Arizona’s Hobbs Demands Sanctions Against Election Denier Lake

After an Arizona judge on Saturday rejected defeated Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s failed effort to overturn the state’s election results, Arizona’s Democratic Governor-elect Katie Hobbs asked the court on Monday to sanction Lake over her frivolous lawsuit.

In a bid to be declared the winner despite a lack of evidence of voter fraud, Lake’s lawsuit challenged the counting and certification of the November electoral contest. Lake’s complaint cited, among other things, that problems with ballot printers at some polling places on Election Day were a result of intentional misconduct.

A Republican appointed by then-Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson found that Lake didn’t present to the court clear and convincing evidence of the widespread misconduct she claimed influenced the 2022 general election results.

Less than 48 hours after Judge Thompson ruled against Lake’s challenge, Hobbs – announced the winner of the gubernatorial race just days ago – joined a Maricopa County motion seeking sanctions against Lake.

For the court proceedings attached to Lake’s challenge, Hobbs requested the court award her $36,990 in attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in this action since she achieved a total victory in this litigation, as her filing concluded.

Hobbs was represented during an expedited election proceeding, which required extensive work by counsel in a very short period of time, by the Coppersmith Brockelman PLC attorney Andrew Gaona,

In only two days during the evidentiary hearing, the attorneys were required to draft a motion to dismiss, prepare for an evidentiary hearing, and participate in the hearing, so Hobbs believes the requested amount to be reasonable.

The fees, when broken down, are comprised of 94.3 hours worked by CB, totaling $31,090, plus an additional $5,900 for the expert witness Ryan Macias’s services.

Responding to the sanction motions, Lake’s attorneys asked that the court deny Hobbs’ motion arguing that it is not supported by case law or record.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.