The Arizona Supreme Court on May 2 overturned two lower court rulings that imposed sanctions against the state’s Republican Party for a 2020 election lawsuit against Maricopa County that a lower court called “meritless.”
The Republicans argued that the county’s decision to conduct a hand count audit by vote center instead of by precinct violated formal state election procedures, as the GOP is seeking a new audit by precinct.
The Superior Court of Arizona dismissed the case, claiming it was “meritless” and the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision in April 2023, also finding it had “no merit.”
The party shortly after appealed again, and the ruling this week reverses a slate of attorney’s fees they were set to have to pay in an amount over $27,000.
The Arizona Supreme Court also emphasized a need for caution against dismissing too quickly election-related lawsuits as groundless.
“The desire to vindicate a legal right—even if in the election context and animated exclusively by political motives—is not relevant, much less per se sanctionable,” the supreme court wrote. “Courts should focus on the legal and factual merits of a claim and the party’s and attorney’s conduct in the course of the litigation. Any suggestion that a party or attorney faces enhanced risk of sanction merely because they couple political motives with a long-shot effort to vindicate a legal right in the election law context intolerably chills citizens and their attorneys precisely in an arena where we can least afford to silence them.”
The court went on to say courts should “in their zeal to ensure that election challenges are properly grounded in fact and law” does not “inadvertently inflict real damage to our republic by slamming the courthouse door on citizens and their counsel legitimately seeking to vindicate rights, which is also important to maintaining public confidence in elections.”
The Arizona Republican Party applauded the decision in a statement to The Epoch Times.
Other Matters
“We consider whether the trial court and the court of appeals erred in awarding attorney fees against the [Arizona Republican Party] and its attorneys,” the state high court’s decision stated.The court continued, noting those attorney fees were awarded under a state law that provides for awarding fees if an attorney or party brings or defends a claim that is “groundless and is not made in good faith.”
“We hold that the attorney fees award was improper because petitioners’ claim was not groundless, thus obviating any need to determine whether the claim was made in the absence of good faith,” the court’s opinion, authored by Justice John R. Lopez stated. The court’s decision was unanimous among the seven justices.
The court vacated the attorney fees awarded against Arizona GOP and clarified the interpretation of what constitutes a claim made in “bad faith” under the relevant Arizona statute, advocating for a more measured approach in assessing the motivations behind legal claims.
The court notes that there is a legitimate interpretive conflict between the statutory requirements for hand counts and the procedures actually followed, which included voting centers not specified in the law.
Regarding the issue of good faith, the state supreme court criticized the lower courts for equating the lack of good faith with the presence of bad faith or ulterior motives. Instead, the supreme court offers a different perspective, suggesting that a claim is made without good faith if it is pursued despite the party or attorney knowing it lacks a sound legal basis, or if pursued with indifference to its validity.
The court also addresses other aspects criticized by the lower courts, such as the timeliness of the lawsuit being filed after the election and procedural errors, arguing that these do not render the Arizona Republicans’ actions groundless or in bad faith. The court emphasized that the claims were not only legally tenable but also did not constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
