2024-06-06 Mot. To Recall Mandate (Filed)

Case: 22-16413, 06/06/2024, ID: 12889991, DktEntry: 64-1, Page 1 of 36
No. 22-16413
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Kari Lake, Mark Finchem,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kathleen Hobbs, as Arizona Secretary of State; Bill Gates, Clint Hickman, Jack
Sellers, Thomas Galvin, and Steve Gallardo, in their capacity as members of the
Maricopa Board of Supervisors; Rex Scott, Matt Heinz, Sharon Bronson, Steve
Christy, Adelita Grijalva, as Members of the Pima County Board of Supervisors,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona
No. 22-cv-00677-JJT
Hon. John J. Tuchi
Appellants’ Motion to Recall Mandate
Kurt Olsen
(DC Bar No. 445279)
Olsen Law, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
[email protected]
Attorney for Appellants

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Addendum ................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................i
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Appellees’ False statements ....................................................................................... 2
New Developments .................................................................................................... 4
Contrary to its representations, Maricopa uses illegally altered election
software. .................................................................................................... 5
Contrary to its representations, Maricopa does not perform required
L&A testing. .............................................................................................. 6
Appellees failed to correct their false material statements. ............................... 7
Standard of Review .................................................................................................... 7
Argument.................................................................................................................... 8
I. This Court has authority to recall the mandate. ................................................. 8
II. Appellants’ motion is timely. ............................................................................ 9
III. Recalling the mandate is warranted. ................................................................ 10
A. Maricopa’s election misconduct violates due process. ........................... 10
B. Appellees’ counsel engaged in fraud on the court. ................................. 11
1. Appellees materially misrepresented Maricopa’s election
security. ........................................................................................... 12
2. Arizona’s robust duty to correct applies to federal civil-rights
appeals. ............................................................................................ 14
3. Appellees’ knowing failure to correct their
misrepresentations constitute willful deceit. ................................... 16
C. Recalling the mandate is necessary to revisit whether Appellants
pled a valid injury-in-fact under Article III. ............................................ 17
1. Appellants’ injuries are not speculative under Article III............... 18
2. Appellants’ injuries are not generalized under Article III. ............. 20
a. New evidence and allegations preclude mootness for
“candidate standing.” ................................................................ 21
b. Appellants’ new evidence requires revisiting whether
voters allege particularized concrete injury. ............................. 22
D. The District Court’s other bases for dismissal were meritless. ............... 24
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 24
ia
Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 26

Certificate of Service ..................................................................................................i
ADDENDUM
Lake v. Fontes, No. 22-16413 (Oct. 16, 2023) ........................................................ 1a

ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 1.6.................................................................................... 12a
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3.................................................................................... 19a
Supreme Court of Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, Ethics
Opinion EO-20-0007, 1 (May 19, 2021) ..................................................... 25a
Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2019 Elections Procedures Manual (excerpt) ...................... 35a
Maricopa County Election Facts—Voting Equipment & Accuracy (excerpt) ...... 39a
Letter from Kurt B. Olsen to Appellees’ Counsel (Apr. 2, 2024) ......................... 41a
Declaration of Clay U. Parikh (Mar. 18, 2024) ..................................................... 67a
Second Declaration of Benjamin R. Cotton (Mar. 19, 2024) .............................. 110a
Letter from Rachel Mitchell, Maricopa County Attorney, to Kurt B. Olsen
(Apr. 10, 2024) .......................................................................................... 196a
Letter from Kara Karlson, Arizona Office of Attorney General, to Kurt B.
Olsen (Apr. 11, 2024) ................................................................................ 198a
iia
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs,

18 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 11
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.,
429 U.S. 252 (1977)....................................................................................... 11
Bateson v. Geisse,
857 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 11
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007)....................................................................................... 18
Bennett v. Yoshina,
140 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998) ....................................................................... 11
Calderon v. Thompson,
523 U.S. 538 (1998)..................................................................................... 8-9
Carey v. Piphus,
435 U.S. 247 (1978)....................................................................................... 22
Carney v. Adams,
141 S.Ct. 493 (2020)...................................................................................... 17
Carson v. Simon,
978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 21
Champlin v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
231 Ariz. 265 (App. 2013)............................................................................. 17
City of Waukesha v. EPA,
320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 18
Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417 (1998)....................................................................................... 19
Coleman v. Turpen,
827 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 20
Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers v. Molasky-Arman,
522 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 23
Curling v. Raffensperger,
___ F.Supp.3d ___ (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2023)............................................... 20
i
Dixon v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,

