Arizona is a hotbed of GOP election denialism, and a slate of Trump-inspired election deniers won the 2022 GOP primaries there, then lost in November.
Now they’re filing lawsuits to overturn those results (read story here). I scanned defeated governor candidate Kari Lake’s 70-page filing (here), and it’s familiar stuff.
By that I mean I’ve seen its arguments before. If Republicans are consistent about one thing, it’s lack of imagination. They’re like a novelist who can’t think of a new plot.
Let’s review what previous GOP legal losses have taught us about these lawsuits:
- They’re not entitled to a flawless election; every election experiences glitches, but that doesn’t invalidate the results.
- Polls showing Republican voters don’t trust elections aren’t proof the results were “rigged.”
- Glitches don’t make election officials guilty of “intentional misconduct.”
- Statistical constructions aren’t a substitute for actual vote totals.
- Losing a close election doesn’t entitle you to a do-over.
- Voter signatures don’t have to match perfectly.
- Long lines don’t disenfranchise voters.
The winner of the governor’s election, Katie Hobbs, is the current secretary of state. Lake’s lawsuit argues it was “unethical” for her to perform the election-related duties of her office while running against Lake, and demands her “recusal” in a new election. But no state prohibits a secretary of state from officiating over an election in which he or she is a candidate; it happens in many states, in many elections.
Lake’s filing also makes a lot of allegations she can’t prove. Some of these repeat already-debunked conspiracy theories and baseless grievances.
Election-related conspiracy theories often depend on “analyses.” So do statistical arguments, which can get quite dodgy. For example, in the 2004 Washington governor’s race, GOP lawyers tried to prove ineligible felon votes favored the Democratic candidate by using New Jersey prison population data. Statistical arguments also were used to dispute Arizona’s 2020 election results. These kinds of arguments ask courts to substitute assumptions for actual vote totals. They go nowhere.
A key argument of Republicans is their voters don’t trust elections, which invalidates election results. It doesn’t work that way. Election laws don’t require the losing side to trust the election process or accept the result. Laws, not personal beliefs, determine legal outcomes; and if you’re going to challenge an election in court, you have to do it with proven facts and within the framework of the election laws.
Merely feeling aggrieved doesn’t get you there.
Update (12/17/22): A judge threw out GOP candidate Mark Finchem’s lawsuit seeking to overturn his defeat in the Arizona secretary of state’s race (story here).