Republican Abe Hamadeh is continuing his attempt at a new trial in his election challenge, alleging he was denied due process during his first court appearance.
“Judges, not executive branch nor election officials, are the arbiters of justice. After all, if this — the closest statewide office election in Arizona history — is not worth an exacting review, whatever could be,” Hamadeh tweeted. “Without honest and transparent elections, nothing else matters.”
Judges, not executive branch nor election officials, are the arbiters of justice. After all, if this — the closest statewide office election in Arizona history — is not worth an exacting review, whatever could be?
Without honest and transparent elections, nothing else matters.
— Abe Hamadeh (@AbrahamHamadeh) February 7, 2023
Hamadeh’s reply brief, filed Monday, was penned by Jennifer Wright, the former Election Integrity Unit civil attorney under former Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), who joined Hamadeh’s legal team in January. Wright argued that Hamadeh’s due process rights would be violated if he does not have a new trial.
As reported by The Arizona Sun Times, Hamadeh initially requested a new trial because he alleged he was not privy to all the relevant information involving the election. The official recount revealed that a discrepancy occurred in Pinal County, which led to the gap between Hamadeh and Kris Mayes shrinking from 511 to 280 votes. However, that information was not made available until after Hamadeh’s December 23, 2022 trial, when Judge Lee F. Jantez dismissed his case for not meeting the burden necessary to prove his claims and overturn the election.
However, as Wright explained, former Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) knew about this discrepancy before the courts revealed it during Hamadeh’s first trial. While Hobbs could not have shared the exact voter count because of the recount order, nothing stopped her from disclosing any identified problems that led to the discrepancy, which she did not do.
Not only did Hobbs allegedly keep information from Hamadeh, but so did Maricopa County. According to Wright, the plaintiffs made a records request to the county regarding provisional ballots. Yet, those records were not provided until after the trial, giving the plaintiffs no chance to use them.
Because the plaintiffs were withheld information related to the trial, they requested an opportunity to gather all relevant evidence. They asked to examine all provisional ballots and any ballots that failed to record a vote in the attorney general race.
“Questions surrounding the results of the 2022 attorney general race should not linger,” Wright wrote. “Rather, this Court is perfectly poised to address significant, non-speculative, and quite possibly outcome determinative issues to ensure that every valid vote has been counted.”
This reply brief from Hamadeh’s team came in response to the brief from defendants Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) requesting to end the trial and sanction the plaintiffs. They argue that going into the original trial, Hamadeh did not have the evidence needed to overturn the election, which the defendants claim is enough to award Mayes attorney’s fees from the first trial under Arizona Law. Moreover, Mayes and Fontes stated that Hamadeh’s claims in the first trial were made in bad faith because the plaintiffs knew they did not have the evidence necessary to succeed but went forward with the trial anyway.
However, Hamadeh stated that the defendants are attempting to end the challenge because they fear further trials will reveal the “truth of the proper election results.”
Defendants' responses demonstrate one thing: fear. Fear that the election was not conducted properly, fear that the reported results were not accurate, and, at bottom, fear of finding out the truth of the proper election result.
— Abe Hamadeh (@AbrahamHamadeh) February 7, 2023
Moreover, Mayes and Fontes submitted another brief, opposing the amicus brief submitted by Republican leaders of the State Legislature. They claim the legislator’s brief does not provide “unique information or perspective” on the case’s merits. Therefore, the defendants argued the judge could not admit the brief.
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Jantez is expected to rule later this week on if oral arguments will be allowed in this motion for a new trial.
– – –
Neil Jones is a reporter for The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Neil on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Abraham Hamadeh” by Abraham Hamadeh. Photo “Kris Mayes” by Kris Mayes for Arizona. Background Photo “Courtroom” by Carol M. Highsmith.