316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 10
Eat Right Foods, Ltd. v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc.,
880 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 9
Ex parte Young,
209 U.S. 123 (1908).................................................................................16, 24
FEC v. Akins,
524 U.S. 11 (1998)...................................................................................21, 23
Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 18-19
Gill v. Whitford,
585 U.S. 48 (2018)......................................................................................... 21
Golonka v. GMC,
204 Ariz. 575 (App. 2003)............................................................................. 14
Gray v. Sanders,
372 U.S. 368 (1963)....................................................................................... 23
Hermann v. Brownell,
274 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1960) ........................................................................... 9
In re Alcorn,
202 Ariz. 62 (2002)........................................................................................ 17
In re Eashai,
87 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................... 17
In re Fee,
182 Ariz. 597 (1995) ..................................................................................... 17
In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc.,
926 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1991) .....................................................................8, 16
In re Levander,
180 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................8, 12, 17
In re Snyder,
472 U.S. 634 (1985)................................................................................. 14-15
Lake v. Fontes,
83 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2023) ............................................................... 1-2, 8-9
Lake v. Hobbs,
623 F.Supp.3d 1015, 1022-23 (D. Ariz. 2022)..........................................5, 12
ii
Lance v. Coffman,
549 U.S. 437 (2007).................................................................................20, 23
Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.,
819 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 20
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992).................................................................................17, 19
McConnell v. FEC,
540 U.S. 93 (2003)......................................................................................... 17
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, Dist. 1,
486 U.S. 429 (1988)....................................................................................... 14
Mecinas v. Hobbs,
30 F.4th 890 (9th Cir. 2022) .......................................................................... 21
Meyers v. Birdsong,
83 F.4th 1157 (9th Cir. 2023) .................................................................. 7-8, 9
Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 14
Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of
Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993)................................................................. 19
Northern Ins. Co. v. Chatham Cty.,
547 U.S. 189 (2006)....................................................................................... 24
Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs.,
779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 18
O’Shea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488 (1974)....................................................................................... 18
Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc., v. Sierra Club,
523 U.S. 726 (1998)....................................................................................... 19
Owen v. Mulligan,
640 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1981) ....................................................................... 22
Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co.,
62 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................8, 17
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978)....................................................................................... 19
Reynolds v. Sims,
377 U.S. 533 (1964)....................................................................................... 23
iii
Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles,

167 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 22
Silva v. Traver,
63 Ariz. 364 (1945)........................................................................................ 14
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
578 U.S. 330 (2016).................................................................................21, 23
State v. Quatsling,
24 Ariz. App. 105 (App. 1975) ...................................................................... 14
Storer v. Brown,
415 U.S. 724 (1974).................................................................................10, 21
Summers v. Earth Island Institute,
555 U.S. 488 (2009)....................................................................................... 17
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
573 U.S. 149 (2014)................................................................................. 19-20
Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm’n,
983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................... 21
Tyler v. Cuomo,
236 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 17-18
United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299 (1941)....................................................................................... 23
United States v. Harris,
185 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 13
United States v. Lozoya,
19 F.4th 1217 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) ...................................................... 8-9
United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc.,
862 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 12
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures,
412 U.S. 669 (1973)....................................................................................... 23
Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md.,
535 U.S. 635 (2002)....................................................................................... 24
Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, LLC,
72 F.4th 365 (1st Cir. 2023) .......................................................................... 20
Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara,
894 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 16
iv
Wolfson v. Brammer,
616 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 21-22
Workman v. Bell,
227 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ........................................................... 9
Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc.,
709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983) ................................................................... 13-14
STATUTES
U.S. CONST. art. III ........................................................................ 2, 10-11, 17-20, 23

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1, cl. 3 .......................................................................... 10
28 U.S.C. §1653 ....................................................................................................... 18
42 U.S.C. §1983 ....................................................................................................... 16
42 U.S.C. §1988(a) .................................................................................................. 16
ARIZ. CONST. art. VII, §7 ......................................................................................... 10
ARIZ. CONST. art. VII, §12 ....................................................................................... 10
A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(C) ...................................................................................... 1-2, 5
A.R.S. §16-452(C) ...............................................................................................6, 14
A.R.S. §16-1004(B) ................................................................................................. 14
A.R.S. §16-1009....................................................................................................... 14
A.R.S. §16-1010....................................................................................................... 14
REGULATIONS AND RULES
FED. R. APP. P. 46(c) ................................................................................................ 14

S.CT. R. 8.2 .............................................................................................................. 14
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 1.6(a) ................................................................................. 15
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3...................................................................................... 16
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3(a) ................................................................................. 15
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3(a)(1) ...................................................................... 14-16
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3(a)(3) ...................................................................... 15-16
ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3 cmt. 13 ........................................................................ 16
v
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Supreme Court of Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, Ethics

Opinion EO-20-0007, 1 (May 19, 2021) ................................................. 15-16
vi
INTRODUCTION
Appellants respectfully move to recall the mandate based on newly discovered
evidence revealing appellees Maricopa County and the Arizona Secretary of State
(“SoS”) misled this Court, the district court, and the Supreme Court about two
critical issues central to this Court’s decision affirming dismissal of this action based
on lack of standing. Specifically, those appellees made two false claims about the
safeguards purportedly protecting Maricopa’s elections:
x First, that Maricopa used election software certified by the Election
Assistance Commission (“EAC”) and approved by the SoS for use in Arizona
elections pursuant to A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(C).
x Second, that Maricopa conducted pre-election logic and accuracy (“L&A”)
testing on all tabulators used in its elections as A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B)
mandates.
This Court expressly relied on those false claims:
Before being certified for use in elections, the tabulation

