Mark Finchem

Arizona Republican state legislator and 2022 Secretary of State candidate; prominent election integrity advocate who claims election fraud evidence was systematically excluded from courts.

Field	Details
Full Name	Mark Finchem
Role	Elected Official / Election Integrity Advocate
Platform	Arizona House of Representatives (2014–2022); 2022 AZ Secretary of State candidate
Party	Republican
Location	Arizona (Pinal County / District 11 area)
Background	Marine Corps veteran; law enforcement officer (Sahuarita PD)
Notable Works	Arizona election integrity legislation (2021–2022); "Stop the Steal" organizing; Cause of America affiliation
Cases Investigated	2020 Arizona presidential election; Dominion Voting Systems; Curling v. Raffensperger (Georgia)
Status	Alive

Video: "There is evidence — they kept it out of court"

Mark Finchem's April 2026 interview with Cause of America presents his core argument: that substantial election fraud evidence was collected but systematically blocked from reaching the evidentiary phase of litigation. He claims judges were "bought off" to keep cases from proceeding, and cites the Curling v. Raffensperger case as proof that Dominion machines can be hacked within minutes. He also references DOJ evidence turnover and frames the election integrity fight as fifth-generation information warfare.

Source: @CauseAmerica · April 9, 2026

Overview

Mark Finchem served as an Arizona state representative from 2014 to 2022, representing a district in Pinal County. A Marine Corps veteran and former law enforcement officer, Finchem became one of the most prominent elected officials in the election integrity movement following the 2020 presidential election. He co-sponsored multiple pieces of Arizona election legislation, attended the January 6, 2021 rally in Washington D.C., and won the 2022 Republican primary for Arizona Secretary of State — ultimately losing the general election to Democrat Adrian Fontes.

Finchem's core claim — stated in an April 2026 video interview posted by @CauseAmerica — is that substantial election fraud evidence was never allowed to be adjudicated on its merits because election cases were systematically blocked from proceeding to trial. He does not assert that no evidence exists; he asserts that the evidence exists but was kept out of court through procedural mechanisms, judicial decisions, and — in his characterization — judicial corruption.

Their Findings

Finchem's election integrity claims span several overlapping vectors:

1. Evidence Blocked from Court Adjudication

In an April 2026 interview posted by @CauseAmerica, Finchem stated:

"I don't want to preclude any opportunity for DOJ to make an announcement about what they're finding, but I happen to know some of the actors who have evidence that they have turned over. It's evidence that we were informed of back in November 2020."

He continued:

"For these clowns to say, oh, there's no evidence — Bernovich [Brnovich] had no evidence. There was no evidence in court. Well, you did everything possible, including buying off judges to keep these cases out of court so that evidence could not be presented."

This frames the "no evidence in court" claim not as the absence of evidence but as evidence successfully excluded from reaching the evidentiary phase of litigation. This distinction is central to the election integrity movement's critique of how post-2020 fraud claims were handled — many cases were dismissed on procedural grounds (lack of standing, mootness) rather than after reviewing the underlying evidence.

Attribution: Finchem's claim that judges were "bought off" is his characterization. He provides no names, case citations, or specific evidence of judicial corruption in this interview. His broader claim that cases were dismissed on procedural grounds before evidence was fully presented is factually accurate as a description of how most post-2020 election lawsuits resolved.

2. Arizona Election Concerns — Brnovich

Finchem's reference to "Bernovich [Brnovich]" is directed at Mark Brnovich, the Arizona Attorney General from 2019 to 2023. Brnovich was a Republican who election integrity advocates criticized for not aggressively pursuing 2020 election fraud claims in Arizona despite pressure from President Trump and others. Brnovich conducted an investigation but concluded it did not find evidence warranting prosecution. Finchem and other election integrity advocates disputed this conclusion.

3. The Curling Case — Georgia Machine Hackability

Finchem cited the Curling v. Raffensperger case as evidence that voting machine security claims are false:

"There's a case in Atlanta, Georgia, curling. The curling case showed that these machines could indeed be hacked within five minutes from a damn cell phone. So don't give me this argument that we have no evidence."

