached an “all-time high” in the state and country.
Fontes pledged to publish an easy-to-read elections procedures manual, reduce red tape for small business development such as registries of trademarks and notary public procedures, increase public communications, and improve information technology security systems.
Bolding argued that the current elections process was too complicated for most Arizonans to understand. Fontes agreed.
Fontes claimed that his administration executed a secure election that defeated former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was rigged to ensure President Joe Biden’s victory.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
