That lawsuit, filed with the assistance of attorney and Trump advocate Sidney Powell, names Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Gov. Doug Ducey as defendants.
U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa heard preliminary arguments in the case Tuesday morning, after attorneys for state and county officials filed motions asking her to toss out the lawsuit.
Hobbs lawyer Justin Nelson called the suit “dystopian fiction” in his filing, saying it was the “latest in a series of baseless attacks on the results of the 2020 election” and attacking the credibility of the plaintiffs’ proposed witnesses.
“Plaintiffs seek unprecedented relief: overturning a presidential election and disenfranchising nearly 3.4 million Arizona voters,” he wrote. “They do so based on anonymous (affidavits), facially unqualified so-called experts, and an implausible claimed conspiracy.”
He also argued they lacked standing to file the claim in the first place, as state courts are the forum for election contests and they offered only “generalized” grievances.
Maricopa County lawyer Thomas Liddy similarly deemed the suit “woefully deficient” in his motion and noted Ward already had an election contest pending on appeal. And Brett Johnson, a private attorney hired by Ducey, said the governor had completed his duties when he certified the election and the lawsuit was moot.
Humetewa asked Julia Haller, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, to addressthose and other arguments during Tuesday’s hearing. She noted that courts in other states had recently rejected almost identical attempts decertify results after concluding no federal law had been violated.
“The election results were already certified. The governor has already transmitted the same to the United States archivist,” Humetewa said. What makes this (case) different?”
Haller acknowledged that there was “some overlap” with other election cases but said this lawsuit focused on Ducey and Hobbs, rather than Biden electors or county officials.
“We are seeking … to invalidate the election based on the governor’s certification, and the secretary of state’s role in that process,” she said. “That is very different from the contest statute.”
Nelson pushed back, arguing on behalf of defendants that Arizona has “a detailed and strict procedure for challenging election results” in state court, and “plaintiffs are trying to use this court as an end run around the system.”
Comments