The Arizona Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings that held the Arizona Republican Party liable for more than $27,000 in sanctions and attorney fees resulting from a challenge to the 2020 election results
PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings that held the Arizona Republican Party liable for more than $27,000 in sanctions and the Secretary of State’s attorney fees spent defending Maricopa County’s election procedures following the 2020 election.
“Even if done inadvertently and with the best of intentions, such sanctions pose a real and present danger to the rule of law,” Judge John Lopez wrote in the unanimous ruling issued Thursday.
The Arizona Republican Party welcomed the decision, saying in a statement 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 baseless or bad faith action.” .
The case stemmed from a state GOP lawsuit alleging that Maricopa County improperly conducted a required manual count of ballot accuracy from samples of votes cast at centers open to all voters in the county rather than at precincts.
Examination of some ballots in the county showed the machines’ counts were 100% accurate, and results from routine post-election tests also affirmed the counting machines’ accuracy.
A Maricopa County judge dismissed the case in March 2021, declaring the Republican Party’s lawsuit unfounded and saying it was filed in bad faith. He awarded more than $18,000 in legal fees to the Secretary of State’s office.
A state Court of Appeals panel upheld that decision in April 2023 and assessed another $9,000 in sanctions against the Republican Party.
The high court did not overturn the dismissal of the case. But it concluded that the lower courts erred in finding the case unfounded.
“Asking our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws… particularly in the context of our elections,” the Supreme Court said, “is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘ long distance shots. ”
