The Republican candidate for Arizona secretary of state who challenged the 2022 election results in court was ordered on May 22 to pay over $48,000 in fees related to litigation.
Mark Finchem, a former Arizona state lawmaker, was ordered to pay the fees by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian, the order stated.
Sanctions Ordered Previously
In March, the same judge imposed sanctions on Finchem and his attorney, calling Finchem’s challenge to the election “groundless” and ordering monetary sanctions under Arizona law, which she said helps discourage lawsuits for which there is “no legitimate basis or fact or law.”“In election matters, Arizona’s courts have emphasized that sanctions should be awarded only in rare cases, so as not to discourage legitimate challenges,” Julian wrote. “This is such a case. None of Contestant Finchem’s allegations, even if true, would have changed the vote count enough to overcome the 120,000 votes he needed to affect the result of this election.”
Finchem, in his objection to the request for sanctions by Hobbs and Fontes, argued Arizona precedent does not allow the court to impose sanctions in election suits.
“In pertinent part, as already presented to the Court, Arizona’s appellate courts have consistently over the decades ruled that attorneys’ fees are not to be granted in Election Contests,” his attorney argued in the objection. “The courts have determined that fee awards are based upon general statutes such as the statute cited by the Court as foundation for its prior Ruling regarding costs.”
Finchem’s Challenge
Julian dismissed Finchem’s lawsuit (pdf) in December, which he appealed shortly after. He alleged a litany of misconduct claims against Hobbs related to his election, which he referred to as “comical and tragic.”Finchem’s suit claimed misconduct on the part of Hobbs when she was secretary of state by failing to recuse herself from election duties, failing to ensure the correct official at the Election Assistance Commission signed a certification of election machines, threatening legal action against county officials who delayed election certification, and flagging his Twitter account for misinformation in January 2021.
“None of these alleged acts of misconduct presented a ‘fairly debatable’ election challenge as Finchem did not and could not allege that any of these acts rendered uncertain the outcome of an election he lost by over 120,000 votes,” Julian wrote at the time. “As noted in the ruling, however, Twitter is not an election official and its decision to temporarily suspend Finchem’s Twitter account presents no valid basis for an election challenge under Arizona law.”
Julian also wrote that Hobbs’ failure to recuse herself doesn’t warrant a re-do of the election.
Finchem had requested relief in the form of the court nullifying the election and ordering a paper ballot revote.
“Seeking or holding a public office does not grant elected officials a financial or ownership interest in the job they hold or seek. To the contrary, ‘the nature of the relation of a public officer to the public is inconsistent with either a property or a contract right. Every public office is created in the interest and for the benefit of the people, and belongs to them,’” Julian wrote.
