Michael Kiefer

The Republic | azcentral.com

Hearings Monday and Tuesday were to determine if there was legal cause to go forward with trial

The state and the counties argued that the complaint was neither timely nor adequately prepared

After two days of testimony, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed to invalidate the March Arizona presidential preference election.

The suit was filed against Secretary of State Michele Reagan and every Arizona county by attorney Michael Kielsky on behalf of a Tucson man named John Brakey, who says his occupation is "election integrity activist." In their pleadings, they alleged that voter-registration requests were mishandled and the number of polling places in Maricopa County was improperly cut.

Hearings Monday and Tuesday were to determine if there was legal cause to go forward with trial.

The state and the counties countered that the complaint was neither timely nor adequately prepared. And they questioned whether election law applied to presidential preference elections. Judge David Gass took the matter under advisement but allowed the evidentiary hearing to go forward.

During his argument, Kielsky further alleged that 100,000 voters were disenfranchised and that fraud had been committed. He paraded numerous angry voters to the witness stand, but on cross-examination, assistant Maricopa County attorneys were able to show that most of their votes had in fact been counted.

Gass questioned the credentials of the expert witnesses Kielsky and Brakey tried to present. One suggested hackers could have broken into voting databases kept by counties and the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles. Another said that voting-analysis professionals "voided" his methods because, "They don't want to know the truth."

Ultimately, Gass noted that the only reasons an election could be invalidated are if there is proof of election-board misconduct or fraud that would change the outcome. Gass ruled that Kielsky and Brakey had not met the burden of proof, and that it would not have made a difference. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won handily.

Brakey himself asked to testify as an expert witness in the case, but said under cross-examination that he had no formal computer or legal training and that he had not published peer-reviewed books or articles on the subject. He was denied the chance to testify as an expert.

"These are always emotional issues," Gass said. "Elections are human endeavors; they are never perfect."

"Otherwise, what we face is trying to undo an election," he said. Gass acknowledged that the number of polling places was inadequate — some voters stood in line for 5½ hours — but said that such issues should be worked out ahead of time.

After the hearing, Brakey said he did not intend to appeal the ruling.

"We've achieved what we wanted," he said.

Kielsky elaborated: "We did achieve one of our goals. We were able to present the evidence that we could muster to expose some of the (voting) misdeeds."