The Arizona Superior Court threw out a lawsuit filed by the state Republican Party calling for another hand-count audit of election results in Maricopa County, calling the suit “meritless” and saying the Court will decide if GOP lawyers brought the case “in bad faith,” which could lead to the state GOP paying the costs of the state agencies defending the case.
The Arizona GOP filed a lawsuit November 12th demanding a “hand count audit” of votes, insinuating that one had not been done when, in fact, such an audit had been started November 4th, the day after the election, as demanded by Arizona law, and had representatives chosen by the Democratic, Libertarian and Republican Parties participating.
As the Court states, “The hand counts verified that the machines had counted the votes flawlessly.” [Emphasis from original.] The Court also found that the plaintiff, the state Republican Party, filed multiple motions and lawsuits far after issues had been decided and in many cases, trying to use the Courts to remedy a situation after Election Day that should have been brought up administratively prior to the election.
“This order explains why the Arizona Republican Party’s case was meritless, and the dismissal order filed November 19, 2020 was required, under applicable Arizona law,” the order states. “What remains is intervenor Arizona Secretary of State’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees. That application will require the Court to decide whether the Republican Party and its attorneys brought the case in bad faith to delay certification of the election or to cast false shadows on the election’s legitimacy.”
In a footnote, the Court questions the motivation, intent and knowledge of the state GOP’s lawyers when they filed the lawsuits, alleging that the Republicans’ lawyers may have filed the cases after knowing the requested remedies had already occured, trying to defraud the Court.
“What exactly the Arizona Republican Party and its attorney knew or had reason to know about the status of hand count audit, at the time of filing the complaint, will be an issue on the application for attorneys’ fees,” the note reads. “The Republican Party appears to have had constructive knowledge, at least, of facts that contradicted the allegations in the complaint. The attorney (who also verified the complaint) said he “did not receive a copy” of the audit report until after the suit had been filed, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant/Intervenors’ Motion to Dismiss at 3, n.1, but what he knew about the audit when he filed the complaint is unclear.”