The narrative woven by partisan political “journalist” Howard Fischer, around Representative Alexander Kolodin’s dual role as a legislator and attorney for GOP attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh, has missed a crucial point: the paramount importance of resolving voter-facing printer issues before the 2024 general elections. It’s time to cut through the fog of sensationalism and focus on the real issue at hand – ensuring the integrity and smooth functioning of our electoral processes.
Indeed, it appears to be Mr. Fischer, the author of the hit piece, who is engaging in partisan maneuvering. His article appears to be nothing more than an attempt to distract from what the hearing revealed – that Maricopa County’s investigation was not comprehensive, its investigators were not qualified, and the County is not taking adequate steps to reassure voters that this will not happen to them for a fourth time in 2024.
The allegations suggesting that Rep. Kolodin’s chairing of a legislative hearing on printer failures was a tactically timed move to benefit Hamadeh’s legal case are not only unsubstantiated but also distract from a more significant public concern. The printer issues in Maricopa County during the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections, which led to long lines and heightened voter anxiety, are not just a fleeting topic for legal strategizing; they are a pressing matter that demands immediate attention and resolution.
Addressing these issues goes beyond partisan politics or individual legal cases. It is about safeguarding the democratic process, ensuring every voter’s right is protected, and their vote counted accurately. The long lines and technical glitches experienced in Maricopa County are not just inconveniences; they are barriers to democratic participation. If left unresolved, they have the potential to undermine public confidence in the electoral system, a cornerstone of our democracy.
Rep. Kolodin’s focus on these printer issues in a legislative hearing should be seen in this light – not as a ploy for legal advantage but as a necessary step towards electoral reform. The timing of the hearing, post the filing of the legal briefs in Hamadeh’s case, further supports this perspective. It indicates a separation of his legislative duties from his legal responsibilities, contradicting the narrative of a conflict of interest.
Moreover, the suggestion that Rep. Kolodin’s actions in chairing a legislative hearing on printer failures in Maricopa County were a calculated move to benefit Hamadeh’s legal case is fundamentally flawed. The timeline itself debunks this theory. By the time of the hearing, the reply brief in the Court of Appeals had already been filed, and there was no practical avenue to incorporate new information from the hearing into the ongoing appeal. This alone is sufficient to dismiss claims of intentional timing for the benefit of Hamadeh.
The idea that the hearing could have been used to support claims about undervotes and provisional ballots is a stretch. The focus of Hamadeh’s appeal does not directly connect to printer issues, which further undermines the assertion that the hearing was intended to influence the legal proceedings in which Rep. Kolodin is involved as an attorney. Even crediting Mr. Fischer that the hearing could be used to support Hamadeh’s recent lawsuit filed by different legal counsel is attenuated, at best. Rep. Kolodin has neither financial nor reputational incentives to aid another attorney on a case that would moot his own case to his detriment.
The media’s portrayal of this situation, as alleged, seems to have fixated on sensationalizing Rep. Kolodin’s role while glossing over the substantive issue of election integrity. The true story here is not about legal strategies or ethical dilemmas but about addressing a critical problem that could affect the outcome of future elections as well as public faith and confidence in our elections system.
As we approach the 2024 general elections, it is imperative that we prioritize the resolution of these printer and other voting-related issues. The focus should be on ensuring that every eligible voter can cast their ballot without undue hardship or doubt about the process’s integrity. This is not just a matter of legal concern; it is a matter of preserving the health of, and trust in, our democratic system.