As attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh seeks to send his failed motion for a new trial directly to the Arizona Supreme Court, he’s met with stark opposition from the sitting attorney general and the secretary of state, and veiled support from the legislative leaders.

In an Aug. 16 filing, Hamadeh claims he seeks “to expeditiously count all valid votes and determine the constitutionally elected Attorney General with finality.” His attorneys decried the “dilatory conduct” of the trial court and implored the justices to expedite his appeal as “time is of the essence.”

Attorney General Kris Mayes claims the special action fails to meet the criteria as Hamadeh’s team has “an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” in a standard appeal, and they fail to cite any “‘extremely unusual circumstances’ that could justify leapfrogging over the court of appeals.” Mayes, a Democrat, beat Republican Hamadeh by 280 votes in the 2022 election.

Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, and House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Peoria, claimed they take “no position on which candidate received the highest number of votes” in their amicus brief, but took issue with Mayes’ and Secretary of State Andrian Fontes’ “litigation tactics,” which the lawmakers’ attorney described as, “afflicted with a barrage of indignant fulminations and obstructive machinations.”

Mohave County Judge Lee Jantzen, a Republican, denied Hamadeh’s motion for a new trial on July 19, but failed to sign a final appealable order.

Hamadeh filed a standard appeal, noting the absence of an appealable judgment. But he then filed a special action and asked the Arizona Supreme Court justices to reverse the trial court’s decision.

Hamadeh’s attorneys, Jen Wright and Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, claimed in the special action filing that there are “hundreds, if not thousands, of uncounted votes, that once counted, will prove that Abraham Hamadeh – not Kris Mayes – is the constitutionally elected Attorney General for the State of Arizona.”

Both Mayes and Hamadeh agree on the need for a final order, but Mayes and Fontes claim Hamadeh does not meet the criteria to fast-track his appeal.

Alexis Danneman, Mayes’ attorney, picks at Hamadeh’s “litigation strategy,” noting a failure to expedite review of rulings “about which they now complain.” She writes Hamadeh and his legal team “have sat on their hands for the last eight months” and notes Mayes, not Hamadeh, asked the court for a final order.

Hamadeh’s attorneys argue they were hamstrung from the start and claim they were, “completely deprived of access to the evidence necessary to prove their case” in limited ballot inspection and discovery.

They also challenged the “conflicting and inconsistent interpretations” of election contest statutes.

In their amicus curiae brief, Petersen and Toma align the Legislature with Hamadeh. Their attorney Thomas Basile argued the election contest timelines in statute are “directory, not mandatory.” And they further contend the law governing ballot inspection is “supplementary not exclusive of other discovery.”

Basile notes the Legislature’s intent was, “to secure a robust fact-finding process,” and “(i)f left uncorrected, the trial court’s misconception of these statutes would effectively disable mechanisms the Legislature established to ensure a rigorous verification and vetting of the vote count when, as here, there are genuine and good faith questions concerning the accuracy of the final tabulation.”

The legislative leaders further took issue with the litigation tactics of Mayes and Fontes, which Basile writes “have obstructed any searching judicial examination of the election’s administration.” Basile further wrote Fontes’ “frenzied opposition to this prospect is perplexing,” and said his attorney Craig Morgan’s “rhetorical assault is gratuitous and abusive.”

Mayes asked the court for attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the special action petition as she claims the attempt, on top of a separate standard appeal, unreasonably expands or delays proceedings.

She claims Hamadeh made at least two misrepresentations in claiming he requested final judgment from the Superior Court and a nonexistent stipulation from Mayes. Fontes asked for fees and sanctions on similar grounds.

Hamadeh characterized the two misrepresentations as an “unintentional error.” And he further argued his legal team did try to prompt a ruling by “nudging the court” in filing supplemental authority and requesting a scheduling contest.

The justices now take the matter under advisement and plan to issue a ruling without oral argument.