Plaintiffs Kari Lake and Mark Finchem are spearheading a legal challenge aimed at overturning a mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their adversaries include defendants such as Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Maricopa and Pima County Boards of Supervisors members.
Even without drawing negative inferences from Maricopa’s surreptitious electoral misconduct,
deceptive court filings, and failure to correct, see Section III.B, infra, Maricopa has not shown its election systems are any more reliable than an Ouija board. Exposing voters’ and candidates’ fundamental electoral rights to an unreliable, untested, and illegal system nullifies the right to vote, which is the type of “arbitrary or irrational” government action that supports Article III standing.” (Attorney Kurt Olsen writes on Page 11)
At the core of their legal argument lies the accusation that the defendants deliberately misled the courts regarding essential election safeguards in Maricopa County. Lake and Finchem assert that Maricopa utilized uncertified election software and neglected mandatory pre-election testing on its tabulators, both of which are mandated by state law.
According to a new court filing from Thursday, recently unearthed evidence contradicts previous assertions, revealing that Maricopa’s actions not only violated due process but also compromised the integrity of the electoral process. The use of uncertified and illegally altered software casts serious doubt on the fairness and legality of the elections conducted in Maricopa County.
Lake and Finchem contend that the defendant’s false representations played a pivotal role in dismissing their case for lack of standing. As such, they argue that recalling the mandate is not only justified but imperative to rectify the miscarriage of justice and uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
The filing states, “New evidence produced by Maricopa shows that Maricopa uses illegally altered election software that is neither EAC-certified nor certified for use in Arizona, thus violating A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(B). Further violating Arizona law, Maricopa does not conduct L&A testing on any tabulators actually used in its elections, thus violating A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B).”
According to the motion, “The Court’s reliance on these two misrepresentations arose from Maricopa and the SoS—initially Katie Hobbs, now Adrian Fontes—repeating them at least fourteen times in briefing to the district court and this Court. Add:50a-53a (Exhibit A to Appellants’ April 2, 2024 letter to Appellees’ counsel). Moreover, in opposing Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Maricopa submitted the sworn testimony of its Co-Director of Maricopa Elections, Scott Jarrett, who testified to these two issues.”
Despite facing dismissal due to lack of standing, Lake, and Finchem have presented compelling new evidence to support their claims. They maintain that Maricopa’s actions have undermined the reliability of its electoral process, making it essential to reconsider the court’s decision and ensure the preservation of judicial integrity.
Their argument centers around three key points: the authority of federal courts to recall mandates in cases involving fraud, the timeliness of their motion in light of recent evidence, and the necessity of recalling the mandate to address Maricopa’s fraudulent conduct.
Lake and Finchem advocate for recalling the mandate, reversing the decision, and expediting proceedings to rectify the injustices caused by Maricopa’s actions and safeguard the integrity of future elections.
Their attorney, Kurt Olsen, by presenting robust evidence and legal arguments, says they seek to ensure that electoral processes remain fair, transparent, and free from fraud and manipulation.