OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A judge in Arizona handed GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake a legal victory on Tuesday, a day after she lost her lawsuit alleging voter disenfranchisement during last month’s elections. That said, the judge did award the winner of the race, Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, some $33,000 to cover the costs associated with retaining expert witnesses during the two-day trial.
“Lake lost her bid for Arizona governor by a half a percentage point to Hobbs. As a result, Lake challenged the result, claiming that there were problems with ballot printers at some polling places on Election Day that were the result of intentional misconduct,” Fox News reported.
After the trial, in which Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson ruled in favor of Hobbs, the judge gave her team until Monday to file sanctions against Lake’s attorneys for bringing the lawsuit. Hobbs’ team also sought $36,990 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, as well as sanctions. The Arizona court denied the sanctions, however, ruling that the case was not brought in bad faith or groundless.
Lake announced after the ruling against her that she would file an appeal.
Lake tweeted Saturday morning: “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.”
Thompson wrote in his decision: “Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses — and for that matter, Defendants’ witnesses as well — was asked about any personal knowledge of both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the 2022 General Election. 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.”
Over 200 people submitted statements to the court detailing their frustrating experiences trying to vote on Election Day in Maricopa County. However, Thompson stated that many of those voters were still able to cast their ballots.
“This Court acknowledges the anger and frustration of voters who were subjected to inconvenience and confusion at voter centers as technical problems arose during the 2022 General Election,” Thompson wrote.
The AZ Mirror reported:
Lake relied on witnesses like cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh, who testified that issues with ballot-on-demand printers on Election Day were caused by a 19-inch ballot image being printed onto 20-inch paper. He opined that it was done intentionally and could not have happened by accident.
Maricopa County Co-Elections Director Scott Jarrett later explained that the smaller printing size happened after other printer problems had already cropped up on Election Day when techs changed the settings to “fit to print” while they were troubleshooting. Jarrett said it only happened at three voting centers and impacted 1,300 ballots, though Parikh claimed that he found the missized ballots in batches he inspected from six voting centers.
“If the ballot definitions (sizes) were changed, it stands to reason that every ballot for that particular definition printed on every machine so affected would be printed incorrectly,” Thompson wrote. “As Plaintiff’s next witness indicates, that was not the case on Election Day. In either event, Mr. Parikh acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of any intent behind what he believes to be the error.”
Thompson said that Lake’s team did not provide evidence proving voters were turned away or refused ballots on Election Day.
“No election in Arizona has ever been set aside, no result modified, because of a statistical estimate,” Thompson wrote regarding Baris’ testimony. “Election contests are decided by votes, not by polling responses, and the Court has found no authority suggesting that exit polling ought to be used in this manner.”
“Plaintiff has no free-standing right to challenge election results based upon what Plaintiff believes – rightly or wrongly – went awry on Election Day,” Thompson wrote. “She must, as a matter of law, prove a ground that the legislature has provided as a basis for challenging an election.
In an interview with Real America’s News podcast host Steve Bannon, Lake bemoaned the fact that her legal team did not have enough time to present its case.
“We have so much evidence in this case. We wish we could have presented it to show the whole world, but we only had five hours to make our case, which is very unfortunate for the people of Arizona,” she said in a video clip posted to her social media accounts.
.@KariLake: "We have so much evidence in this case. We wish we could have presented it to show the whole world but we only had five hours to make our case, which is very unfortunate for the people of Arizona." pic.twitter.com/Z49cBbBiUy
— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) December 28, 2022
