By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- A group of largely unnamed individuals is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to void the 2018 and 2020 election returns, raging from governor and some legislators to sheriffs of Pima and Maricopa County.
And they want the justices then to install them as replacements.
The often rambling 26 pages of legal arguments and 116 pages of exhibits contend that the equipment used at both elections was no properly certified. That, the lawsuit claims, makes the election results unreliable and void.
More to the point, they argue that once the offices are declared legally vacant, that empowers the justices to name replacements. And they contend they are the ones who should be put in place, at least until a properly run special election could be called.
It isn't just the last two statewide elections they contend are flawed. The plaintiffs also want the justices to overturn the 2019 Tucson city election, specifically naming Mayor Regina Romero as holding office illegally.
The lawsuit, filed without an attorney, asks the justices to keep their names and personal information secret "due to a reasonable concern for their safety.''
Instead, it is filed under the banner of "We the People of the State of Arizona, ex rel.'' That is an abbreviation of the legal term "ex ralatione'' designed to indicate to the court that it is being filed on behalf of the state of Arizona.
Only one name is disclosed: Rayana B. Eldan who lists herself a s the "representative voice'' for the legal filing. And the only contact is an email address.
She, in turn, referred questions to another email account, this one operated by Daniel Wood who was a Republican candidate for Congress last year. He did not immediately respond to questions.
But Eldan, in her filing, did tell the justices that if they take up the case the names will have to be disclosed, though she requested that other personal information such as addresses and birth dates remain off limits to public view.
The claim about the certification of is based on the fact that election equipment in Arizona is certified and tested by outside labs under various federal and state standards. There also are local tests done before and after each election.
The lawsuit, however, claims that these outside labs did not have valid contracts with the federal Election Assistance Commission.
"If the contractor labs did not renew their contracts, then how can they be allowed access to our most critical infrastructure?'' the lawsuit asks. "How can they certify anything when they have not agreed to abide by law?''
So far, though, every other legal challenge that has been mounted to the 2020 results has been thrown out of court.
One thing the lawsuit does not seek is a reversal of the state's 11 electoral votes going to Joe Biden. That likely is beyond the reach of Arizona courts.
But legal battles still could be in the offing on other fronts as the Senate was moving Monday to issue subpoenas for the five Maricopa County supervisors and a top county election official demanding that they produce certain passwords for counting equipment used in 2020 at voting centers. That equipment, having been produced after an earlier subpoena, now is being examined at Veterans Memorial Coliseum by Cyber Ninjas, the firm hired by Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, to review the conduct of the general elections.
Senators also want Cyber Ninjas to have access access to the county's computer router system, something that would allow them to trace contacts not only among county computers but also any computer traffic to or from outside sources. County officials, acting at the behest of Sheriff Paul Penzone, have said that complying would endanger law enforcement operations as the routers include traffic beyond the recorder's office and election department.
The papers filed at the Supreme Court are based on claims that state and federal laws about the conduct of elections and the certification of equipment were not followed.
"Conditions for receiving votes for office were not met as to law and statute,'' the petition reads. "Therefore respondents are inadvertent usurpers.''
What that also means, the legal papers state, is that if all members of the executive branch are holding office illegally, they can't be the ones to name replacements if the justices agree. "Therefore it falls to the court to appoint.''
What the lawsuit ignores is that Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Justices Andrew Gould and John Lopez themselves were on the 2020 ballot to be retained. And the 2018 ballot included Clint Bolick and John Pelander, the latter who has since retired.
There also is no explanation of why, while alleging all of the results are invalid, only certain elected officials were named as defendants whose offices should be declared vacant.
For example, it seeks the ouster of just four representatives: Republicans Rusty Bowers and Travis Grantham and Democrats Randall Friese and Domingo DeGrazia (whose name they misspelled). And the only senators challenged are Democrats Victoria Steele and Kirsten Engel, here, too, with a misspelled name.
And the list of those statewide officers to be replaced skips over Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
One possible explanation is the bid by the challengers to get the justices to install them as replacements.
"Petitioners were not groomed for office nor intended to hold public office, and yet all are competent citizens who meet the constitutional requirements for each position challenged,'' they state. That suggests they have only plaintiffs who live in certain legislative districts. And the position of attorney general requires that someone be authorized to practice law in Arizona.
A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who is named in the legal papers, said the filing will "get all the attention it deserves.''
