Wilenchik & Bartness PC
Wilenchik & Bartness PC lawyers involved with voter suppression
Wilenchik & Bartness PC worked on these lawsuits
| Name | Filed On | Court | Finalized | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward v. Jackson (Certification) | 11/24/20 | State | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Ward v. Constance (Certification) | 11/24/20 | State | No | N/A |
| Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes | 11/12/20 | State | Yes | Trump Lost |
People are saying
"The suit was brought against the wrong party, and far too late, for the requested relief." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"This case is a textbook example of unreasonable delay that calls for the application of laches. The plaintiff could have gone forward with the case months ago. Instead it waited until after the election, after the statutory deadline for commencing the hand count audit, and (as it turned out) after the completion of the audit. The delay prejudiced both the defendants and the public." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"It is telling that the plaintiff lost interest in the declaratory judgment claim, and pivoted instead to the request for an injunction to stop the certification of the election and the canvass of the results, as soon as the defendants made clear that the hand count audit has been completed. . . . The real issue, evidently, was the outcome of the 2020 election." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"These longstanding [election] rules . . . remain vital today, guarding the electoral process against the gamesmanship of those who might otherwise hedge against a loss at the polls by holding legal issues in reserve or use the law as a tool to thwart the will of the voters." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"It is telling that the plaintiff lost interest in the declaratory judgment claim, and pivoted instead . . . to stop the certification of the election and the canvass of the results, as soon as the defendants made clear that the hand count audit has been completed. The plaintiff could have pursued the declaratory judgment claim to determine how to audit future voting center elections. That it did not do so demonstrates that its real interest was not the audit procedure as such. The real issue, evidently, was the outcome of the 2020 election." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"This case is a textbook example of unreasonable delay that calls for the application of laches. The plaintiff could have gone forward with the case months ago. Instead it waited until after the election, after the statutory deadline for commencing the hand count audit, and (as it turned out) after the completion of the audit. The delay prejudiced both the defendants and the public." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"A judge cannot change the election rules whenever someone has 'questions' or 'concerns' about the results." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"The hand counts verified that the machines had counted the votes flawlessly." -
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.
"[T]he challenge fails to present any evidence of 'misconduct,' 'illegal votes' or that the Biden Electors 'did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office,' let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results, . . ." -
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel
"The Evidence Does Not Show An Erroneous Vote Count. . . . Plaintiff has not proven that the Biden/Harris ticket did not receive the highest number of votes." -
Judge Randall H. Warner
"The Evidence Does Not Show Illegal Votes." -
Judge Randall H. Warner
"The Evidence Does Not Show Fraud Or Misconduct. . . . There is no evidence that the manner in which signatures were reviewed was designed to benefit one candidate or another, or that there was any misconduct, impropriety, or violation of Arizona law with respect to review of mail-in ballots. . . . The Court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election." -
Judge Randall H. Warner