machines are tested by an accredited laboratory and the
Secretary of State’s Certification Committee. Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 16-442…The certified machines are then subjected
to pre-election logic and accuracy tests by the Secretary of
State and the election officials of each county. Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 16-449; Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2019 Election
Procedures Manual (“2019 EPM”) at 86.
Lake v. Fontes, 83 F.4th 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2023) (Add:6a).
To the contrary, new evidence produced by Maricopa shows that Maricopa
1
uses illegally altered election software that is neither EAC-certified nor certified for
use in Arizona, thus violating A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(B). Further violating Arizona law,
Maricopa does not conduct L&A testing on any tabulators actually used in its
elections, thus violating A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B). Maricopa’s violations of Arizona
law mean its elections have not been shown to be any more reliable than a Ouija
board. Both as voters and as past and current candidates, Appellants can thus
demonstrate Article III injuries that are imminent and particularized, not speculative
and generalized.
When Appellants timely demanded that Appellees correct their false
statements, Appellees refused to make the required corrections. Under the fraud-on-
the-court standards, this Court should recall the mandate, reverse, and remand for
expeditious proceedings, especially given the upcoming 2024 election.
APPELLEES’ FALSE STATEMENTS
In finding Appellants’ injuries too speculative and generalized for Article III,
this Court relied on two material misrepresentations made by Appellees:
x Maricopa used EAC-certified election software approved by the Arizona SoS.
x Maricopa conducted pre-election L&A testing mandated by Arizona law.
Lake, 83 F.4th at 1202 (Add:6a); id. at 1204 (“In the end, none of Plaintiffs'
allegations supports a plausible inference that their individual votes in future
elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation, particularly
2
given the robust safeguards in Arizona law, the use of paper ballots, and the post-
tabulation retention of those ballots.”) (emphasis added) (Add:11a).
The Court’s reliance on these two misrepresentations arose from Maricopa
and the SoS—initially Katie Hobbs, now Adrian Fontes—repeating them at least
fourteen times in briefing to the district court and this Court. Add:50a-53a (Exhibit
A to Appellants’ April 2, 2024 letter to Appellees’ counsel). Moreover, in opposing
Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Maricopa submitted the sworn
testimony of its Co-Director of Maricopa Elections, Scott Jarrett, who testified to
these two issues.
First, Jarrett testified that Maricopa used Dominion Voting Systems
Democracy Suite 5.5B election software “certified by the Election Assistance
Commission for use in elections on September 10, 2019” in the configuration shown
“at https://www.eac.gov/votingequipment/democracy-suite-55b-modification.”
Jarrett Decl. ¶¶5-10 (ECF #57-1). Federal certification is critical to election
software’s reliability and integrity. As Jarrett testified, “[a]s part of the federal
certification, tabulation equipment must undergo reliability and security testing to
ensure equipment adequately prevents and detects unauthorized access … [and]
accurately tabulate[s] votes.” Id. at ¶12. Jarrett also testified that the SoS “approved
Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5B for use in Arizona on November 5, 2019. Id. at
¶13.
3
Second, Jarrett testified that Maricopa conducted L&A testing “to ensure the
tabulation equipment is accurately counting the ballots as programmed.” Id. at ¶15.
Maricopa also submitted a detailed chart in its motion to dismiss claiming its election
software is “U.S. EAC and AZ SOS certified” and its tabulators are logic-and-
accuracy tested. Maricopa Mot. to Dismiss, at 3 (June 7, 2022) (ECF #27). In
addition, Maricopa told this Court that incidents of voting machine security failures
in other states “have nothing to do with Arizona and its certified tabulation
equipment.” Maricopa Br. at 13 (Mar. 31, 2023) (emphasis added).
Similarly, Secretary Fontes captioned an entire section of its brief to this Court
as “All Electronic Voting Systems, Tabulation Equipment, And BMDs For The 2022
Elections Were Tested And Certified.” Fontes Br. at pp. 10-11 (Mar. 30, 2023).
Fontes stated in the same brief that: “Each of Arizona’s fifteen counties perform
logic and accuracy testing on vote tabulating equipment before and after an
election.” Id. at 9 (citing 2019 EPM at 86).
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Maricopa’s own tabulator system log (“SLOG”) files show that Maricopa
used illegally altered election software that neither the EAC certified nor the SoS
approved, and that Maricopa did not perform L&A testing on any tabulators actually
used in the elections, in violation of Arizona law. Maricopa’s election systems have
never been either tested or certified as accurate and—having been altered—are per
4
se unreliable. Appellants’ new evidence shows imminent, particularized injury from
Maricopa’s use of illegally altered election software and failure to conduct pre-
election L&A testing on its vote-center election equipment.
Contrary to its representations, Maricopa uses illegally altered election

software.
Instead of the certified and approved election software that Maricopa claimed
to use, ER:12, the SLOG files produced by Maricopa for the 2020 election show that
Maricopa used software altered from the certified version with respect to “machine
behavior settings” (“MBS”) that govern how ballots are read and tabulated. The
software Maricopa actually uses is neither EAC-certified nor approved for use in
Arizona, in violation of Arizona law. A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(C). As Appellants’ cyber
expert, Clay Parikh, testified:
The tabulator system log files reveal that the Dominion

election software Maricopa County used in the 2020 and
2022 General Elections is an uncertified home-brew
version that inserts Democracy Suite software version
5.10 MBS into the approved and certified Democracy
Suite 5.5B. This configuration has not been tested by the
VSTL Pro V&V, nor been certified by the EAC, and has
not been certified for use in Arizona by the Secretary of
State.
Parikh Dec. ¶20 (Add:73a-74a); id. at ¶¶11(a)-(d), 13-29, 42-47, 53 (Add:69a-76a,
79a-80a, 82a); Cotton Decl. ¶20(a) (“The election software Maricopa County used
in the November 2020 and November 2022 elections has been materially altered
from the EAC and Arizona Secretary of State certified DVD D-Suite 5.5B”)
5
(Add:112a); id. ¶¶21-22, 29 (Add:113a-117a, 123a).
Parikh is particularly well-qualified to render this opinion. Pro V&V, the same
voting system lab that performed EAC-certification testing for Maricopa, retained
Parikh between 2008 and 2017 to perform EAC-certification testing. Parikh Dec. ¶4
(Add:68a). Election results derived from this uncertified and altered software are per
se unreliable. Parikh Decl. ¶¶28, 53 (Add:76a, 82a); Cotton Decl. ¶29 (Add:123a).
The SLOG files produced for the November 2022 election show that Maricopa used
the same altered software in that election after the District Court dismissed
Appellants’ complaint. Id.
Contrary to its representations, Maricopa does not perform required L&A

