Arizona Republican Party v. Richer2 min read

Arizona Supreme Court: Arizona Republican Party v. Richer

Case No. CV-23-0208-PR    Filed May 2, 2024

ISSUES:

1. Whether the attorney fees award against the Arizona Republican Party (ARP) and its attorneys under A.R.S. § 12-349(A)(1) and (F) was proper.
2. Whether the ARP’s claim challenging the hand count procedure was groundless and made in bad faith.
3. The applicability of the election-law time bar to post-election hand count procedures.

DECISION:

1. The attorney fees award was improper because the ARP’s claim was not groundless.
2. The court held that the ARP’s claim was not groundless because:
   a. Failure to name the Secretary of State as a defendant did not render the complaint groundless.
   b. The requested mandamus relief was not unavailable as a matter of law.
   c. It was debatable whether the hand count procedure was subject to the election-law time bar.
3. The court found that the hand count procedure is not a pure pre-election procedure, but rather straddles the election, making it unclear whether the election-law time bar fully applies.

Synopsis:
This case arose from a lawsuit challenging Maricopa County’s use of voting centers instead of precincts for a mandatory hand count following the 2020 general election. The Arizona Republican Party (ARP) sued, seeking declaratory and mandamus relief. The trial court dismissed the complaint and awarded attorney fees against the ARP and its attorneys under A.R.S. § 12-349(A)(1) and (F), finding the claim groundless and made in bad faith. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the attorney fees award, holding that the ARP’s claim was not groundless. The court clarified the interpretation and application of § 12-349, distinguishing between “not made in good faith” and “made in bad faith.” The court found that the ARP’s claim was at least fairly debatable and not devoid of rational support, and, therefore, not groundless. The court also addressed the election-law time bar.

Outcome of the Case:
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the attorney fees award against the ARP and its attorneys, vacating the lower courts’ rulings on this issue. The court did not address the dismissal of the ARP’s complaint, as that was not part of the review. The case clarifies the standards for awarding attorney fees under § 12-349 and raises questions about the applicability of the election-law time bar to procedures that span both pre- and post-election periods.