Following weeks of intense legal battles and amidst swirling speculation of subpoenas served in the lead-up, the election contest filed by Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for Arizona governor, against Katie Hobbs, moved to a dramatic courtroom trial. Lake’s challenge, targeting the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election, brought into question the integrity of the voting process in Maricopa County. This article delves into the arguments, testimonies, and key moments of the trial, offering a comprehensive overview of the legal showdown that has captivated the nation.
Arguments for Dismissal: Hobbs and Maricopa County Attorneys Push Back
The legal proceedings commenced on Monday, December 19th, with Judge Peter Thompson hearing arguments on whether the election contest should even proceed to trial. Attorneys representing Governor-elect Hobbs, Secretary Hobbs, and Maricopa County vigorously argued for dismissal.
Gov.-elect Hobbs’ attorney led the charge, asserting that the case should be thrown out based on laches, emphasizing the need for timely legal action. She further contended that Lake’s claims failed to meet the stringent legal standards for an election contest in Arizona. According to Arizona law, such contests are permissible only in cases of fraud, misconduct, or illegal votes that demonstrably altered the election outcome. Crucially, as Lake explicitly disavowed allegations of fraud in her complaint, this line of argument was deemed irrelevant.
Hobbs’ attorney underscored the significant vote margin Lake needed to overcome, stating, “Here, by contrast, Ms. Lake must overcome over 17,000 votes,” contrasting this with typical election contests decided by much smaller margins. She concluded her argument with a sharp rebuke of Lake’s claims of a flawed electoral system, stating, “If there’s anything rotten in Arizona, it is what this contest represents. For the past several years, our democracy and its basic guiding principles have been under sustained assault from candidates who just cannot or will not accept the fact that they lost.”
Maricopa County’s attorney echoed the call for dismissal, asserting the lack of factual basis for Lake’s misconduct allegations. He argued that any concerns about election procedures should have been raised before the election, not after. Addressing the affidavits presented by Lake, he conceded that some voters might have been “unhappy” with their voting experience, but stressed that they ultimately successfully cast their ballots. He refuted the characterization of Maricopa County voters’ experiences as “voter suppression” as offensive.
The attorney for Secretary Hobbs, in her official capacity, warned that proceeding to trial would set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for endless election litigation after every election.
Lake’s Case for Trial: Allegations of Misconduct and “Unexplained Ballots”
Representing Kari Lake, her attorney, known for his previous involvement with the controversial Cyber Ninjas’ Arizona 2020 election “audit,” argued vehemently against dismissal. He contended that Maricopa County had failed to adhere to election procedures and chain of custody protocols for ballots.
A central claim was the alleged “mysterious” appearance of “25,000 extra ballots” in Maricopa County post-election, ballots he asserted were “outcome determinative.” He further advanced a conspiracy theory involving Maricopa County officials engaged in a “secret censorship operation set up by the government that would make Orwell blush.” This alleged conspiracy, according to Lake’s attorney, involved a federal government “election misinformation reporting portal” linking state and local election officials with social media companies to censor dissenting voices under the guise of combating “misinformation.”
Alt text: Election workers diligently count ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona, amidst ongoing scrutiny of the election process.
Lake’s attorney also questioned the reliability of signature matching for mail-in ballots, citing the outdated and subsequently refuted claims from the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission report about mail-in voting fraud. He then presented anecdotal evidence of Election Day issues, referencing “screenshots…of text messages…where [election workers were] exclaiming ‘I’m having a 911 here. You know there are lines are out the door over 100 people; get me coffee please.’” He argued these messages indicated systemic problems in the 2022 election, reinforcing the claim of “25,000 unexplained votes” and urged the judge to accept Lake’s complaint as truthful and proceed with the trial.
Rebuttals and Closing Arguments for Dismissal
In rebuttal, Gov.-elect Hobbs’ attorney reiterated the high legal bar for election contests in Arizona, emphasizing that “honest mistakes, even gross irregularities, absent a showing of fraud or that they actually affected the outcome of the election are not sufficient to sustain a contest.” She highlighted the inconsistencies between Lake’s initial complaint, which alleged discrimination against Republicans, and her attorney’s shifting argument that the issue was specifically about Kari Lake herself. She dismissed the presented math as flawed and cautioned against the “chaos and mayhem” a trial would unleash. She concluded by imploring the court to recognize its role as a court of law, not a “theater,” “public broadcast,” or “political platform,” and to dismiss the case.
Maricopa County’s attorney directly addressed the “25,000 ballots” claim, explaining the standard procedures for reporting election results. He also dismissed the credibility of Lake’s election equipment witness, suggesting a lack of relevant expertise. He refuted the attacks on signature verification and vote tabulation machines, pointing out that ballot rejections by tabulators were not unique to the 2022 election. He concluded by suggesting sanctions against Lake’s attorney for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
Secretary Hobbs’ attorney refuted the First Amendment arguments related to election officials addressing misinformation. He argued that even accepting Lake’s “rampant and unreasonable speculation” about Election Day in Maricopa County, it would not invalidate the votes in question. He urged the court to reject the plaintiff’s attempt to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Arizona voters and uphold the integrity of legally cast ballots.
Day 1 of Trial: Ballot Printer Malfunctions and Chain of Custody Questioned
Despite the strong arguments for dismissal, Judge Thompson proceeded with a trial, albeit on two narrow claims: ballot-on-demand (BOD) printer malfunctions and alleged ballot mishandling during canvassing. To prevail, Lake needed to demonstrate that the BOD printer malfunctions were intentional, aimed at affecting the election outcome, and did actually change the results.
