In a unanimous ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned previous decisions by lower courts and concluded that the Arizona Republican Party’s lawsuit challenging the post-election hand-count process in 2020 was not groundless or filed in bad faith. The party will not be required to pay attorney’s fees for the Secretary of State’s Office.

Justice John Lopez, writing for the Supreme Court, expressed concerns about the potential chilling effect on legal advocacy if parties and their lawyers are sanctioned for bringing debatable complaints. He emphasized the importance of allowing citizens to raise questions under the guise of defending the rule of law, even if such actions are unintentional.

ZStack – Make Your Immune System Clean, Resilient, and Resistant (Use code RVM for discount)

The Arizona Republican Party welcomed the ruling, emphasizing its commitment to ensuring the precise adherence to election laws and upholding the integrity of the electoral process.

This was an incredibly important precedent. It's the ruling Democrats dreaded!

— Mark Mendlovitz (@MendlovitzMark) May 3, 2024

The lawsuit, filed more than a week after the 2020 election, argued that the state law mandating limited post-election hand-count audits conflicted with the state’s Elections Procedures Manual. It claimed that selecting ballots for the audit from voting centers instead of by precinct was illegal.

6 Must Know Tips About The Aftermath of Self Defense

Under state law, each county is required to hand count 1% of all early ballots and the ballots from 2% of precincts after each election. However, the Elections Procedures Manual issued by the secretary of state allows counties that use voting centers, including Maricopa County, to hand count the ballots from 2% of voting centers instead.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah dismissed the legal arguments made by the Arizona Republican Party, alleging that the party ignored the law, disregarded the legislature’s intent, and waited too long to file the suit. He further contended that the party’s motivation was to make a political case and sow distrust in Arizona’s elections.

The appeals court upheld Judge Hannah’s ruling, noting that the lawsuit shifted its focus from challenging hand-count audit procedures to seeking the blockage of Maricopa County’s certification of its election results. The court emphasized that the judicial system is intended for legitimate legal disputes, not political disputes or grievances.

However, the Supreme Court opined that the lower courts were mistaken in determining that the GOP’s lawsuit was groundless and not made in good faith. Justice Lopez argued that the party raised valid questions about how post-election hand-counts are conducted under a vote center model and whether the Elections Procedures Manual contradicts state law.

Lopez further asserted that politics cannot be divorced from election-related cases and that subjecting attorneys to a higher risk of sanctions due to political motivations “intolerably chills citizens and their attorneys” in a critical area where their voices should not be silenced.

The Supreme Court concluded that there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes “not made in good faith” when imposing sanctions. Rather than evaluating “good faith” subjectively and “groundlessness” objectively, the court recommended using the standard set in the Arizona Rule of Civil Procedures to assess whether a claim is made in good faith.

The ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that election challenges are based on fact and law without inadvertently stifling citizens and their counsel seeking to vindicate their rights and maintain public confidence in elections.

The CIA’s ‘Intelligence Coup Of The Century’: From Thesaurus To Rubicon And Beyond

Emergency Preparedness Kits - My Patriot Supply

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.