The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Arizona Republican Party’s lawsuit challenging the post-election hand-count process in 2020 was not groundless or filed in bad faith. In a unanimous decision, the court overturned lower court rulings that had ordered the AZGOP and its attorneys to pay attorney’s fees for the Secretary of State’s Office to defend against the case.
Justice John Lopez, writing for the court, stated that sanctioning parties and lawyers for bringing “debatable, long-shot complaints” risks chilling legal advocacy and citizens from raising legitimate questions under the guise of defending the rule of law. He warned that such sanctions, even if inadvertent, present “a real and present danger to the rule of law.”
The Arizona Republican Party celebrated the ruling, stating that it “reaffirms the fundamental legal principle that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action.” The party reiterated its commitment to ensuring election laws are followed precisely and upholding the integrity of the electoral process.
The lawsuit, filed more than a week after the 2020 election, argued that the state law requiring limited post-election hand-count audits conflicted with the state’s Elections Procedures Manual, making it illegal to select ballots for the audit from voting centers instead of by precinct.
However, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah had dismantled the AZGOP’s legal arguments, stating that the party sought a remedy not allowed by law and waited too long to file the suit. Hannah also said the party demonstrated it was not motivated by sincerely challenging public policy, but instead by making a political case and sowing distrust about Arizona’s elections.
The judge noted that the AZGOP sued to block Maricopa County’s election canvass after the hand count showed a perfect match with the machine count of ballots, writing that it would “create a cloud over the legitimacy of this election and its results” if the court let the canvass happen. Hannah called this “a threat to the rule of law posing as an expression of concern” and “direct evidence of bad faith.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously agreed, stating that the AZGOP first sought to challenge the hand-count audit procedures but then dropped that to block Maricopa County from certifying its election results, belying the true purpose of the lawsuit. The appeals court wrote, “The court system exists to hear legitimate legal disputes, not for airing political disputes or grievances.”
However, the Supreme Court ruled that both lower courts improperly concluded that the AZGOP’s arguments were groundless and not made in good faith. Justice Lopez stated that the courts raised valid questions about how post-election hand-counts are conducted under a vote center model and whether the Elections Procedures Manual conflicts with state law.
The court also addressed the rationale that the lawsuit was “political” as a reason for sanctions, stating that it is impossible to divorce politics from law in election-related cases. Subjecting attorneys to a higher risk of sanctions because election cases are politically motivated “intolerably chills citizens and their attorneys precisely in an arena where we can least afford to silence them,” Lopez wrote.
He cautioned that courts should be wary of inadvertently inflicting “real damage to our republic by slamming the courthouse door on citizens and their counsel legitimately seeking to vindicate rights” in their zeal to ensure election challenges are properly grounded in fact and law under the guise of defending an election’s legitimacy.
The ruling revindicates the right of citizens to file legitimate challenges to contested elections and speak up for election integrity.