High court rejects plea to order Maricopa County vote recount

Election judges sort Minneapolis ballots during the recount process in the 2008 U.S. Senate race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken in Minneapolis.

Mar y Jo Pitzl

Arizona Republic 

The state Supreme Court Thursday rejected a request to order a recount of all mail-in ballots cast by Maricopa County voters in November’s general election.

The court’s order came one week after David Mast, a Kari Lake supporter in Maricopa County, and Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby, who refused to certify his county’s election results last year, filed their request for a special action.

Related: Hamedeh’s appeal of his close loss to Mayes won’t get special treatment, high court rules

But their argument that Maricopa County used improper methods to verify voter signatures on their mail-in ballot envelopes fell flat with the high court.

Justice Kathryn King wrote there was no “compelling reason” for why the duo’s request should start with the Supreme Court, indicating they should take their grievance to a lower court.

She pointed to the ruling in a separate case — Kari Lake’s election challenge — in which the judge found “clear and convincing evidence” that the Nov. 8 election was conducted lawfully.

That case revolved around the proper verification of voter signatures.

If the two want to again challenge last year’s election, King wrote, they should start in a lower court.

Crosby and Mast targeted the process Maricopa County used to verify the signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes last fall.

They argued the county illegally relied on more than just the official voter register to check the veracity of voters’ signatures.

By checking voter signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes against other county election records — such as a voter’s ballot envelope from previous elections, rather than the signature the voter signed when they first registered to vote — the county allowed illegal votes to be counted, Mast and Crosby argue.

That diluted the value of their votes and therefore violated their voting rights, the pair said.

More:

Share this!

Additional Articles

News Categories

Get Our Twice Weekly Newsletter!

* indicates required

Rose Law Group pc values “outrageous client service.” We pride ourselves on hyper-responsiveness to our clients’ needs and an extraordinary record of success in achieving our clients’ goals. We know we get results and our list of outstanding clients speaks to the quality of our work.

August 2023
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031