Arizona Court Imposes Financial Penalties in Voting Machine Dispute
An Arizona federal appeals court has ruled that attorneys representing Kari Lake and Mark Finchem are responsible for paying $122,000 in legal fees to Maricopa County. This decision follows their unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the reliability of voting machines, which the court deemed “frivolous.”
Judge Ronald Gould, leading the majority opinion, criticized lawyers Andrew Parker and Kurt Olsen for making “false and misleading allegations” in their 2022 lawsuit. The attorneys claimed that the voting machines were unreliable and sought to have ballots counted manually, but the court found no merit in these allegations.
The court highlighted that the attorneys inaccurately represented the voting process in Arizona, stating that all voting was conducted via machines, while in reality, most voters use paper ballots with electronic tabulation. U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi, who initially dismissed the case, concluded it was based on “speculation and conjecture.”
Divided Opinion on Sanctions
The ruling was not without dissent. Appellate Judge Patrick Bumatay expressed disagreement, arguing that the lawsuit, while possibly imprecise, did not warrant the financial penalties. He emphasized that the lawyers’ actions were within the bounds of “zealous advocacy” and cautioned against using sanctions to deter legal representation of unpopular causes.
Bumatay also criticized Tuchi’s intent to “send a message” to potential future litigants, warning against using sanctions to target certain political beliefs.
Background of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit filed by Lake and Finchem in 2022 accused the voting machines of failing to meet security and constitutional standards for a “free and fair election.” They contended that foreign components made the machines susceptible to tampering, advocating for a hand-counted paper ballot system as the only secure method.
However, both Tuchi and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found no evidence supporting claims that the machines had ever been compromised. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, leaving the question of the attorneys’ accountability for the lawsuit.
Legal and Procedural Controversies
The attorneys contended that the sanctions were imposed prematurely, denying them the opportunity to present evidence supporting their claims about machine unreliability. They argued that the court’s decision effectively insulated electronic voting systems from judicial scrutiny, despite potential challenges to their reliability.
Gould, however, emphasized that the sanctions were justified due to the lawsuit’s potential to mislead the public and create unwarranted concerns on a nationally significant issue.
Dershowitz’s Involvement
In a related development, the appellate court reversed $12,200 in sanctions against Alan Dershowitz, a renowned constitutional lawyer who was acting as a consultant for Lake and Finchem. Although Dershowitz had signed the pleadings, he was not involved in crafting the litigation. The court decided to waive the financial penalties, acknowledging this as a first-time application of sanctions to advisory attorneys.
—
Read More Arizona News