testing.
Arizona requires L&A testing “to ascertain that the equipment and programs
will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures.” A.R.S. §16-
449(A). A.R.S. §16-449(A) expressly references A.R.S. §16-452, which provides,
inter alia, that EPM violations are misdemeanors. A.R.S. §16-452(C). The EPM
mandates that “all of the county’s deployable voting equipment must be [L&A]
tested.” 2019 EPM, 94-95 (Add:37a-38a).
Contrary to Maricopa’s representations to the district court and this Court,
Maricopa did not conduct statutorily mandated pre-election L&A testing on any of
6
its vote-center tabulators prior to the November 2020 election.1 Parikh Decl. ¶¶30-
41 (Add:76a-79a). Instead, Maricopa L&A tested only five spare tabulators in
connection with the 2020 election. Id. ¶34 (Add:77a). Likewise, Maricopa’s pre-
election L&A testing covered only five spare tabulators for the November 2022
election. Id.
Appellees failed to correct their false material statements.
Before the Supreme Court denied Appellants’ petition, Appellants asked
Appellees to file corrections. Letter from Kurt B. Olsen to Appellees’ Counsel (Apr.
2, 2024) (Add:41a-47a). Without substantively addressing Appellants’ new
evidence, Appellees declined to correct. Letter from Rachel Mitchell, Maricopa
County Attorney (Apr. 10, 2024) (Add:196a-197a); Letter from Kara Karlson,
Office of Arizona Attorney General (Apr. 11, 2024) (Add:198a).2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Recalling a mandate is an “extraordinary remedy” that courts grant only in
“exceptional circumstances … for good cause or to prevent injustice.” Meyers v.
1
Maricopa conducts its elections at over two hundred vote centers, with two
tabulators each for scanning and processing ballots. Id. ¶10 (Add:69a).
2
The new allegations to support standing included evidence that Maricopa’s voting
machines leave the master cryptographic encryption keys unprotected and in plain
text, thereby allowing any malicious actor to take control of the machines and the
election results—without detection. Parikh Decl. (¶¶12, 48-53) (Add:71a, 80a-82a);
Cotton Decl. (¶¶20(c), 23-25, 29) (Add:112a-113a, 117a-119a, 123a).
7
Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2023); Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S.
538, 558 (1998) (“need to allow courts to remedy actual injustice”). Unambiguous
reasons to recall a mandate include remedying “fraud upon the court, calling into
question the very legitimacy of the judgment.” Calderon, 523 U.S. at 557; In re
Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999).
This Court defines fraud on the court as “fraud which does or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the
judicial machinery [cannot] perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
adjudging cases.” In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 926 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1991)
(interior quotation omitted); Levander, 180 F.3d at 1120 (finding fraud on the court
where “neither the Levanders nor the court had any reason to question the veracity
of the Corporation[’s testimony]”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d
1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 1995) (“the use of misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete
responses to discovery requests, the presentation of fraudulent evidence, and the
failure to correct the false impression created by [witness’] testimony … amounts to
a fraud upon the court.”).
ARGUMENT
I. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO RECALL THE MANDATE.
Federal courts of appeals have “inherent power to recall [their] mandate in
order to protect the integrity of [their] processes.” United States v. Lozoya, 19 F.4th
8
1217, 1218 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Proper grounds for recalling a mandate include
fraud on the court. Calderon, 523 U.S. at 557; Workman v. Bell, 227 F.3d 331, 337
(6th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (recalling mandate and ordering district court to hold a
“full evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not a fraud was committed on the
district court or the panel below”).
II. APPELLANTS’ MOTION IS TIMELY.
Motions to recall must be timely. Meyers, 83 F.4th at 1159. The evidence of
Appellees’ fraud upon the Court only recently came to light, Parikh Decl. ¶6
(Add:68a), and Appellants filed quickly after the Supreme Court denied a writ of
certiorari in this matter.
Indeed, while review was pending in the Supreme Court, this Court arguably
lacked jurisdiction to revise its holding. Hermann v. Brownell, 274 F.2d 842, 843
(9th Cir. 1960) (“this Court completely loses jurisdiction of the cause” upon a
petition for a writ of certiorari, and its “jurisdiction can be revived only upon the
mandate of the Supreme Court itself”). Accordingly, the timeliness of Appellants’
motion measures from the denial of certiorari on April 22, 2024. Moreover, laches
requires not only unreasonable delay but also prejudice, Eat Right Foods, Ltd. v.
Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 880 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2017), neither of which is
present.
Further, remedying injustice and fraud on the court—as well as safeguarding
9
future elections—outweighs any interest in repose. See Section III, infra.
III. RECALLING THE MANDATE IS WARRANTED.
This Court found Appellants’ alleged injuries too speculative (i.e., not
imminent) and generalized (i.e., not particularized and concrete) to constitute an
injury-in-fact under Article III. Appellants’ new evidence showing a fraud on the
Court contravenes those findings. Appellees cannot now dispute the effectiveness of
their misrepresentations. Dixon v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 316 F.3d 1041, 1046
(9th Cir. 2003). Their falsehoods misled this Court to find Appellants’ injuries did
not support standing.
A. Maricopa’s election misconduct violates due process.
Under Arizona law, winning elections means “receiving the highest number
of legal votes,” ARIZ. CONST. art. VII, §7 (emphasis added), and legality is defined
by election statutes adopted “to secure the purity of elections and guard against
abuses of the elective franchise.” Id. art. VII, §12; Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724,
730 (1974) (“substantial regulation of elections” required “if [elections] are to be
fair and honest”). Under the Due Process Clause, Arizona’s voters and candidates
have constitutionally protected interests in having their elections conducted pursuant
to Arizona and federal law. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1, cl. 3.
The use of uncertified and illegally altered software, especially combined with
the failure to test vote-center tabulators, fundamentally compromises Maricopa’s
10
elections. Maricopa’s uncertified, untested voting system makes Maricopa’s manner
of conducting elections “fundamentally unfair” in violation of substantive due
process. Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir. 1998). Even without
drawing negative inferences from Maricopa’s surreptitious electoral misconduct,
deceptive court filings, and failure to correct, see Section III.B, infra, Maricopa has
not shown its election systems are any more reliable than a Ouija board. Exposing
voters’ and candidates’ fundamental electoral rights to an unreliable, untested, and
illegal system nullifies the right to vote, which is the type of “arbitrary or irrational”
government action that supports Article III standing. Village of Arlington Heights v.
Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263 (1977) (discussing developer’s “right
to be free of arbitrary or irrational zoning actions” under Article III); Bateson v.
Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir. 1988).
While Appellants’ injuries meet the stringent test for substantive due process
and the lesser “Anderson-Burdick” framework “for evaluating procedural due
process challenges to a voting restriction,” Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs, 18
F.4th 1179, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added), this Court need no decide
those issues. When a political subdivision’s elections violate state law, there is no
cognizable state interest capable of outweighing the plaintiffs’ due-process rights.
B. Appellees’ counsel engaged in fraud on the court.
Appellees’ misrepresentations go to the outcome-determinative central
11
issue—whether the purportedly certified and tested equipment was sufficiently
secure to avoid impairing electoral rights. Given the falsity of Appellees’
representations and this Court’s reliance, this case falls in the heartland of fraud on
the court, Levander, 180 F.3d at 1120. The new evidence demonstrates that
Appellees made these claims knowing that they were false.
1. Appellees materially misrepresented Maricopa’s election

