By Howard Fischer
Twitter: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — A second-term Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count was formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counted the state’s electors.

The proposal of Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court. That would include allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.

That actually would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint, serves.

The most sweeping provision says that, regardless of any other law, the legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who are the state’s presidential electors. And it spells out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, can revoke the formal certification of the results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.

Ms. Bolick is not the first Republican to advance the argument that lawmakers can trump voter decisions.

Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, has repeatedly argued the U.S. Constitution gives Arizona lawmakers “plenary authority” to determine who gets the state’s electoral votes.

Only thing is the legislature was not in session and House Speaker Rusty Bowers rebuffed his efforts to call a hearing of the House Federal Relations Committee, which Mr. Finchem chaired last year, to look at ways the 2020 election could have been tainted. Mr. Bowers said state law is clear that the electors are selected based on the certified voter count.

So Mr. Finchem and others decided to conduct their own unofficial, away-from-the-Capitol hearing in late November to hear allegations from Mr. Trump’s legal team on how the election was rigged.

That had all the legal authority and effect of a political rally.
Ms. Bolick seeks to get around that with her law specifically authorizing a legislative override.

Less clear, though, is exactly how that would work.

It’s not just a question of the fact Congress actually counts each state’s electoral votes and announces two weeks before Inauguration Day who was elected, her deadline for state lawmakers to make a final decision whether to change the electoral tally. Absent Congress reconvening to recount the tally — something that may not be legal under federal law — there is no way to recount or change the vote.

Potentially more problematic, Ms. Bolick’s HB 2720 says lawmakers can take that action “without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter.”

That by itself would appear to violate the Arizona Constitution, which spells out when the legislature is, in fact, in session and when it can act.

More practically, Ms. Bolick’s proposal does not explain how there even could be a majority vote if there is no formal, on-the-record vote at a non-existent legislative session.

Ms. Bolick did not respond to multiple requests to discuss her measure or answer questions. But Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wasted no time in reacting, calling the proposal “breathtaking.”

“So really, we should just get rid of the presidential election altogether?” she asked in a Twitter message. “In reality, that’s what this bill would do.”

Julie Erfle, a Democratic political consultant, was a bit more succinct, saying that Ms. Bolick’s bill “gives AZ voters the middle finger.”

Ms. Bolick isn’t alone in trying to alter the state’s electoral system in the wake of results that showed Democrat Joe Biden had outpolled incumbent Republican Donald Trump in Arizona. Other GOP lawmakers have their own ideas.

But aside from legislative veto of election results, Ms. Bolick’s HB 2720 seeks to put into statute other ways that election results can be monitored.

For example, it would require counties to create digitized images of all ballots that would be available to the public to review.

She also wants the public to be able to monitor what happens when a ballot cannot be read by tallying equipment, perhaps because of stray marks or an individual votes for more than one candidate for an office.

That normally involves election workers from both parties reviewing the ballot and creating a new one attempting to determine the voter’s intent that could be fed through the machine. Ms. Bolick wants the images of these duplicated ballots posted on a county website within 24 hours.

And she wants to expand an existing law that now allows for up to three observers representing candidates or political parties at the counting center. HB 2720 would require there also be at least 10 individuals from the general public who are registered voters in the county.

Then there’s the issue of how courts have to handle election challenges.

There were a series of lawsuits following the results showing a Biden victory. That includes one by Kelli Ward, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, who contended there were mistakes made in the process of duplicating ballots.

Dr. Ward argued those mistakes denied votes that should have gone to Mr. Trump.

A trial judge did agree to have a review of a random sample of 1,626 of these duplicated ballots. And that did turn up errors.

But the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewing that case, said the error rate was no more than 0.55%. And Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said extrapolating that out over the 27,869 ballots that had been duplicated would have gained Mr. Trump no more than 153 votes, which would not have affected the outcome of the election.

Ms. Bolick’s bill would have required the case to go to a jury regardless of merits and precluded the trial judge — and, ultimately the Supreme Court — from concluding ahead of that the case had no legal merit or practical chance to succeed. And the same would apply to challenges to future election returns.