Copyright 2024 Patriot Mom Digest
The Supreme Court has officially declined to review a pivotal lawsuit that aimed to eliminate the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona's elections.
The Hill reported that this decision by the Supreme Court upholds previous court decisions, effectively ending challenges raised by Republican candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem.
Before the 2022 midterm elections, Kari Lake, a gubernatorial candidate, and Mark Finchem, who ran for secretary of state, both Republicans, initiated a lawsuit. Their primary complaint? The trustworthiness of electronic voting machines used in Arizona. They expressed concerns about the machines' accuracy and potential susceptibility to hacking.
The litigation saw its inception as the November elections approached, spearheaded by Lake and Finchem’s apprehension toward electronic voting systems. Their energies were channeled into a lawsuit filed with the hopes of ceasing the deployment of these machines in the electoral process.
However, both Lake and Finchem faced defeat in their political bids. As their electoral hopes dwindled, so too did the initial momentum of their legal challenge, which was dismissed by a federal judge later that year. This dismissal was rooted in a lack of standing and sufficient evidence to prove the likelihood of future harm, a crucial aspect in such legal contests.
The duo pressed on, taking their case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the federal judge's decision the following year. The court highlighted the lack of evidence for any past harm caused by the machines, emphasizing the speculative nature of the plaintiffs’ claims concerning possible future hacking incidents.
The appellate court further noted the existence of stringent safeguards in Arizona’s voting protocol. These include the use of paper ballots and procedures for retaining these ballots post-tabulation, measures considered adequate in preempting the alleged issues Lake and Finchem brought forth.
This week, the Supreme Court weighed in, deciding not to reconsider the case, thus barring any further legal recourse for Lake and Finchem through this avenue. This decision mirrors the reasoning of the lower courts, underscoring the potential redundancy of the challenge given Arizona's existing voting security measures.
Kurt Olsen, the attorney representing Lake and Finchem, expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s refusal.
“We are disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the decisions of the Arizona district court and the Ninth Circuit, and order that our challenge to the 2022 election procedures be heard on the merits,” Olsen stated.
Olsen’s remarks did not end with expressing disappointment. He hinted at the continuity of their legal strategy into future elections. “Although the Supreme Court grants review in less than 1 percent of cases presented on the petition, we believe we presented a case,” Olsen added, indicating that the issues raised might resurface as the 2024 elections approach.
The battle over electronic voting machines in Arizona is indicative of a broader national debate over electoral integrity and security. As technology increasingly interfaces with democratic processes, the balance between innovation and security becomes crucial. The conclusions drawn from this case may set precedents for how similar disputes are approached in the future.
In their rulings, both the district court and the appellate court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and the speculative nature of the harms cited by Lake and Finchem. Their decisions underscore a judicial approach that prioritizes evidentiary support over theoretical harms in election-related lawsuits.
“In the end, none of Plaintiffs’ allegations supports a plausible inference that their votes in future elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation," noted the 9th Circuit. This comment encapsulates the courts' stance on requiring more than just hypothetical risks to substantiate legal claims against established voting systems.
This legal journey, while ending in disappointment for Lake and Finchem, highlights the ongoing discussions and potential legal challenges facing electronic voting systems nationwide. As the 2024 elections draw near, the dialogue surrounding the security and reliability of these systems is likely to intensify, with stakeholders from across the political and technological spectrums weighing in.
The Supreme Court's refusal to revive Lake's and Finchem’s lawsuit closes this chapter on their 2022 electoral grievances. However, it also opens up broader questions about how future electoral disputes will be handled, especially those involving advanced technologies. As noted by Olsen, the fight to address concerns related to electronic voting systems is far from over, hinting at continued legal scrutiny as newer technologies embed within the electoral framework.