Kari Lake Appeals to Arizona Supreme Court over Denial of Her Lawsuit That Provided New Evidence from Tabulator Log Files

Kari Lake filed an opening brief with the Arizona Supreme Court last week, appealing the Arizona Court of Appeals’ denial of her second election lawsuit, a Rule 60(b) challenge containing new evidence. A significant part of it emphasized that over 275,000 signatures were not verified on early ballot envelope affidavits. Rule 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” based on certain factors, such as new evidence or wrongdoing.

Lake’s opening brief, drafted by attorneys Jennifer Wright and Tim LaSota, emphasized “new information showing that, contrary to Maricopa’s claims of an ‘Election Day hiccup,’ nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s 446 vote center tabulators failed on a massive scale — averaging over 7,000 ballot rejections every thirty minutes shortly after polls opened to polls closing.”

Read the full story

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem File New Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Voting Machine Tabulator Case After Defendants Fail to Respond

Kari Lake Mark Finchem

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem filed a Supplemental Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, adding support for their Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Motion to Expedite asking the court to hear an appeal of the dismissal of their lawsuit to stop the use of electronic voting machine tabulators in elections. The defendant Arizona officials failed to file a response to the pair’s petition, boosting the chances SCOTUS might accept the case and implying they did not object to the statements in the petition. 

The new brief added more allegations of false representations by Maricopa County officials. It said the courts relied on their false representations when they dismissed and affirmed their case, sanctioning the pair’s lawyers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs’ injuries were “too speculative” for Article III, which requires showing of an injury. The brief said the court based this determination “in part on false representations that Maricopa County performed required preelection logic and accuracy (‘L&A’) testing and used certified and approved voting system software.” The court “expressly relied on false representations that Maricopa’s elections were protected from manipulation.”

Read the full story