The Arizona Supreme Court has requested additional legal briefings before it will decide whether to accept Abe Hamadeh’s petition for special action in his challenge against Kris Mayes over who actually received the most lawfully cast votes in the November 2022 race for Arizona Attorney General.
Justice Kathryn King, acting as duty justice, issued an order Aug. 4 giving Mayes until Aug. 11 to file a response to Hamadeh’s petition which seeks an order requiring a Mohave County Superior Court judge to conduct a new trial at which evidence can be put forth that Hamade’s legal team contends shows he, not Mayes, should be serving as attorney general.
King’s order also sets an Aug. 16 deadline for Hamadeh’s legal team to reply to Mayes’ response. After that, the Court will decide without oral arguments whether to consider the petition for special action at this time, King noted.
Hamadeh is shown 280 votes behind Mayes after a statewide recount. His election challenge raises several issues, including 76,000 ballots across Arizona reported as containing no vote in the attorney general race. A court-approved sampling of such ballots last December showed an error rate which could statistically overcome Mayes’ lead.
In her order, King instructed the attorneys to address three narrow legal issues in their upcoming filings pertaining to criteria set out in Court rules for the type of questions which can be raised in a special action and the circumstances in which a party can seek the justices’ permission to bypass the Arizona Court of Appeals.
The third issue King wants briefed is whether Hamadeh has an “equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal” rather than seeking special action.
Hamadeh’s petition to the Arizona Supreme Court points out that the Arizona Court of Appeals would normally be the logical place to start with an appeal. In fact, a notice of appeal was filed last month for which the clerk of the court of appeals set an Oct. 2 deadline for Hamadeh’s opening brief to be filed.
But pursuing an appeal requires there to be a final judgment signed by the judge assigned to the case. In Hamadeh v. Mayes, that would be Judge Lee Jantzen in Mohave County.
It has been well-publicized, however, that Jantzen has not treated the election challenge in an expedient manner and has failed to follow through on addressing various issues in a timely manner. Which is why a new filing by Mayes’ legal team last week appears to unintentionally support Hamadeh’s special action path.
On Dec. 23, 2022, Jantzen dismissed Hamadeh’s election challenge. He has never signed a final judgment pertaining to that ruling, and court records show Mayes’ own attorneys urged Jantzen in a Dec. 29 filing to “enter judgment” as required by statute and court rules.
Then on July 14, Jantzen issued an order in the election challenge denying Hamadeh’s Jan. 3 request for a new trial. At the time, the judge said he would issue a “full written” explanation of his decision on July 17 and address the “other pleadings that have been filed in this case” at that time.
But Jantzen failed to mention those outstanding motions on July 17 or any time after.
In the Aug. 4 motion, Mayes’ attorneys argue Hamadeh’s appeal should be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, specifically because of two missing final judgments. This would leave a petition for special action as the only option to force Jantzen to move ahead with the final judgment documentation.
Which is likely the reason Mayes also filed a dual “notice / request” with Jantzen last week, reminding the judge of the many rulings the parties are awaiting separate of the final judgments.
Mayes’ notice requests Jantzen resolve the pending motions and enter judgment “immediately.” The outstanding motions are:
– Hamadeh’s Dec. 28 motion for order reflecting additional rulings of the court;
– Mayes’ motion for attorneys’ fees, filed Jan. 3, 2023 and supplemented Jan. 17;
– Fontes’ Jan. 4 joinder of Mayes’ motion for attorneys’ fees;
– Navajo County’s motion to compensate ballot inspectors, filed Jan. 4;
– Mohave County’s joinder of Navajo County’s motion, filed Jan. 9 and April 17;
– Mayes’s Jan. 11 joinder in motion to compensate ballot inspectors
The long overdue judgments and other rulings have drawn attention to Jantzen’s censure by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2018 and public reprimand by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2021 for similar conduct.