The judge in the election challenge denied requests for sanctions and attorney fees but did grant $33,000 to pay for witnesses.
Although Lake didn't provide the "clear and convincing evidence" needed to prevail in her case, that was not the same as saying her lawsuit over the results of the Arizona governor's race was groundless.
His decision came a day after attorneys on both sides of the lawsuit made their arguments on whether or not a request for nearly $700,000 in attorney fees and other expenses was merited.
After Thompson rejected Lake's challenge of the outcome of the governor's race, there were a lot of arguments over the holiday weekend.
The motions for attorneys' fees and other costs related to the case from Lake's camp were filed by the defendants.
The attorneys for the board of supervisors and the governor-elect argued that sanctions should be imposed because Lake presented a frivolous case that lacked any evidence to support her claims.
Attorneys for the county argued that the purpose of the case was to raise doubts about the integrity and security of the general election.
One thing to do on TV and social media sites is one thing to try to use the courts to achieve that goal.
On the day after she lost her case, Lake commented on her account. She linked to a TownHall.com report that said Lake's case shows voter suppression is no longer important. Rachel Alexander, an attorney and conservative writer, attached a comment from Lake that said legal experts believed Thompson's ruling was ghostwritten. Lake has deleted her comments.
Lake's attorneys said that their lawsuit was legitimate because Thompson advanced two of Lake's claims to trial even as he dismissed eight others. Lake's case was thrown out on Christmas Eve and the winner of the race was declared.
The same reasoning was used by the attorneys as they argued against sanctions.
Those who bring legitimate claims are not punished by the election process. The opposite effect would be caused by the sanction of the lawsuit.
The witnesses they presented pointed to the fact that the case was not evidence-free.
Thompson ruled that the electoral malfeasance alleged in the case was not intentional and was intended to deny Lake a victory.
Thompson said he wouldn't reverse the will of the voters and that the margin of victory was past the threshold for an automatic recount.
"Setting such a margin aside, as far as the Court has been able to determine, has never been done in the history of the United States," Thompson wrote.
After the requests had been filed, he would issue a judgement on the sanctions. The details of the defendants' costs were presented by their attorneys. If the court accepted them, they would need more time to prepare.
Thompson limited the award of fees to the legal team that was paid for expert witnesses in the case. The interest rate was 7.5%.
While this is the first election challenge in which sanctions requests have been filed, the judge has allowed attorneys to file a similar request. A court dismissed the case of the man who lost his bid for secretary of state. The first week of January is when they must submit those files.
Attorneys for Attorney General-elect Kris Mayes have asked for permission to file a sanctions request in the case brought by the man who lost the AG race.
Lake said she would appeal.
The state Supreme Court was where the appeal was taken.
He said he would wait for the results of the recount before making a decision.
The results of the recount will be made public.
The reporter can be reached at maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com and she can also be reached on social media.
Local journalism needs your support. You can subscribe to azcentral.com
The original article was on the Arizona Republic.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
