Struggling to track Arizona's election suits? A guide to recent cases and where they stand
Arizona has seen dozens of legal cases related to elections since former President Donald Trump lost the state in 2020.
Courts have repeatedly rejected claims of fraudulent or rigged elections. But doubt in the electoral system among some and increased scrutiny around voting procedures has sparked unprecedented legal challenges. As old lawsuits navigate a vast web of appeals, new cases keep coming.
Some could be pivotal for the future of the state's elections and balance of power.
Here's a rundown of some recent cases and where they stand in the courts.
Lake v. Fontes
Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem filed suit in April 2022 to challenge the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona. At the time, Lake was running for governor and Finchem was campaigning for secretary of state.
U.S. District Judge John Tuchi previously dismissed Lake's and Finchem's claims and what he called their "frivolous complaint" in August 2022, saying they did not have standing — a legal precedent that requires an individual who files a case is directly impacted by the conduct they are suing over. Tuchi later ordered their legal team to pay six figures in sanctions to deter "similarly baseless suits in the future."
That decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a final appeal in the case on Monday, bringing finality to the duo's legal effort two years to the day after it began. Lake is now running for U.S. Senate and Finchem is running for state Senate in Legislative District 1, which is centered around Prescott.
Still, the legal battle isn't entirely over. Attorneys Kurt Olsen and Andrew Parker will face disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar of Arizona.
Lake v. Hobbs
Lake initially filed suit over her gubernatorial race loss to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in December 2022. Since then, the case has bounced around the Arizona courts.
Her election challenge focused on Maricopa County, the state's most populous county. She claimed Election Day technical issues were the result of officials' misconduct, that chain of custody procedures for ballots were violated, and that the signature verification process was flawed.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson rejected her case, writing that he would not "accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence." The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld his decision. The Arizona Supreme Court also tossed most of Lake's election challenge on appeal, but sent one of her claims regarding signature verification back to Thompson for review.
Thompson again rejected that claim and reaffirmed Hobbs' win. Now, the case is back in the Arizona Court of Appeals in Tucson. Oral arguments in the appeal are expected on May 2.
Mast v. Hobbs
Arizona courts have rejected numerous election challenges from Republican Abe Hamadeh over his 2022 loss to Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes.
His initial lawsuit was dismissed in December 2022 by Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen. Months later, Jantzen turned down Hamadeh's bid for a new trial. In October, the Arizona Supreme Court also declined to intervene in the case.
Hamadeh later filed another legal challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Susanna Pineda consolidated that suit with a similar one filed by Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby and Valley resident David Mast. She ultimately rejected both on April 1 and said she would allow county and state officials to seek sanctions.
Hamadeh is currently running for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.
Finchem v. Fontes
Finchem continues to appeal his loss to Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
In 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian rejected his claim that his election was compromised by technical and other issues. She ruled his complaint was "groundless" and later ordered him and his attorney to pay $48,000 in attorney fees to Fontes.
Finchem appealed that decision. His case is now under advisement by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Richer v. Lake
A defamation lawsuit filed in June by Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer could serve as a high-profile test of whether false election statements against known public officials could be actionable in court.
Richer's suit accuses Lake of spreading false information about him after the November 2022 election. It alleges Lake knew, or should have known, the statements were false.
In December, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman rejected initial motions from Lake to dismiss the case. She appealed the matter to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which said it would not consider her special action petition. She then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which instituted a temporary stay in the defamation lawsuit but later lifted it and rejected Lake's request.
Last month, Lake forfeited her ability to defend herself in court. The case will now proceed to discovery on damages. Attorneys are due back in court for a pre-trial conference on April 24.
State of Arizona v. Crosby and Judd
State prosecutors are pursuing a criminal case against two Cochise County supervisors accused of interfering with the 2022 election.
Tom Crosby, 64, of Sierra Vista, and Peggy Judd, 61, of Willcox, are each charged with felony counts of conspiracy and interference with an election officer. They currently serve on the Cochise County Board of Supervisors as Republicans.
The two voted to delay certification of the vote in 2022 and were quickly sued. The case resulted in a court order to certify the result, which the supervisors convened to do — though Crosby didn't show up.
Mayes, the Democratic attorney general, later investigated and presented the case to a grand jury, securing an indictment. Crosby and Judd both pleaded not guilty to the charges during a December court appearance. Since then, they've filed motions to dismiss the case and challenged the grand jury proceedings that led to their indictment.
Last week, they argued those motions before Judge Geoffrey Fish. He will soon decide if the case can move forward.
The charges against Crosby and Judd are class 5 felonies, the second-least severe felony under Arizona law. If convicted, the supervisors could face prison time up to 2 ½ years and a $150,000 fine.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes
Two suits filed last year in Yavapai County Superior Court take aim at the state's new elections rulebook.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a grassroots conservative organization, claims unmanned ballot drop boxes are illegal in Arizona because there is no state statute specifically authorizing their use outside of established polling places.
In an earlier lawsuit, the group argued that election officials should only compare signed early ballot affidavits against voters' signatures on their voter registration forms. Historically, election officials have compared signatures on early ballots to those in any election-related document submitted by the voter, including signature rosters and prior signed early ballot affidavits.
Judge John Napper is expected to rule soon on both cases.
Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona v. Yavapai County
A lawsuit filed against election officials in Yavapai and Maricopa counties in February alleges a wide range of issues during the 2022 election, including improper chain of custody for ballots and incorrect signature verification procedures.
Some of the claims echo allegations raised by Lake, Finchem and Hamadeh in their election challenges. The suit was initially filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, but later refiled in Yavapai County Superior Court.
The suit requests close to 30 different forms of relief. It demands both counties revert to precinct-based voting, that they cease using unstaffed ballot drop boxes and more.
Judge Tina Ainley will hear oral argument on a motion to dismiss the case on May 3.
Gould v. Mayes
A lawsuit from Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould says a letter Mayes sent to the Mohave County Board of Supervisors before a vote on hand counting ballots improperly influenced the supervisors' decision.
Gould brought the suit in his personal capacity in January. Mayes' letter, sent days before the vote, warned supervisors that the "legal consequences would be serious" if they opted to hand count. She also expressed concern that supervisors had "received incorrect legal advice from bad-faith actors who are attempting to sow doubt in Arizona's elections and ultimately undermine Arizona's democratic process."
County supervisors ultimately voted 3-2 to reject the hand-counting proposal. Gould voted in favor of it, as did Supervisor Hildy Angius.
Mayes filed a motion to dismiss the case in February. She argued Arizona law requires a "present controversy" between parties to bring a suit, "not just a difference of opinion about what the law permits or requires." A date for oral argument has not yet been set in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer
Just one legal case remains outstanding from 2020 in Arizona — a lawsuit that challenged how Maricopa County audited ballots in the presidential race and asked a court to stop officials from certifying results.
In March 2021, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah said the case was without merit. He ruled the Arizona GOP must pay attorneys' fees to the Secretary of State's Office.
Last year, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Now, the case is before the Arizona Supreme Court and awaiting a ruling.
Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl contributed reporting to this article.
Sasha Hupka covers county government and election administration for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip to share on elections or voting? Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Are you tracking Arizona's election suits? A list of cases to know
