Following up on this post, a superior court in Arizona has rejected the argument to remove a candidate from the ballot on grounds she was a sham candidate. A snippet:

The court assumes that candidates have run for office for less than the noble motive of serving the public, which could include getting a better paying job, pension benefits, achieving a position of perceived importance, boredom, or no reason at all.  Divining candidates’ motives and acting on them is more properly the role of the voters.  Plaintiff’s remedy is through the ballot box and not the courts.

The court also dealt with the fact that overseas and military ballots with the candidate’s name were already out:

Two citizens have already voted. By the time new ballots could be printed and mailed to military and overseas voters, more may have voted. The court cannot take the chance that any voter will be disenfranchised by its ruling.

A concomitant right of our citizens is to run for elective office without having their motives examined by the court absent a clear case of fraud.

MORE from Anthony Tsonakis, lawyer for Ms. Cortes.