The aftermath of the 2022 elections in Arizona continues to be a focal point of political discourse, particularly concerning the challenges brought forth by Republican candidates who allege widespread irregularities. Among these figures, Kari Lake, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, has remained prominent in her contestation of the election results. As her legal battles proceed, questions about her background and origins become increasingly relevant for those seeking a comprehensive understanding of this influential political personality.
Kari Lake, a figure now synonymous with Arizona politics and election integrity debates, was not originally a native of the state. Born in Cordova, Illinois, her journey to the forefront of Arizona’s political landscape is a narrative that spans diverse career paths and geographical locations. Understanding where Kari Lake is originally from provides context to her present political endeavors and resonates with the broader American story of individuals forging their paths across different states and professional spheres.
This article delves into the ongoing election disputes led by Kari Lake and fellow GOP candidate Abe Hamadeh, while also shedding light on Lake’s origins and the trajectory that led her to become a central figure in Arizona’s political arena. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the election challenges and contextualize them within the backdrop of Lake’s personal and professional journey.
Lingering Election Disputes in Arizona Courts
Months after the 2022 midterm elections concluded, Arizona remains a battleground for legal challenges contesting the results. Kari Lake, who ran for governor, and Abe Hamadeh, who sought the Attorney General position, both Republicans, have persistently claimed that the election was marred by irregularities and, in their view, stolen. Despite rulings and dismissals, their legal pursuits continue to generate headlines and fuel ongoing debates about election integrity.
A Maricopa County judge recently granted Kari Lake a trial, focusing on a claim that has evolved since its initial filing in December. This claim, which centers on signature verification processes for mail-in ballots, has already been scrutinized by the Arizona Supreme Court and now returns to the lower court for further examination. The trial commenced on Wednesday, marking another chapter in Lake’s protracted legal fight.
Simultaneously, in Mohave County, Judge Lee Jantzen is evaluating whether to grant Abe Hamadeh a new trial. Hamadeh’s claim hinges on evidence purportedly unearthed during a statewide recount in December, along with subsequently obtained records. He argues this new evidence substantiates his claim that he rightfully won the Attorney General race.
The extended duration of these election challenges is noteworthy. Typically, election-related legal disputes are expedited to ensure timely resolutions before newly elected officials assume office. However, in this instance, Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, have been in office since January, while the legal battles initiated by their Republican challengers persist.
Experts underscore the high legal threshold required to overturn election results in Arizona. Precedent for such outcomes, particularly months after the election, is scant. The protracted nature of these challenges raises concerns among voter advocates and state attorneys, who point to the uncertainty and potential erosion of voter confidence stemming from prolonged disputes over election outcomes.
Craig Morgan, representing Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, articulated these concerns during a hearing related to Hamadeh’s case. He emphasized that the ongoing legal battles provide a platform for the losing candidates and their allies to cast doubt on the integrity of Arizona’s election processes, thereby undermining the foundations of free and fair elections.
Alex Gulotta, Arizona director for All Voting is Local, echoed this sentiment, highlighting the detrimental impact of prolonged misinformation. He noted that the longer unsubstantiated claims of election irregularities remain in the public sphere, particularly while court proceedings continue, the greater the potential harm to public trust in the electoral system.
Despite these concerns, attorneys for Lake and Hamadeh have persisted in seeking access to ballots and related materials, asserting their need to uncover evidence to support their claims. Conversely, state and Maricopa County attorneys argue that the opportune time for such evidence-gathering has long passed.
Fundraising and Taxpayer Costs Amidst Legal Battles
The protracted legal proceedings have presented consistent fundraising avenues for both Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh. Lake, in particular, has capitalized on each legal milestone to solicit financial contributions, a strategy characterized by some observers as a central objective of her ongoing challenges.
Barrett Marson, a Republican political strategist in Arizona, remarked that for Kari Lake, the fundraising aspect appears to be a key feature, if not the primary goal, of her continued election challenges. This perspective suggests that the legal battles serve not only as attempts to overturn election results but also as platforms for political and financial gain.
Following the recent granting of her trial request, Lake promptly leveraged the development to seek donations. In a live Twitter audio broadcast, she directed supporters to contribute to her legal fund through her website or a designated nonprofit advocacy group. She framed these contributions as essential for her ongoing fight to “secure our elections.”
