The Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake challenging the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona. Lake, who initially filed the lawsuit during her campaign for governor in 2022, questioned whether the state’s electronic voting machines ensured a fair and accurate vote. Two lower courts dismissed the suit, stating that Lake and former Republican state lawmaker Mark Finchem had not suffered harm that allowed them to sue. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals described Lake’s claim as unclear and based on speculative concerns about the machines being hacked.
Despite citing opinions from purported experts on manipulation risks in their lawsuit, Lake and Finchem did not claim that any electronic tabulation machine in Arizona had ever been hacked. Lake’s lawyers conceded on appeal that their arguments were focused on potential future hacking rather than any past harm. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without comment, a common practice for such cases. The Arizona Secretary of State and the boards of supervisors of Maricopa and Pima Counties, who were defendants in the case, waived their right to respond to the Supreme Court appeal, indicating they believed the litigation was meritless.
Lake criticized the Supreme Court for what she referred to as “institutional inertia” on election issues, particularly after the court intervened in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. She noted the court’s heavy involvement in various appeals involving former President Donald Trump, who is expected to be the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The lack of response from the Arizona Secretary of State and the boards of supervisors suggested that they considered the lawsuit to be frivolous. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals highlighted Lake’s vague claim and the speculative nature of the concerns raised in the lawsuit regarding potential hacking of the electronic voting machines.
The dismissal of Lake’s appeal by the Supreme Court without any comment indicated that they did not find merit in her claims or see a reason to review the lower court decisions. Lake and Finchem’s inability to demonstrate concrete harm from the electronic voting machines in Arizona undermined the basis of their lawsuit. The appeals court acknowledged that the lawsuit did not provide evidence of any past instances of electronic tabulation machines being hacked in Arizona. Despite citing opinions from experts, Lake and Finchem’s arguments were centered on hypothetical future hacking scenarios rather than actual incidents.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reject Lake’s appeal underscored the importance of demonstrating actual harm in legal challenges related to election processes. Lake’s criticism of the court for their handling of election issues and comparison to previous cases like Bush v. Gore highlighted her frustration with the outcome. The court’s involvement in various appeals related to former President Donald Trump illustrated the ongoing contentious nature of election disputes in the United States. The dismissal of Lake’s lawsuit served as a reminder of the legal standards and requirements for pursuing challenges to election procedures in a court of law.
