An Arizona trial court has ruled that Kari Lake’s attempt to contest the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election has failed because Lake utterly failed to prove that there was any intentional misconduct, much less misconduct that could have affected the outcome of the election:

It bears mentioning that because of the requested remedy – setting aside the result of the election – the question that is before the Court is of monumental importance to every voter. The margin of victory as reported by the official canvass is 17,117 votes – beyond the scope of a
statutorily required recount. A court setting such a margin aside, as far as the Court is able to determine, has never been done in the history of the United States. This challenge also comes after a hotly contested gubernatorial race and an ongoing tumult over election procedures and legitimacy – a far less uncommon occurrence in this country. See e.g., Hunt, supra. This Court acknowledges the anger and frustration of voters who were subjected to inconvenience and confusion at voter centers as technical problems arose during the 2022 General Election.

But this Court’s duty is not solely to incline an ear to public outcry. It is to subject Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ actions to the light of the courtroom and scrutiny of the law. See Winsor v. Hunt, 29 Ariz. 504, 512 (1926) (“It is the boast of American democracy that this is a government of laws, and not of men.”) And so, the Court begins with a review of the evidence….

After what I consider to be an overly charitable review of the evidence put on by Lake, and bending over backwards to accept the good faith of Lake’s witnesses, the court found no clear and convincing evidence of either official misconduct or anything that would call Hobb’s victory into question.

The important point here is that Lake got her day in court. She had a chance to prove her allegations and utterly, utterly failed. She cannot claim that she didn’t get a fair shot to make her case. Like Trump in 2020, Lake has nothing but inadvertent administrative errors that show neither intentional misconduct nor anything that could have swung the outcome of the case.

I don’t expect this ruling (or the likely appeal and affirmance of this ruling) to stop Lake from lying. But no one should give her claims any credence.