security.
“[A] finding of fraud on the court is reserved for material, intentional
misrepresentations that could not have been discovered earlier[.]” United States v.
Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017). Although Maricopa’s
false statements caused a jurisdictional dismissal that denied Appellants discovery,
Appellants diligently pursued relevant facts. Maricopa’s and the SoS’s intentionally
false material statements—made by their counsel in court and relied on by the
courts—constitute fraud on the court.
The District Court and this Court expressly relied on Appellees’ false
statements about Maricopa’s compliance with the laws that mandate using certified
software and L&A testing. Opinion, Add:6a (this Court); Opinion, ER:12-14, 19-21
(District Court).
Appellees’ court filings can only have been knowingly false. Indeed,
Maricopa represents on its website that “[p]rior to the L&A [testing] … a copy of
the software is forwarded to the [SoS]”, and that “[p]rior to each election, the
12
software and hash code are verified to confirm the software system being used for
the election is the same system that underwent certification.”3 Maricopa thus admits
it reviewed the software and hash codes to confirm the software’s certification and
sent the SoS a copy of the software. Therefore, that confirmation process would have
informed Maricopa and the SoS that Maricopa’s software was not the EAC-certified
version because the software hash codes do not match the EAC-certified version and
Maricopa’s SLOG files show Maricopa’s election software is a “home-brew”
concoction. Parikh Decl. ¶¶20, 42-47, 53 (Add:73a-74a, 79a-80a, 82a); Cotton Decl.
¶¶21-22, 28-29 (Add:113a-117a, 121a-123a).
Putting aside that Maricopa would obviously know the number of tabulators
it L&A tested, Maricopa also states on its website that the SoS was present at
Maricopa’s October 6, 2020 L&A test. Id. Thus, the SoS would also know Maricopa
only L&A tested five tabulators, not “all deployable voting equipment” as required
by the EPM.
This Court can infer deceptive intent from Appellees’ surreptitious means and
concealment. United States v. Harris, 185 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[i]ntent
could be inferred from the tricks and deceptions [defendant] used to cover up what
he did”); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 590 (9th Cir. 1983)
3
https://www.maricopa.gov/5539/Voting-Equipment-Facts (Add:40a) (last visited
June 6, 2024).
13
(failing to investigate can qualify as equivalent of knowing truth); State v. Quatsling,
24 Ariz. App. 105, 108 (App. 1975) (discussing “circumstantial evidence to sustain
a finding of intent based upon … surreptitious means).
Although public officials can benefit from presumptions of regularity,
“[w]henever evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the
presumption vanishes.” Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 368 (1945); Golonka v. GMC,
204 Ariz. 575, 589-90, ¶48 (App. 2003) (discussing Arizona’s “bursting bubble”
treatment of presumptions). Violations of the EPM’s mandates and the unapproved
alteration of election software are criminal violations. A.R.S. §§16-452(C), 16-1009,
16-1004(B), 16-1010. This Court should not presume that Maricopa or its counsel
acted lawfully.
2. Arizona’s robust duty to correct applies to federal civil-

