Appellate Judges Remind Kari Lake’s Lawyer of Court’s Role in Election Challenge Appeal

Appellate judges listening to arguments Thursday in Kari Lake’s challenge to her 2022 election loss had to keep reminding her lawyer how appeals courts work.

Lake, a Republican who is now running for a U.S. Senate seat, filed her initial election challenge in December 2022 after she lost the governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes. Despite her claims failing to convince judges in December 2022 and May 2023 trials, as well as multiple appeals in between, Lake has continued to assert that the election was stolen from her.

During the proceedings, Lake’s attorney, Kurt Olsen, focused on claims that Maricopa County didn’t conduct required logic and accuracy testing for its tabulators and ballot-on-demand printers ahead of the 2022 election, leading to issues with those tabulators reading ballots on Election Day. Maricopa County has consistently denied Lake’s allegations.

Olsen argued that he and Lake’s other attorney, Bryan Blehm, did not have access to tabulator records in time to properly analyze them before the trial. He also accused trial court Judge Peter Thompson of disregarding testimony from Lake’s cybersecurity expert about the tabulators and printers.

Despite Olsen’s arguments, the judges had to remind him multiple times that the function of the appeals court is to determine if the trial judge made mistakes in interpreting and applying the law, not in determining the facts of the case.

In response to Olsen’s claims, Maricopa County’s attorney, Tom Liddy, described them as “hogwash” and pointed out that no ballots were rejected and every lawful ballot cast was tabulated.

Olsen continued to push for the results of Lake’s trials to be set aside based on new evidence, including tabulator logs. However, the judges questioned the validity of his arguments and emphasized the importance of focusing on legal matters rather than factual disputes.

At the end of the hearing, the judges indicated that they would rule on the appeal in due course, but did not provide a specific timeline for their decision.

The case highlights the ongoing challenges and controversies surrounding election integrity and the importance of upholding the rule of law in the electoral process.