Arizona Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer has agreed to hear cases filed by Kari Lake, Abe Hamadeh, and Mark Finchem stemming from the  2022 midterm election. The review is scheduled for November 6, 2024, two days after this year’s Presidential election. In an interview with Capitol Media Service, Timmer stated that there was no effort by the court to have the issues decided before November 5, despite all three currently running for different offices.

When asked about the candidates’ concerns that the case was being “slow-walked, Timmer replied, “I assume they’ve got very good attorneys, attorney(s) that know what they’re doing. They know our process.” She continued, “Had they felt the need to accelerate it and to bring it to our attention, they could have done it. And they didn’t.”

But Abe Hamadeh’s spokesperson, Erica Knight, sees it differently. She stated, “At no point has the court given any indication they have the urgency to see the closest race in Arizona history to get litigated.” Hamadeh lost the race for attorney general by just 280 votes. Knight added that Abe has moved on and is currently the favorite to win the CD8 Congressional seat vacated by Debbie Lesko (R). Knight added, “Abe is committed to saving his country and doesn’t have the time to wait on certain justices to find their courage.”

Hamadeh’s Supreme Court case centers on concerns that Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen denied sufficient time to present evidence of alleged irregularities in the 2022 vote tally. Hamadeh has claimed all along that the vote totals were inaccurate and incomplete.

Kari Lake’s argument also addresses vote tallies, adding what Lake describes as “new evidence.” She’s claiming a wide array of concerns, including the election board’s alleged failure to complete mandatory “logic and accuracy” testing on tabulating machines and the disenfranchisement of voters who, frustrated by long lines and broken tabulators on election day, left without voting. She alleges the irregularities occurred primarily in heavily Republican precincts, resulting in her 17,117-vote deficit.

Mark Finchem’s case is about legal fees. He is challenging a $47K chargeback for legal fees allegedly incurred by the Secretary of State’s office. Finchem argues that Appellate Judge Samuel Thumma incorrectly upheld the SOS’s claim that there were no grounds for filing the lawsuit in the first place. Thumma claimed that Finchem’s original challenge violated the “good faith belief” of a legitimate legal basis. Finchem disagrees.

Justice Timmer denies all allegations of a conspiracy, whether in the original cases or the timing of the judicial review. She stated, “… I want to say, conspiracy minded or just disbelieving that people act according to a process and without any ill intent, people are going to see what they see.” She asserted that the conference date – the day after the upcoming election – is purely “coincidental.”