rights appeals.
Rule 46(c) imposes ethical duties on bar members, FED. R. APP. P. 46(c);
accord S.CT. R. 8.2, based on “case law, applicable court rules, and ‘the lore of the
profession,’ as embodied in codes of professional conduct.” In re Snyder, 472 U.S.
634, 645 (1985). Although the duty of candor is universal in American law, McCoy
v. Court of Appeals, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 440 (1988); Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724
F.3d 1218, 1233 n.9 (9th Cir. 2013), Arizona’s Rule 3.3(a)(1) arguably goes beyond
the federal rules’ duty to correct.
Under Rule 3.3(a)(1), lawyers must not knowingly either “make a false
14
statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material
fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND.
3.3(a)(1). Regardless of whether Appellees’ counsel initially knew their filed
statements were false, they had notice to that effect after April 2, 2024, when
Appellants’ counsel alerted them to their false representations. Add:41a-47a. Rule
3.3(a)(3)’s duty to correct includes disclosure to the tribunal. ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND.
3.3(a)(3) (Add:19a-20a).4 The Arizona Supreme Court’s Attorney Ethics Advisory
Committee recently found the Arizona duty of candor overcomes counsel’s duty of
confidentiality to clients who benefited from prior false evidence. Supreme Court of
Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, Ethics Opinion EO-20-0007, 1 (May
19, 2021) (Add:25a) (“EO-20-0007”).
Arizona law strengthens the federal duty of candor by removing client
confidences as valid grounds not to correct. See Snyder, 472 U.S. at 644 (discussing
“attorney’s dual obligations to clients and to the system of justice”). Unlike counsel
in other federal forums, Arizona counsel cannot rely upon client obligations to
justify failing to correct.
For federal civil-rights actions in Arizona, Arizona’s Rule 3.3(a) applies
directly as federal law, rather than indirectly under Snyder. Appellants invoke both
4
Arizona lawyers’ duty of confidentiality to clients does not cover disclosures
required by Rule 3.3(a)(3). ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 1.6(a) (Add:12a).
15
the officer-suit exception of Ex parte Young and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Am. Compl.
¶¶177-183 (ER:89-90). Consequently, “the common law, as modified and changed
by the constitution and statutes of the State[,]” applies to this action because it is
“not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U.S.C.
§1988(a); Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2018)
(using state law under §1988(a)).
3. Appellees’ knowing failure to correct their

misrepresentations constitute willful deceit.
Appellees’ counsel also committed a fraud on the Supreme Court in 2024
under this Court’s definition of “fraud upon the court.” Intermagnetics, 926 F.2d at
916 (i.e., courts’ reliance on counsel’s false material statements). Whether directly
under 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) or indirectly by removing confidentiality for clients’
misrepresentations, Arizona law controls and required correction. ARIZ. R. PROF’L.
COND. 1.6(a), 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3); EO-20-0007, at 1 (Add:25a). The duty of candor
applies throughout any appeal. ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3 cmt. 13 (Add:23a). Thus,
by not filing in this Court when it had an unambiguous duty to correct, Maricopa’s
counsel also committed a fraud on this Court.
Silence is not an option. Both declining to apprise this Court of prior
misrepresentations and waiving a response in the Supreme Court violated Appellees’
duty to correct:
16
Simply filing a non-opposition notice, as she did here, is

insufficient to discharge this duty.
Champlin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 231 Ariz. 265, 268, ¶17 (App. 2013); In re Alcorn,
202 Ariz. 62, 73, ¶38 (2002) (“lawyer [cannot] remain silent while knowing that
such silence has the effect of misleading the court”); In re Fee, 182 Ariz. 597, 600-
01 (1995); Pumphrey, 62 F.3d at 1132-33; Levander, 180 F.3d at 1119; In re Eashai,
87 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996).
C. Recalling the mandate is necessary to revisit whether Appellants

pled a valid injury-in-fact under Article III.
Standing’s tripartite test requires: (a) injury-in-fact to plaintiffs, (b) causation
by the challenged conduct, and (c) judicial redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561-62 (1992). Injury must be actual or imminent, not merely
speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S.
488, 493 (2009). Further, injury must be “concrete and particularized” to the
plaintiff, not an “abstract generalized grievance suffered by all citizens.” Carney v.
Adams, 141 S.Ct. 493, 498-99 (2020).
Significantly, “standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s
contention that particular conduct is illegal.” McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 227
(2003) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, “[w]hether a plaintiff has a legally
protected interest (and thus standing) does not depend on whether he can
demonstrate that he will succeed on the merits.” Tyler v. Cuomo, 236 F.3d 1124,
17
1133 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, to evaluate standing, courts “assume that on the
merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.” City of Waukesha v. EPA,
320 F.3d 228, 235 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Otherwise, every losing plaintiff would lack
standing.
1. Appellants’ injuries are not speculative under Article III.
Appellants’ new evidence demonstrates the imminent, non-speculative nature
of Appellants’ threatened injuries.
Factually, Maricopa’s use of illegally altered software and failure to conduct
pre-election L&A testing, both in the 2020 election (before Appellants filed suit), 28
U.S.C. §1653 (facts that pre-dating complaint can establish jurisdiction, even on
appeal), and in the 2022 election (after Appellants filed suit) substantiate Appellants’
claims of past harm while demonstrating the plausibility of the complaint’s
allegations of threatened harms. Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs., 779
F.3d 1036, 1043-48 (9th Cir. 2015) (facts post-dating complaint can establish
standing). Appellants’ claims thus “[]cross the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Legally, these issues coalesce under various strands of Article III authority:
x Prior injuries can demonstrate the imminence of future injuries. O’Shea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496 (1974) (“past wrongs are evidence bearing on
whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury”); Fortyune v.
18
American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004); cf. Susan
B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 164 (2014) (“history of past
enforcement” is obvious evidence of “substantial” threat of future
enforcement).
x Because Maricopa does not count votes using certified election software and
L&A test procedures established to protect the accuracy of the vote,
Appellants suffer procedural injuries, which lower Article III’s threshold for
immediacy and redressability. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 571-72 & n.7; cf. Ohio
Forestry Ass’n, Inc., v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 737 (1998) (plaintiff “may
complain at the time … that failure … takes place, for the [procedural] claim
can never get riper”).
x Relatedly, injuries that affect the opportunity to compete occur when the
barrier to competition is encountered, not when the ultimate benefit is denied
(e.g., school admissions, contract awards, and winning elections).
Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of
Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S.
417, 433 n.22 (1998). The standing injury is procedural mistreatment. The
ultimate prize is “merely [a question] of relief,” not of injury. Regents of the
Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 280 n.14 (1978).
x The fact that multiple actors can cause injury increases the threat of future
19
injury. Driehaus, 573 U.S. at 164; Curling v. Raffensperger, ___ F.Supp.3d
___, ___ (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2023) (“Mueller Report’s findings leave no doubt
that Russia and other adversaries will strike again”) (alterations and internal
quotation omitted).
x Misconduct establishes imminence for cybersecurity breaches. See, e.g.,
Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963, 967-68 (7th Cir.
2016); Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, LLC, 72 F.4th 365, 375 (1st Cir.
2023). Malicious actors break laws and act surreptitiously for a reason.
Once appellate courts recognize that “some inquiry must be made as to whether or
not false and misleading information has been deliberately or inadvertently furnished
to the court,” they can remand to trial courts “for an appropriate inquiry.” Coleman
v. Turpen, 827 F.2d 667, 670-71 (10th Cir. 1987). This Court can recognize that
Appellants’ new evidence demonstrates non-speculative future injury and remand
for further proceedings.
2. Appellants’ injuries are not generalized under Article III.
This Court found Appellants’ injuries too generalized under Lance v.
Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007). Opinion, Add:9a. Lance merely held that generalized
grievances cannot support standing where plaintiffs lacked “the sorts of injuries
alleged … in voting rights cases.” Lance, 549 U.S. at 442. Lance is simply inapposite
to voting-rights plaintiffs.
20
An injury’s widely shared nature does not foreclose finding it particularized
to a given plaintiff. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24 (1998) (“where a harm is concrete,
though widely shared, the Court has found ‘injury in fact’”); Gill v. Whitford, 585
U.S. 48, 65-66 (2018) (right to vote is personal and individual). “[I]ntangible injuries
can nevertheless be concrete” if they affect plaintiffs “in a personal and individual
way.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339-40 & n.7 (2016). The new evidence
further supports finding that Appellants’ injuries are concrete and particularized for
both candidates and voters.
a. New evidence and allegations preclude mootness for