While the precise sums raised by Lake and Hamadeh throughout these legal proceedings remain undisclosed due to post-election campaign finance reporting regulations, past data indicates substantial fundraising success. An analysis by The Arizona Mirror revealed that Lake raised over $2.5 million in the period between election day and the end of December. However, a relatively small fraction of these funds was directly allocated to her legal expenses. Furthermore, funds raised through her nonprofit, Save Arizona Fund, are not subject to public disclosure, adding another layer of opacity to her fundraising activities.
Concurrently, Arizona taxpayers bear the financial burden of defending the election results. Maricopa County, as of March, had incurred significant costs, including payments to both in-house and external attorneys. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has also expended taxpayer funds on legal counsel related to these cases. The use of public resources to defend against challenges that have been largely unsuccessful in court raises questions about the financial implications of prolonged election disputes.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has characterized Lake’s ongoing legal efforts as the “pathetic last gasps of a sore loser,” reflecting a growing sentiment among some observers that these challenges are increasingly futile and primarily serve personal or political agendas.
“Election Law Amateurs” and Protracted Legal Process
Kari Lake’s persistent claims of election fraud and assertions that Maricopa County officials intentionally rigged the election have been consistently rejected by courts due to lack of substantiating evidence. Despite these setbacks, her legal team has pursued various avenues to challenge the election results, often drawing criticism for their approach and perceived inexperience in Arizona election law.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson initially allowed a limited number of Lake’s claims to proceed to trial but ultimately dismissed them due to insufficient evidence. This initial phase of legal proceedings adhered to the expedited timeline mandated by state law, concluding before the end of December.
However, subsequent appeals and legal maneuvers by Lake’s attorneys have been characterized as unconventional and time-consuming. County attorneys have noted that alternative legal strategies, such as filing a special action challenge or directly appealing to the Supreme Court, could have expedited the resolution process, potentially concluding the case before Governor Hobbs assumed office.
Stephen Richer attributed the protracted nature of the legal proceedings, in part, to the inexperience of Lake’s legal representation in Arizona election law. He pointed out that Kurt Olsen, one of Lake’s attorneys, previously practiced law in New York, and Bryan Blehm’s background was primarily in family law. Richer suggested that this lack of specialized expertise in Arizona election law contributed to the extended duration of the legal challenges.
Following her initial trial court loss, Kari Lake embarked on a nationwide tour, amplifying her claims of a stolen election and soliciting donations. Despite further legal defeats, including the affirmation of the lower court’s decision by the appeals court and the state Supreme Court, Lake has vowed to continue her legal fight, even hinting at taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lake’s central claim regarding fraudulent voter signatures has undergone several iterations. While county and state attorneys have consistently refuted her claims, asserting the integrity of signature verification processes, Lake’s legal team has persisted in challenging these procedures. The trial currently underway focuses on a refined version of this claim, alleging a systemic failure in signature verification processes.
Hamadeh’s Pursuit of Uncounted Votes and Ballots
In parallel with Lake’s legal challenges, Abe Hamadeh has also pursued legal avenues to contest his Attorney General race. Judge Lee Jantzen initially permitted several of Hamadeh’s claims to proceed to trial in December but ultimately dismissed them after a brief hearing.
A significant development in Hamadeh’s case emerged from the statewide recount, which revealed previously uncounted ballots in Pinal County. These errors narrowed the margin between Hamadeh and Mayes, prompting Hamadeh to file a motion for a new trial based on this “new evidence.”
Hamadeh’s legal team has also sought access to provisional ballots and tabulation machine data, aiming to demonstrate that votes were improperly rejected or uncounted in his favor. They have further alleged that attorneys representing Katie Hobbs, then Secretary of State, withheld information about the Pinal County ballot errors during the initial trial, potentially impacting the fairness of the proceedings.
While Hamadeh’s attorneys argue that granting a new trial is essential to maintain voter confidence, state and county legal representatives contend that prolonging the legal disputes would have the opposite effect. Judge Jantzen is currently deliberating on whether to grant Hamadeh’s request for a new trial.
Alex Gulotta emphasizes the need to explore mechanisms to expedite election-related appeals and potentially curb fundraising activities linked to prolonged legal challenges. He foresees the potential for recurring drawn-out election contests if they remain financially and politically advantageous for candidates, regardless of the factual basis of their claims.
Barrett Marson underscores the detrimental impact of these ongoing disputes on the Republican party in Arizona. He argues that the focus needs to shift towards future elections, particularly the upcoming Senate race in 2024. Marson stresses the importance of moving beyond the 2022 election challenges and concentrating on building momentum for future electoral contests.
Jen Fifield, a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona, contributed to this report.
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.
