Arizona Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, filed a motion asking to quash the subpoena to appear at Wednesday’s election hearing.
The motion was denied.
She then filed an emergency motion to reconsider the matter.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and Katie Hobbs filed Motions to Quash their subpoenas earlier this week, alleging that they will be subjected to undue burden or expense.
Hobbs also argued that she “was not served with a subpoena to testify in her personal capacity. She was subpoenaed to testify at trial in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State. Indeed, she was not personally served with a subpoena, and no one contacted her lawyers in her capacity as “Governor-Elect” to accept service.”
Judge Peter Thompson denied these motions last night.
Hobbs and Richer are both terrified to testify under oath about their crimes against Kari Lake and her voters.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who oversaw early voting, founded and operated the Pro-Democracy Republicans PAC, a dark money PAC aimed at eliminating candidates with a MAGA agenda.
Last night, Hobbs filed an Emergency Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Denying Motion to Quash.
The motion states:
Defendant Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as Arizona’s Secretary of State (“Secretary”), respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its December 19, 2022 order denying her Motion to Quash Subpoena for Appearance at Hearing (“Subpoena Order”).
In denying the Secretary’s Motion, the Court noted that “given the nature of the case – where the questions of fact range from technical minutiae to broader issues of election manual interpretation – the Court cannot say that . . . the testimony is ‘completely irrelevant or marginally relevant.’” [Subpoena Order at 3] The Court further noted that the Subpoena seeks
“discovery concerning an activity wholly within her wheelhouse: the conduct of elections.” But in an order issued at the same time dismissing 8 of the 10 counts in Plaintiff’s complaint (“MTD Order”) and narrowing the scope of the two remaining counts that will proceed to trial, the Court effectively answered its own question. Good cause exist for the Court to reconsider the Subpoena Order, and to quash the Subpoena.
Under the MTD order, only two narrow issues will proceed to trial:
- Count II, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that “a person employed by Maricopa County interfered with BOD printers in violation of Arizona law, resulting in some number of lost votes for Plaintiff,” meaning “Plaintiff is entitled to attempt to prove at trial that 1) the malfeasant person was a covered person under (A)(1); 2) the printer malfunctions caused by this individual directly resulted in identifiable lost votes for Plaintiff; and 3) that these votes would have affected the outcome of the election” [MTD Order at 6]; and
- Count IV, to the that extent that Plaintiff can attempt to prove “1) the ability of employees of the county’s ballot contractor to add ballots of family members and 2) the lack of an Inbound Receipt of Delivery form both constitute misconduct” [id. at 8].
Neither of these claims have anything whatsoever to do with the Secretary, any of her or her Office’s duties or responsibilities, or any personal knowledge she may have. What’s left of Count II involves specific allegations that “a person employed by Maricopa County” engaged in certain “intentional misconduct” that affected election day operations in Maricopa County. But the Secretary has nothing to do with Maricopa County’s election day operations; that is a responsibility of Maricopa County. And what’s left of Count IV is no different, as what’s left deals with specific issues related to the “county’s ballot contractor” and the alleged “lack of an Inbound Receipt of Delivery” – a county form. The Secretary has nothing to do with the operations of the “county’s ballot contractor,” and certainly has no role in keeping or maintaining “Inbound Receipt[s] of Delivery” on election day in Maricopa County.
Though there was no good-faith basis for the Subpoena to begin with, and there is absolutely no good faith basis to require the Secretary to testify now given the scope of the MTD Order. And to the extent Plaintiff has any questions that are relevant (and there is simply no way she could), Kori Lorick, State Elections Director, has already been disclosed as a potential witness who “may testify regarding the Arizona Secretary of State’s election-related duties and responsibilities, or other matters related to the Secretary of State’s Office relevant to this case.”[See Exhibit A]
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court should reconsider the Subpoena Order, and quash the Subpoena issued to the Secretary.
Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted the news about these motions and Hobbs’ refusal to testify.
Garrett Archer just tweeted that Kari Lake’s lawyers have chosen to withdraw their subpoena of Katie Hobbs, and she will not testify tomorrow.
Stephen Richer will still be required to testify on the intentional misconduct that led to failures of ballot-on-demand printers and tabulators on election day and hundreds of thousands of ballots lacking chain of custody documentation. He will need to answer all of the questions truthfully under penalty of perjury, and Lake’s attorneys should have all the time they need to question him.
