Kari Lake responds to calls for hand recount in Arizona race!

PHOENIX, Arizona (PNN) - January 2, 2023 - Republican Kari Lake continues to contest the results of Arizona’s November gubernatorial race. Lake claims she lost the election by approximately half a percentage point because of voter fraud and vote-counting irregularities - particularly in Maricopa County.

Last week, Lake demanded a complete review of Arizona’s election board and practices before the formal appointment of a new governor (scheduled for January 3). Arizona Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson dismissed Lake’s petition.

Last Tuesday, Lake appealed Judge Thompson’s ruling. A court filing states that Lake will also seek a direct review by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Lake continues to demand a new election or a “hand recount” of the November ballots. When a Twitter user asked Lake to clarify whether or not her team is calling for a “full hand recount of all Arizona ballots,” Lake replied: “Yes. We. Do.”

Lake was responding to a post from Cory McGarr, a conservative member-elect of the Arizona House of Representatives. In his tweet, McGarr pushed for the hand recount and said, “If there’s nothing to hide there’s nothing to fear.” McGarr also tagged Abraham Hamadeh, a Lake ally and former GOP candidate for Arizona attorney general who challenged the results of his own recent election after he (supposedly) lost.”

A recent recount in that race confirmed that Hamadeh had, in fact, lost to his Democrat opponent Kris Mayes - although by a slimmer margin than the initial tally.

Undeterred by initial legal setbacks, Lake said those who dispute her assertion that there was a breakdown in Arizona’s commitment to election integrity “picked the wrong woman to mess with.”

Lake has vowed to take her lawsuit “all the way to the Supreme Court” if necessary.

Lake added, “Somebody said, ‘Oh, just be graceful, you lost.’ No, we didn’t lose. If I would have lost, I would be graceful. I promised when I ran for governor that I would stand up and fight for the people of Arizona every single day. I’m still fighting for them because they’re asking me.”

Lake concluded, “I’m not going to lie to you; I’ve had days where I just go, ‘I’m tired.’ But I can’t walk away. I can’t say to the children, ‘Good luck. I had a great life. I had freedom in (Amerika). Good luck and enjoy the communism,'” she added.

Lake is petitioning the Arizona Court of Appeals to reconsider all 10 counts of her lawsuit that Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson dismissed.

In a partial victory for Lake, Thompson denied a request from Hobbs regarding sanctions against her challenger. Thompson did, however, rule that Lake must compensate Hobbs more than $33,000 to cover the costs of retaining expert witnesses during a two-day trial initiated by Lake.

After the litigation, Hobbs filed a request to the court seeking $36,990 in attorneys’ fees and expenses paid during a two-day trial, as well as sanctions against Lake.

The court denied Hobbs’ request for sanctions against Lake, saying the claims presented in litigation were not groundless or brought in bad faith. But costs associated with fees of witnesses were covered, for the most part. Hobbs requested reimbursement of $5,900 for an expert who was retained and who testified during the court hearing.

“[Hobbs] also filed a separate request for expert witness fees in the amount of $22,451 and an additional $4,689.50 for the reimbursement of a person designated to inspect the ballots. The ballot inspector’s compensation, according to court documents, was charged at a rate of $565 per hour for 8.3 hours. The court agreed to reimburse the $33,040.50 to Hobbs. It also ordered that the amount accrue an annual interest of 7.5% until the money is paid in full.

Judge Thompson ruled, “Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses - and for that matter, Defendants’ witnesses as well - was asked about any personal knowledge of both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence.”

Lake contends that Thompson did not provide her legal team sufficient time to make their case, pointing to the more than 200 submitted statements to the Court from individuals detailing their difficulties in trying to vote on Election Day in Maricopa County.

Thompson ruled, “If the ballot definitions (sizes) were changed, it stands to reason that every ballot for that particular definition printed on every machine so affected would be printed incorrectly. As Plaintiff’s next witness indicates, that was not the case on Election Day. In either event, Mr. Parikh acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of any intent behind what he believes to be the error.

Thompson determined that Lake’s legal team did not provide evidence proving that election officials turned voters away or refused to process their ballots on Election Day.

Arizona law specifically states that proving intent is not necessary in a challenge to the accuracy of an election, which is the basis of Lake’s appeal and the reason Thomson’s ruling should be overturned. Arizona law only requires that it be shown that there is a good chance that the accuracy of an election is in question, which Lake has definitely done.