“candidate standing.”
Candidates “have ample standing to challenge” state election law. Storer, 415
U.S. at 738 n.9. An “inaccurate vote tally is a concrete and particularized injury to
candidates.” Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020). Candidates thus
have cognizable interests in a fair competition that voters may lack. Mecinas v.
Hobbs, 30 F.4th 890, 897-900 (9th Cir. 2022); Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm’n,
983 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2020). Where—as here—candidates seek office in future
elections,5 the passing of one election does not moot challenges to repeating election
procedures. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (collecting
5
Appellants Lake and Finchem are 2024 candidates for federal and state office.
https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024_CadidatesFiled_web_list_20240405.
pdf (last visited June 6, 2024).
21
cases); Owen v. Mulligan, 640 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover,
damages are available for violations of procedural due process, Carey v. Piphus, 435
U.S. 247, 266-67 (1978), including nominal relief against official-capacity
defendants who lack sovereign immunity. Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167
F.3d 514, 524 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1999); see Section III.D, infra.; ER:95 (¶6). Because
relief remains available—even for 2022—Appellants’ standing as candidates would
remain intact, even if they were not candidates in 2024 and subsequent elections.
b. Appellants’ new evidence requires revisiting whether

voters allege particularized concrete injury.
Relying on false assurances supporting the presumption that Maricopa
complies with electoral safeguards and viewing Appellants only as voters, this Court
rejected standing in part because the Court found an imperceptible marginal risk of
electronic skullduggery too diffuse and common to all voters and also common to
other means of counting votes. Opinion, Add:10a-11a. Appellees’
misrepresentations thus led the Court to an incorrect result.
Appellees asked voters—and this Court—to trust computers because experts
reviewed them, tested them, and found them accurate. Now, we learn that Maricopa
not only uses illegally altered election software with respect to the settings governing
how ballots are read and tabulated but also does not perform pre-election L&A
testing on all actual vote-center tabulators. Further, Maricopa and the SoS actively
covered up these facts.
22
Maricopa’s unreliable elections violate voters’ fundamental voting rights,
including the right to have votes accurately counted. United States v. Classic, 313
U.S. 299, 315 (1941); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379-81 (1963). Maricopa’s
voters suffer injury from unreliable vote counting. Classic, 313 U.S. at 315;
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-55 (1964). Article III “allow[s] important
interests to be vindicated by plaintiffs with no more at stake in the outcome of an
action than a fraction of a vote.” United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory
Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689 n.14 (1973) (citations omitted, emphasis
added); Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers v. Molasky-Arman, 522 F.3d 925,
932 (9th Cir. 2008). For voting-rights plaintiffs like Appellants, Lance is simply not
contrary authority.
Appellants’ injuries are widely shared, but are personally experienced by, and
thus particularized to, every plaintiff. In Akins, a “widely shared” “informational
injury … related to voting, the most basic of political rights, [was] sufficiently
concrete and specific” to confer standing. Akins, 524 U.S. at 24-25; Robins, 578 U.S.
at 339 n.7. Indeed, Akins explained that the existence of a concrete injury would be
“particularly obvious … where large numbers of voters suffer interference with
voting rights conferred by law.” Akins, 524 U.S. at 24. Appellants allege such
injuries here.
23
D. The District Court’s other bases for dismissal were meritless.
The District Court also dismissed under sovereign immunity and Purcell v.
Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006). Although this Court could affirm on alternate grounds,
both these rationales are meritless.
Sovereign immunity does not bar prospective relief enjoining unlawful
conduct, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-61 (1908), and “the inquiry … under
[Young] does not include an analysis of the merits[.]” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv.
Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002). Moreover, counties lack sovereign
immunity unless acting as arms of the state. Northern Ins. Co. v. Chatham Cty., 547
U.S. 189, 193-95 (2006). Counties are not arms of the state here, but—if they were—
county officers nonetheless could be sued under Young.
Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5, may have barred injunctive relief for 2022, but the
complaint sought additional relief (e.g., damages, future elections). Purcell cannot
justify dismissal.
CONCLUSION
This Court should recall the mandate, reverse, and remand for expedited
proceedings.
24
Dated: June 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kurt B. Olsen

