A lawsuit that sought to overturn part of the Arizona's 2022 general election, filed by a conspiracy-espousing defeated candidate for Arizona Secretary of State, was dismissed with prejudice in state court on Friday.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian ruled in favor of a motion to dismiss the case Friday evening, following a morning of oral arguments by representatives for Arizona Secretary of State, and now Governor-elect, Katie Hobbs; Secretary of State-elect Adrian Fontes — both of whom acted as parties defending against the lawsuit; and secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem, the plaintiff who essentially sought to overturn the Nov. 8 election.
Finchem, a hard-line supporter of former President Donald Trump, who insists upon the debunked theory that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump, has continued to deny that he lost in November. Fontes defeated Finchem by a margin of more than 120,000 votes.
In her ruling, Julian wrote that the court can and should assess the validity of Finchem’s election contest. “The Court will not, however, ‘speculate about hypothetical facts,’” in the plaintiff’s favor, nor will it accept arguments, deductions, or inferences that aren’t backed by facts.
Finchem’s election contest lawsuit was one of three filed by GOP candidates that each lost their races for statewide office last month, including governor candidate Kari Lake and attorney general candidate Abraham Hamadeh. The court’s opinion noted that it could have dismissed his challenge simply by ruling that he had unjustifiably delayed his protests “result(ing) in an election being conducted under conditions he belatedly finds objectionable.”
But the court examined the merits of his case point by point, “out of an abundance of caution” — and found them lacking.
Each of Finchem’s arguments — that “illegal votes” were cast; that vote tabulation machines and software were not properly certified; that Hobbs’ office engaged in “misconduct;” that Hobbs should have recused herself from her duties as Secretary of State; — were slapped down. The court’s opinion could have been summed up in one line, in response to assertions that Hobbs had an “ethical duty” to recuse herself after Lake “perceived a conflict of interest”:
“These are not well-pled facts; they are legal conclusions masquerading as alleged facts,” Julian wrote. “Further, and even as ‘legal conclusions,’ Arizona law does not support them.”
Oral arguments — which were livestreamed — were a challenge for Finchem’s counsel, Daniel McCaulley. At one point, as he failed to respond to Julian’s probes into his case, McCaulley said that motions by defendants Hobbs and Fontes were simply overwhelming.
“What’s happened here, I’ve spent so much time with these motions that I can’t prepare the case,” McCaulley said.
About 30 minutes into McCaulley’s arguments against dismissal, Julian cut in to note that there doesn’t appear to be “any specific allegation” that votes were not counted by tallying machines. And McCaulley agreed.
“No, Judge…well, yes. I mean, yes, that’s a contention,” McCaulley replied, before pulling back to argue that the public simply couldn’t rely on the machines. “I can’t tell you how many people call here…tens of thousands, if not millions of people, are questioning (the election).”
Though Julian’s face didn’t betray skepticism upon that response, her written ruling left no doubt as to her thoughts.
“The law in Arizona does not permit an election challenge to proceed based solely upon a vague sense of unease,” Julian wrote.