Judge denies Abe Hamadeh's election challenge in Arizona attorney general race

Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee F. Jantzen on Friday denied Republican attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh's election challenge.

Hamadeh trailed 511 votes behind Democrat Kris Mayes in one of Arizona's closest statewide elections.

Jantzen ruled from the bench after closing arguments in the approximately three-hour trial. His decision came after the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Tim LaSota, acknowledged that based on the sample size of the ballot inspection on Thursday, he wouldn't get to 511 votes. Afterward, Mayes' attorney, Dan Barr, called for LaSota to be sanctioned for bringing the election contest.

The plaintiffs in the case included: Hamadeh, the Republican National Committee, and two Mohave County voters, The defendants were: Mayes, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and various local elections officials.

Ultimately, the judge agreed with the defendants that there was not enough evidence to support the claims.

After the decision, Hamadeh posted on Twitter: "Thousands of voters were disenfranchised. Election Day in Maricopa County was a disaster. Election officials failed democracy. My team will await the results of the recount before deciding our next steps. Merry Christmas!"

In a statement, Mayes said: "Today, we are thankful this election contest has been dismissed after Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual evidence. The will of Arizona voters will not be undermined."

Barr told The Arizona Republic: "I'm happy for Kris Mayes, but it was a complete waste of time. It is outrageous to put forward these claims without facts." He also confirmed that he would be filing a sanction request against Hamadeh's lawyer.

The ruling came a day after Jantzen ordered a same-day ballot inspection in Maricopa, Pima and Navajo counties during an emergency hearing. Ballot inspection was supposed to happen Dec. 21 but did not take place because of disagreements between the plaintiffs and defendants.

Fourteen ballots total from all three sides represented in Thursday's Maricopa County inspection (a representative from the plaintiff, the defendant and the court) were flagged for possible error. Figures at the trial for the number of ballots inspected by the county ranged from 2,300 to 2,600.

At trial, Barr said that "out of thousands of votes," two ballots were found in Maricopa County that should have been counted for Mayes. One vote in Navajo County was counted for Mayes that was meant for an "unnamed write-in candidate" and no undervotes were found in Pima County.

LaSota, however, said that Maricopa County's inspection turned up six ballots that should have counted for Hamadeh but ultimately weren't. This was confirmed by Heidi Grande, a witness from the Arizona Republican Party who was one of the inspectors.

Scott Jarrett, the co-elections director for Maricopa County, backed up Barr's claim. "Based off the total of the 14 ballots, based on the procedures that Maricopa County has set forth, I determined there were three errors. ... All three errors should have, would have, added three votes to the candidate Mayes," he said.

While noting that the other ballots were adjudicated properly according to procedure, Jarrett acknowledged that some of the ballots should have gone to Mayes based on the sole metric of voter intent.

LaSota during the trial put forth evidence for errant votes in Count IV, titled: "Illegal Votes and Erroneous Count of Votes: Inaccurate Ballot Adjudications." He acknowledged Thursday’s inspection did not yield further evidence from those in the original complaint for Counts I-III of the suit.

The Maricopa County-exclusive Counts I and II: "Erroneous Count of Votes and Election Board Misconduct; Wrongful Disqualification of Provisional and Early Ballots" and "Erroneous Count of Votes and Election Board Misconduct; Wrongful Exclusion of Provisional Voters," respectively originate from problems with certain tabulator machines in Maricopa County on Election Day.  Count III involves the "Erroneous Count of Votes; Inaccurate Ballot Duplications."

Hamadeh alleges there were ballots that were transposed improperly.

In the closing arguments of the trial, LaSota argued the ballot inspections "clearly show a trend in favor of Mr. Hamadeh," but acknowledged that Hamadeh wouldn't get to 511 based on the sample. He also said he was hindered from proving his claims by not being given access to all of the evidence he sought, such as a list of voters whose provisional ballots were rejected.

That provoked a response from lawyers for the defendants, including Andy Gaona, attorney for Secretary of State Hobbs. He called the election contest a "spectacular waste of time."

"This farcical proceeding has gone on long enough," he said.

Tara Kavaler is a politics reporter at The Arizona Republic. She can be reached by email at [email protected] or on Twitter @kavalertara.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona judge denies Abe Hamadeh's election challenge