A lawsuit Kari Lake filed over Maricopa County’s refusal to let her use public records law to inspect ballot affidavits, which are signatures from voters on the mail-in envelopes for their ballots, ended after a two-day trial on Monday. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, refused to allow any of Lake’s several proposed witnesses to testify or allow any of her exhibits into evidence.
The trial began with Lake’s attorney, Bryan Blehm, asking to allow State Senator Anthony Kern (R-Glendale) to testify since one of the county’s witnesses had made statements about him during the first day of trial that he said were false. On Thursday, progressive lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez made accusations that MAGA targeted Latinos because they were racist and stated that Kern had treated witnesses testifying improperly. Even though Kern was present, Hannah refused to allow him to refute her statements.
Blehm again tried to convince Hannah to allow WPAA co-founder Shelby Busch to testify. Busch conducted extensive investigations into the 2020 and 2022 election problems, especially in regard to signature verification, and has worked with Lake’s litigation team on her election challenges. Hannah refused.
In his arguments, Blehm pointed out that the public can examine signatures on candidates’ nominating petitions to determine their validity. Hannah dismissed the comparison, stating it was “zero in the analysis.” One of the county’s attorneys said a statute specifically allows the public to examine those signatures, so it’s allowed in that situation.
A woman who only identified herself as Bonnie Eckard next took the witness stand and testified about how a man and a woman came to her door to canvass the election in August 2021, with concerns about dead people voting. She complained that she didn’t like the visit since she lives in a democracy and said the woman had an “unproved conspiracy point of view.” Eckard added, “Other broad-based conspiracy theories were voiced to me … they seemed outrageous and scary.” She said the experience was “awful, frightening, made me think I was being accused … watched … finger pointing,” and complained about the woman’s “loud voice.”
Eckard criticized the Arizona Senate’s independent ballot audit. “The audit was sloppy, that was all over the press,” she said. Eckard said she complained to the Arizona Attorney General and the person the pair worked for. When the county’s attorney, Joseph LaRue, asked her if she would hesitate to vote by mail if she knew her signature would be made public, she said yes. She did not express any concern regarding when she dropped the ballot return envelope in the mail, which had her signature on the outside. Eckard said she had no problem signing a candidate petition or deed, knowing those signatures become public.
Blehm attempted to ask Eckard if she disliked Donald Trump, but Hannah cut him off. Blehm explained how it was relevant, and Hannah finally agreed to leave it up to Eckard how she wanted to answer. She said Trump was “not my cup of tea.” Eckard is a professor emeritus of theater at Arizona State University.
Next, Kristi Passarelli, who served as assistant director of Election Services and Tabulation during the 2022 election, took the stand. She contradicted Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer’s testimony from the first day of the trial. Richer said the VM34 file is available for the public with a public records request. It contains the voter’s registration number, name, and address but not their signature or email address. Passarelli said that the file is not available to the public.
Blehm asked Passarelli about a video displayed on the WPAA website showing her running her badge in a card key reader to allow another employee, database administrator Brian Ramirez, access to a server room at the central tabulating site known as MCTEC. Although there have been accusations that Ramirez deleted server logs, no evidence has been produced that Passarelli, a longtime employee of Maricopa County Elections, engaged in any wrongdoing.
In closing arguments for the county, LaRue emphasized that he was concerned that revealing voter signatures could lead to “voter disenfranchisement” and a “chilling” effect with people reluctant to put their signatures and phone numbers on the return envelopes with their ballots. He said this presented a problem since it would take extra resources for county employees to cure ballots, including making it more difficult to track down voters quickly for curing if their phone numbers weren’t on the envelopes.
He did not express any concern about the evidence Lake produced in her election contest lawsuit revealing that voters may have been disenfranchised and had their votes diluted due to tens of thousands of ballots accepted that had mismatching signatures or none at all.
While Blehm was giving his closing argument, Hannah frequently interrupted him. At one point, Hannah cited an Arizona case that found that the birthdates of teachers are not public records, despite the fact they can be found elsewhere than within school records. Blehm responded and said signatures don’t have the high level of protection that birthdates do, noting that people are required to provide their signatures publicly in many ways. He cited dropping the ballot envelopes in the mail with the signature showing on the envelope, signing candidate petitions, signing recorded deeds, signing credit card receipts at restaurants, and signing high school annuals.
Blehm concluded that the defense found witnesses who don’t like people canvassing them — yet one admitted she’d done it herself. He said the county provided “very highly inflammatory testimony about a very specific group of people.” It’s the “new McCarthyism, anti-Trumpism.” He criticized the county’s lack of cooperation and defended Lake’s concerns about election corruption and bad signatures. “They haven’t met their burden because this is what we do in this country,” he said. “The people serve as a check on the government.”
Hannah said he would “get out a decision as quickly as possible.” Read about the first day of the trial here.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Kari Lake Trial” by RealAmericasVoice.
A fair and impartial judge? What a f,,,ing scam.
Sounds like Hannah had his decision made before the trial began. Allowing the government to put up witnesses and refusing to allow the petitioner to do so, not allowing any petitioner evidence to be allowed, interrupting the petitioner’s lawyer.
And yet, when the electorate gets frustrated to the point of taking their 1st Amendment right straight to the politicians the party in power uses all their resources to demonize them (think Jan 6th. this is so similar to the tactics used by the courts in Trump’s challenges).
Related, but unrelated, those charged with Jan 6 crimes should have been leaning their defense into:
First Amendment: (Upper case used to show the intention of my point)
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.