Kari Lake Attorneys File State Supreme Court Response to ‘Disingenuous’ Maricopa County Claims

On Thursday, Kari’s attorneys filed a response to the court’s decision that Maricopa County’s attorneys had told the Arizona Supreme Court that the GOP candidate’s election lawsuit should be dropped.

Maricopa County is accused by Lake of misleading the court. The county’s attorneys claim that they have not answered a question regarding why 35,000 ballots were missing. Lake claimed that these ballots were illegally mingled.

Her attorneys stated in her initial petition to Supreme Court that records revealed a discrepancy in the total ballots. They alleged that 263,379 ballots were delivered to a third-party contractor and that incoming scan receipts show that 298,942 ballots were returned to Maricopa from the contractor, or a difference of 35,563 ballots.

“Respondents accuse Lake of raising a new argument regarding certain chain-of-custody forms and the 35,563 unaccounted for ballots injected into the election,” The filing stated that Maricopa lawyers had been contacted. “disingenuously” Her arguments were misrepresented. It claimed that county officials incorrectly cited her argument. “chain-of-custody forms in her Petition that she alleged in the trial court did not even exist … this issue is not new, was properly raised below, and is properly before this Court.”

Maricopa County’s “disingenuous arguments and tired calls for sanctions while blatantly misstating the record illustrate the apparent arrogance of election officials who, without restraint, unapologetically ignore clear and unambiguous statutory requirements and evidence precisely why this Court should accept the Petition,” Her lawyers wrote.

Election data shows Lake lost to Hobbs, a Democrat by around 17,000 votes during Nov. 8 Midterms. She petitioned the Supreme Court asking for judges to re-do Maricopa County’s election or declare her victor.

Lake had previously claimed that Election Day problems in dozens of Maricopa polling locations prevented potential Republican voters from casting their ballots. He pointed to statements made by top county officials concerning widespread printer problems. Maricopa officials later stated that those printing problems had been resolved. Election Day voters were able to drop off their ballots at secure drop-boxes so that later tabulation can be done. In court, a county lawyer blamed the error on a printer problem.

After Maricopa County attorneys on Monday stated that Lake had presented, Lake filed on Thursday “a misleading factual theory about chain-of-custody documents” He stated that there was no argument to support the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision not to review a prior Arizona Court of Appeals decision. Before Lake’s attorneys transferred her petition to the high-court, the state’s appels court had rejected Lake’s lawsuit several weeks earlier.

In the meantime, former Secretary of state and current Gov. The Supreme Court received a response from Katie Hobbs and Adrian Fontes, the Secretary of State. Fontes, Hobbs asked the court for sanctioning Lake and her attorneys in the lawsuit. This was despite previous attempts to sanction her along with other Republicans.

“Those who invoke our Courts must do so in good faith,” Craig Morgan, a Fontes lawyer, wrote to the Supreme Court. “We cannot allow a disgruntled vocal minority to weaponize our Courts, sow unfounded distrust in our election processes, malign our public servants, and undermine our democracy—all for the purpose of trying to overturn the People’s will and topple an election.”

Responding to the allegations that 35,563 ballots were illegally mingled after the Nov. 8 election, Abha Khanna, an attorney representing Hobbs, said Lake  “blatantly misrepresents key facts from the record.” Khanna wrote “Now, Lake argues that not only did those records exist, but that they show that 35,563 more ballots were inserted” and were sent back to the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center were tabulation.

“Ms. Lake and her counsel continue to push false claims of election fraud, now on appeal going so far as to misrepresent the record and the law,” Morgan also wrote. “This Court is the last opportunity for our judiciary to remind those who seek its recourse that they must do so with integrity. If this Court sits silent in the face of what has occurred, then those who would due (sic) our union harm will continue to malign and erode the foundations upon which our great state stands.”