Kurt Olsen
(DC Bar No. 445279)
Olsen Law, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 700
(202) 408-7025
[email protected]
Attorney for Appellants

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem
25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The accompanying motion complies with the type-volume limitation of
FED. R. APP. P. 27(d)(2)(A) and Circuit Rule 27-1(1)(d) because the motion contains
5,200 words and 24 pages, including footnotes, but excluding the parts of the motion
exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. The accompanying motion complies with the typeface and type style
requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 27(d)(1)(E) because the motion has been prepared
in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 365 in Times New Roman
14-point font.
Dated: June 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kurt B. Olsen

Kurt Olsen
(DC Bar No. 445279)
Olsen Law, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 700
(202) 408-7025
[email protected]
Counsel for Appellants
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 6, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing
document—together with its addendum—with the Clerk of the Court for the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system,
causing the service on counsel for the parties to this action via electronic means.
/s/ Kurt B. Olsen

Kurt Olsen

2024-06-06 Mot. To Recall Mandate (Filed)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024-06-06 Mot. To Recall Mandate (Filed)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 22-16413, 06/06/2024, ID: 12889991, DktEntry: 64-1, Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Kari Lake, Mark Finchem,

On Appeal from the United States District Court

Appellants’ Motion to Recall Mandate

Attorney for Appellants

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 26

Lake v. Fontes, No. 22-16413 (Oct. 16, 2023) ........................................................ 1a

Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs,

Dixon v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,

Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles,

U.S. CONST. art. III ........................................................................ 2, 10-11, 17-20, 23

FED. R. APP. P. 46(c) ................................................................................................ 14

Supreme Court of Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, Ethics

Appellants respectfully move to recall the mandate based on newly discovered

safeguards purportedly protecting Maricopa’s elections:

x First, that Maricopa used election software certified by the Election

elections pursuant to A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(C).

x Second, that Maricopa conducted pre-election logic and accuracy (“L&A”)

testing on all tabulators used in its elections as A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B)

This Court expressly relied on those false claims:

Before being certified for use in elections, the tabulation

Lake v. Fontes, 83 F.4th 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2023) (Add:6a).

To the contrary, new evidence produced by Maricopa shows that Maricopa

elections, thus violating A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B). Maricopa’s violations of Arizona

When Appellants timely demanded that Appellees correct their false

expeditious proceedings, especially given the upcoming 2024 election.

APPELLEES’ FALSE STATEMENTS

this Court relied on two material misrepresentations made by Appellees:

x Maricopa used EAC-certified election software approved by the Arizona SoS.

x Maricopa conducted pre-election L&A testing mandated by Arizona law.

allegations supports a plausible inference that their individual votes in future

elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation, particularly

tabulation retention of those ballots.”) (emphasis added) (Add:11a).

The Court’s reliance on these two misrepresentations arose from Maricopa

A to Appellants’ April 2, 2024 letter to Appellees’ counsel). Moreover, in opposing

Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Maricopa submitted the sworn

testimony of its Co-Director of Maricopa Elections, Scott Jarrett, who testified to

these two issues.

First, Jarrett testified that Maricopa used Dominion Voting Systems

Democracy Suite 5.5B election software “certified by the Election Assistance

Jarrett Decl. ¶¶5-10 (ECF #57-1). Federal certification is critical to election

certification, tabulation equipment must undergo reliability and security testing to

ensure equipment adequately prevents and detects unauthorized access … [and]

tabulation equipment is accurately counting the ballots as programmed.” Id. at ¶15.

accuracy tested. Maricopa Mot. to Dismiss, at 3 (June 7, 2022) (ECF #27). In

equipment.” Maricopa Br. at 13 (Mar. 31, 2023) (emphasis added).

election.” Id. at 9 (citing 2019 EPM at 86).

se unreliable. Appellants’ new evidence shows imminent, particularized injury from

election L&A testing on its vote-center election equipment.

Contrary to its representations, Maricopa uses illegally altered election

Arizona, in violation of Arizona law. A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(C). As Appellants’ cyber

expert, Clay Parikh, testified:

The tabulator system log files reveal that the Dominion

Parikh Dec. ¶20 (Add:73a-74a); id. at ¶¶11(a)-(d), 13-29, 42-47, 53 (Add:69a-76a,

(Add:112a); id. ¶¶21-22, 29 (Add:113a-117a, 123a).

Appellants’ complaint. Id.

Contrary to its representations, Maricopa does not perform required L&A

449(A). A.R.S. §16-449(A) expressly references A.R.S. §16-452, which provides,

tested.” 2019 EPM, 94-95 (Add:37a-38a).

Contrary to Maricopa’s representations to the district court and this Court,

41 (Add:76a-79a). Instead, Maricopa L&A tested only five spare tabulators in

Appellees failed to correct their false material statements.