Lake’s legal team presented six witnesses on the first day, December 21st, to support these claims.
Stephen Richer (R), Maricopa County Recorder, was the first witness. He clarified his role in managing elections, focusing on early voting and not Election Day operations or ballot tabulation. Lake’s attorney questioned Richer about changes to chain of custody forms, probing for discrepancies and suggesting that the lack of ballot counts on these forms was problematic. Richer explained the procedures and clarified that ballots are counted at separate locations, not individual vote centers. He also clarified a previous statement about early ballot drop box numbers, confirming they were estimates. Under cross-examination, Richer unequivocally denied sabotaging the election.
Scott Jarrett, Maricopa County’s co-elections director, responsible for in-person voting and ballot tabulation, was the next witness. He disputed Lake’s attorney’s characterization of BOD printer issues as a “disruption,” describing them as instances where “some printers not printing some tiny marks on our ballots dark enough to be read in by the tabulation equipment.” He emphasized that voters still had valid options to cast their ballots. Lake’s attorney repeatedly raised a hypothetical scenario of 19-inch ballot images on 20-inch paper, questioning if this could be intentional. Jarrett denied knowledge of such occurrences and refuted the suggestion of deliberate acts.
Clay Parikh, an information security officer, testified about his inspection of ballots from six vote centers. He claimed some ballots had to be duplicated due to 19-inch ballot images on 20-inch paper, which he determined by manual measurement. Parikh asserted this misprinting was intentional, aiming to support the claim of deliberate wrongdoing. However, under cross-examination, he admitted he never requested to see the duplicate ballots and struggled to acknowledge that misprinted ballots would still be tabulated through duplication.
Heather Honey, an investigator involved in the Arizona state Senate’s 2020 election “audit,” testified about an alleged voicemail from a Maricopa County election worker named “Betty” and public records requests for chain of custody documents. Her testimony was challenged as hearsay and focused on alleged inconsistencies in documentation and anecdotal claims from unnamed individuals about ballot handling procedures at Runbeck, a third-party ballot processing vendor.
Bradley Bentencourt, a temporary election technician, described Election Day as “chaotic” but admitted to no personal knowledge of intentional misconduct.
Mark Sonnenklar, an attorney with the Republican National Committee’s election integrity program, testified about long lines and voter frustration at vote centers due to tabulator issues. He concluded with his personal belief of a “cover up.”
Alt text: Long lines of voters at a Maricopa County voting center on Election Day, highlighting potential voting process challenges.
Day 2 of Trial: Polling Data Debunked and Expert Testimony on Election Systems
Day two of the trial, December 22nd, saw Lake’s team call their final witness, pollster Richard Baris. Baris presented data claiming “between 25,000 to 40,000” voters, primarily Republicans, were disenfranchised due to Election Day issues, and asserted that “plaintiff Kari Lake would have won this race, but for the Election Day chaos.” However, under cross-examination, Gov.-elect Hobbs’ attorney dismantled Baris’s credibility, highlighting his firm’s “F” rating from FiveThirtyEight and exposing the flaws in his methodology and low response rates to his poll.
The defense then presented their witnesses. Kenneth Mayer, a political scientist, established his expertise in elections and polling. He refuted Baris’s testimony, debunking the “logical leaps” required to reach his conclusions and highlighting the lack of evidence that voters abandoned their efforts to vote due to tabulator issues. He dismissed Lake’s legal claims as “absurd, fanciful conspiracy theories.”
Reynaldo Valenzuela, co-director of the Maricopa County Elections Department, detailed the secure procedures for handling early ballots and drop boxes, refuting claims of improper ballot handling.
Scott Jarrett returned to the stand to clarify Maricopa County’s vote center model and the necessity of ballot-on-demand printers. He addressed the 19-inch ballot image issue, explaining it was due to temporary technicians accidentally using a “fit-to-print” setting at three vote centers, affecting fewer than 1,300 ballots, which were ultimately still tabulated. He detailed chain of custody procedures and security measures.
Ryan Macias, an election technology expert, refuted the idea that 19-inch ballot images could only be created intentionally, explaining how the BOD system interacts with the Election Management System. He affirmed that there were no security or chain of custody problems with Maricopa County’s procedures.
Closing Arguments and Judge’s Forthcoming Ruling
In closing arguments, Lake’s attorney reiterated claims of inconsistencies and asserted that the defense’s evidence “doesn’t make sense.” Gov.-elect Hobbs’ attorney countered by emphasizing Lake’s failure to meet the legal burden of proof, highlighting the lack of evidence for intentional printer malfunctions affecting the election outcome or chain of custody violations.
Gov.-elect Hobbs’ attorney concluded powerfully: “Kari Lake lost this election and must lose this election contest. …Kari Lake lost the election because, at the end of the day, she received fewer votes than Katie Hobbs. Katie Hobbs is the next governor. The people of Arizona said so it is time to put this contest and the spurious claims to bed.”
Judge Thompson concluded the trial, stating his intention to issue a ruling “forthwith,” leaving the nation waiting to see if Kari Lake’s legal challenge would succeed or be definitively rejected. The trial, preceded by the anticipation of subpoenas and intense legal maneuvering, underscored the deep divisions and ongoing debates surrounding election integrity in the United States.
