Current:Home > FinanceArizona GOP wins state high court appeal of sanctions for 2020 election challenge -MarketEdge
Arizona GOP wins state high court appeal of sanctions for 2020 election challenge
View
Date:2025-04-26 08:30:05
PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court has reversed lower court rulings that held the Arizona Republican Party responsible for more than $27,000 in sanctions and Secretary of State office attorney fees spent defending Maricopa County election procedures following the 2020 election.
“Even if done inadvertently and with the best of intentions, such sanctions present a real and present danger to the rule of law,” Justice John Lopez wrote in the unanimous decision issued Thursday.
The Arizona Republican Party hailed the ruling, saying in a statement it “reaffirms the fundamental legal principle that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action.”
The case stemmed from a state GOP lawsuit alleging that Maricopa County improperly conducted a required hand-count of the accuracy of ballots from samples of votes cast at centers open to all county voters, not from precincts.
The county examination of some ballots showed its machine counts were 100% accurate, and the results of routine post-election tests also affirmed the accuracy of counting machines.
A Maricopa County judge dismissed the case in March 2021, declaring the Republican Party lawsuit groundless and saying it was brought in bad faith. He awarded over $18,000 in attorney’s fees to the Secretary of State’s office.
A state Court of Appeals panel upheld that decision in April 2023 and assessed another $9,000 in sanctions against the GOP.
The high court did not overturn dismissal of the case. But it found the lower courts erred in finding the case was groundless.
“Petitioning our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws ... particularly in the context of our elections,” the Supreme Court said, “is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘long shots.’ ”
veryGood! (74579)
Related
- DoorDash steps up driver ID checks after traffic safety complaints
- NOAA Lowers Hurricane Season Forecast, Says El Niño Likely on the Way
- Author and Mom Blogger Heather Dooce Armstrong Dead at 47
- As Beef Comes Under Fire for Climate Impacts, the Industry Fights Back
- House passes bill to add 66 new federal judgeships, but prospects murky after Biden veto threat
- New VA study finds Paxlovid may cut the risk of long COVID
- Michigan voters approve amendment adding reproductive rights to state constitution
- Destructive Flood Risk in U.S. West Could Triple if Climate Change Left Unchecked
- Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from serving openly in the military
- NOAA Lowers Hurricane Season Forecast, Says El Niño Likely on the Way
Ranking
- Finally, good retirement news! Southwest pilots' plan is a bright spot, experts say
- Today’s Climate: August 16, 2010
- Chrissy Teigen Reacts to Speculation She Used a Surrogate to Welcome Baby Esti
- Anxious while awaiting election results? Here are expert tips to help you cope
- Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
- Stop hurting your own feelings: Tips on quashing negative self-talk
- The rate of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. rose 30% in the first year of COVID
- Heat Wave Safety: 130 Groups Call for Protections for Farm, Construction Workers
Recommendation
Man can't find second winning lottery ticket, sues over $394 million jackpot, lawsuit says
Treat Mom to Kate Spade Bags, Jewelry & More With These Can't-Miss Mother's Day Deals
Today’s Climate: August 13, 2010
How Abortion Bans—Even With Medical Emergency Exemptions—Impact Healthcare
Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
Real Housewives of Miami's Guerdy Abraira Shares Breast Cancer Diagnosis
This week on Sunday Morning (June 11)
Who is Walt Nauta — and why was the Trump aide also indicted in the documents case?