The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review a significant lawsuit concerning electronic voting machines from Arizona.
Just The News reported that the Supreme Court's rejection effectively ends the challenge by Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem against electronic voting systems certified for elections.
In April 2022, before the midterm elections, Kari Lake, a candidate for governor, and Mark Finchem, who vied for secretary of state, jointly filed a federal lawsuit. They argued that the electronic voting machines used in Arizona elections violated constitutional rights.
The lawsuit faced an early defeat in federal court, with a judge dismissing the case in August 2022. This initial decision was subsequently upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October of the same year.
Both Lake and Finchem experienced unsuccessful bids in the 2022 midterm elections, which formed a backdrop to their legal challenges against the voting machines they criticized.
On a routine Monday, alongside several other decisions, the Supreme Court announced its refusal to grant a writ of certiorari to the case. This refusal effectively prevents any further judicial review of their claims at the highest level of the U.S. judiciary.
The lawsuit garnered support in the form of amici curiae briefs from several state Republican parties, including those from Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Nebraska, and New Mexico. Additionally, 11 county Republican committees showed their support through similar briefs.
Attorney Kurt Olsen, representing Lake and Finchem, expressed profound disappointment with the Supreme Court's decision. He emphasized the case's significance and his belief in its merit despite the high court's refusal.
Olsen critiqued the legal process, pointing out the Supreme Court's traditionally selective review approach. He noted that although only a small percentage of petitions are granted review, he had hoped their case would be seen as warranting such attention.
The dismissal, according to Olsen, was not on the merits of the case but on an asserted lack of standing to claim injury. He explained, "The Kari Lake and Mark Finchem case was dismissed based on a purported lack of standing to assert an injury. Therefore, the courts, even now, have not ruled on the merits of our case."
Olsen remains committed to pursuing these issues, especially in light of upcoming elections. "We will continue to raise these issues especially in light of the upcoming 2024 election," he stated, indicating an ongoing fight in electoral integrity debates.
As this chapter in their legal battle closes, both Lake and Finchem are turning their attention towards future electoral cycles, suggesting that the issues raised by their lawsuit will remain in the political discourse.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case leaves many questions unanswered about electronic voting systems and their compliance with constitutional standards. This outcome may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
As political figures and parties digest this development, the decision is likely to have reverberations in upcoming election strategies and the ongoing national conversation about voting integrity and electoral reform.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision marks the end of the judicial road for Lake and Finchem's challenge to electronic voting machines in Arizona. Despite the setback, the issues at the heart of their lawsuit will continue to be a significant part of the electoral landscape as the 2024 elections approach. This case underscores the contentious and pivotal nature of how votes are cast and counted in America.