Curling v. Raffensperger (originally Curling v. Kemp, N.D. Ga.) is a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the security of Georgia's Dominion voting machines. University of Michigan computer science professor J. Alex Halderman submitted expert testimony demonstrating that a Dominion ImageCast X (ICX) ballot marking device could be compromised via a USB device in approximately 10 minutes. Judge Amy Totenberg described Georgia's electronic voting system as presenting serious security risks in multiple rulings. Finchem's "five minutes from a cell phone" characterization is his summary of the Halderman findings; the precise mechanism in the expert report involves a USB-based attack, though Halderman's demonstrations have been updated across multiple versions of his expert report.

Attribution: The Curling case is real and ongoing as of 2026. Judge Totenberg has ruled that the machines present genuine security concerns. Georgia and Dominion dispute the claim that the machines were actually exploited in any real election.

4. DOJ Evidence Turnover

Finchem claimed in April 2026 that he knows "some of the actors" who have turned over evidence to the DOJ and that the DOJ may be preparing announcements about its findings. This aligns with the context of Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen's March 2026 federal grand jury subpoena — where the FBI's Phoenix Field Office subpoenaed all 2021 Cyber Ninjas audit records from the Arizona Senate for a federal grand jury investigation into the 2020 election.

5. Fifth Generation Warfare

Finchem frames election integrity as part of a broader information warfare conflict:

"We are engaged in fifth generation warfare and anybody wants to look up what that is. Follow General Mike Flynn."

"Fifth generation warfare" (5GW) is a concept referring to conflict waged primarily through information, narrative control, and cognitive manipulation rather than physical force. Retired General Michael Flynn has been a vocal proponent of this framework as applied to domestic U.S. political and media dynamics. Sidney Powell represented Flynn during his 2019–2020 legal battles.

Key Quotes

"There is evidence — they kept it out of court." — Mark Finchem, @CauseAmerica interview, April 9, 2026

"You did everything possible, including buying off judges to keep these cases out of court so that evidence could not be presented." — Mark Finchem, @CauseAmerica interview, April 9, 2026

"The Curling case showed that these machines could indeed be hacked within five minutes from a damn cell phone. So don't give me this argument that we have no evidence." — Mark Finchem, @CauseAmerica interview, April 9, 2026

"We are engaged in fifth generation warfare and anybody wants to look up what that is. Follow General Mike Flynn." — Mark Finchem, @CauseAmerica interview, April 9, 2026

Where He's Presented It

@CauseAmerica video interview (April 9, 2026) — election fraud evidence, courts, DOJ
Arizona House of Representatives — election integrity legislation (2021–2022)
January 6, 2021 rally in Washington D.C.
Arizona Secretary of State campaign (2022)
Various conservative media interviews and events

The Counterargument

Mark Brnovich's office reviewed 2020 Arizona election fraud claims and found insufficient evidence for prosecution
Arizona courts, including the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewed post-2020 challenges and upheld the certified results
The Cyber Ninjas audit found Biden's Maricopa County margin increased slightly upon hand recount
Finchem's "bought off judges" claim is a serious allegation without specific documentation in public record
Finchem lost the 2022 Secretary of State race to Adrian Fontes by approximately 120,000 votes; critics argue this reflects voter confidence in the electoral system

Retaliation / Suppression

Finchem was criticized by mainstream media as part of the "Big Lie" movement following 2020
His presence at January 6, 2021 drew calls for his removal from office (no charges were filed)
He lost his Secretary of State race in 2022 after being widely characterized as an election denier

Adrian Fontes — defeated Finchem in the 2022 AZ Secretary of State race; accused of witness tampering and obstruction (2026 DOJ referral)
Warren Petersen — AZ Senate President who received FBI grand jury subpoena for 2020 election records (March 2026); referred Mayes and Fontes to DOJ
Kris Mayes — current AZ AG accused by Petersen of obstruction in connection with federal grand jury
Dominion Voting Systems — machines Finchem contends can be hacked, per Curling case
Sidney Powell — filed Kraken lawsuits; represented General Flynn
Georgia — state hub; home of the Curling v. Raffensperger case Finchem cites
Arizona — state hub; Finchem's primary area of investigation

Sources

Status: Alive

This information was compiled by Claude AI research.

Video: "There is evidence — they kept it out of court"​

Overview​

Their Findings​

1. Evidence Blocked from Court Adjudication​

2. Arizona Election Concerns — Brnovich​

3. The Curling Case — Georgia Machine Hackability​

4. DOJ Evidence Turnover​

5. Fifth Generation Warfare​

Key Quotes​

Where He's Presented It​

The Counterargument​

Retaliation / Suppression​

Related Perspectives​

Other Coverage Worth Reading​

Sources​