by Staff Reporter | Mar 28, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Court of Appeals judge in the “alternate electors” case donated to Attorney General Mayes when she was campaigning on prosecuting President Donald Trump’s 2020 electors.
On Wednesday, the day after Attorney General Kris Mayes asked the court to reject the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court held oral arguments in the alternate electors case.
The appeals court judge on the case, Andrew Jacobs, was appointed by Governor Katie Hobbs in February 2023. Jacobs donated $500 to Mayes’ campaign for the office in 2022. At the time, Jacobs was an attorney with Snell and Wilmer.
Several days after Mayes promised publicly to investigate the 2020 electors, Jacobs submitted his first donation to her campaign.
“I would have immediately investigated the alternate electors as Attorney General,” said Mayes. “Arizona needs a #LawyerForthePeople.”
Jacobs submitted his second donation to Mayes’ campaign the day after an Arizona Republic article emerged highlighting the differences between her and then-opponent (now congressman) Abe Hamadeh.
A source that observed the emergency hearing described Jacobs as “hostile” to the electors. During oral arguments, the conflict of interest was raised, however, Jacbos still voted on an issue in the case, the decision to grant a stay.
Last month, Maricopa County Judge Sam Myers ruled the 2020 electors, 16 in total, provided sufficient evidence that Mayes’ case against them may be dismissable for violating Arizona’s Anti-SLAPP law.
Anti-SLAPP, or “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” imposes civil liability against any state actor that brings or maintains a legal action substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliation against, or prevent free speech and association.
Myers said the 2020 electors demonstrated their actions to comprise “at least in part some arguably lawful speech.” Myers cited Mayes’ remarks announcing the indictments as potential proof of a political motivation behind her prosecution.
Mayes disagreed with the ruling. The attorney general said the 2020 creation of an alternate elector slate didn’t constitute free speech and shouldn’t be afforded constitutional protections.
“It is not the lawful exercise of free speech to file forged slates of electors to deprive Arizona voters of their right to vote,” said Mayes.
In order to counter Myers’ ruling, Mayes had to prove in a brief due earlier this week that she wasn’t motivated by a desire to retaliate or deter the 2020 electors’ free speech rights.
The outcome of that motion to dismiss the case remains pending.
Myers did deny motions to dismiss Mayes’ case last week, however. The motions claimed Mayes lacked authority to bring the case to court and failed to allege crimes committed.
Last November, the first judge on the case, Bruce Cohen, recused himself after emails emerged in which he ordered his fellow judges to come to the defense of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
The defendants in the case include former AZGOP Chair Dr. Kelli Ward, Dr. Michael Ward, former executive director of the AZGOP Greg Safsten, former Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern, former Senate Candidate Jim Lamon, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Robert Montgomery, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Samuel Moorhead, Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman, Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer, and attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, as well as President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Campaign Aide Boris Epshteyn, and director of Election Day operations Mike Roman.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Sep 18, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona District Court declined to assume jurisdiction in the prosecution of Mark Meadows for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
The court remanded the case back to the Maricopa County Superior Court. In the order issued on Monday, Judge John Tuchi said that Meadows’ actions concerning the 2020 election aren’t covered by the “color of office” afforded by his role as chief of staff to former President Donald Trump.
“The Court finds that Mr. Meadows fails to present good cause for his untimely filing of his Notice of Removal, and that in any event, an evaluation on the merits yields that he fails to demonstrate that the conduct charged in the state’s prosecution relates to his former color of office as Chief of Staff to the President,” wrote Tuchi.
An Arizona grand jury dropped felony indictments on Trump’s 2020 electors and their alleged conspirators, among them Meadows, earlier this year. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes accused the 18 indicted of participating in an organized “scheme” intending to “prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency.”
Mayes alleged that Meadows worked with members of the Trump campaign to coordinate and implement Arizona’s false Republican electors following the 2020 election. Meadows argued that his actions pertaining to the aftermath of the 2020 election were covered by his asserted official authority as chief of staff to the president. The district court disagreed, mainly due to Meadows’ lack of justification given for his argument.
“Indeed, rather than make any additional or alternative factual assertions to support his invocation of federal jurisdiction, Mr. Meadows simply quotes the State’s indictment verbatim,” wrote Tuchi. “Not only has Mr. Meadows not disputed any of the foregoing facts, but he has necessarily relied upon them. […] In other words, this is not a case in which opposing parties offer competing facts; rather, it is a case in which the parties offer competing characterizations of identical facts.”
Tuchi wrote that Meadows didn’t justify how his actions pertaining to the 2020 election fell under the proper scope and content of his job responsibilities as chief of staff, as Ninth Circuit precedent requires. Tuchi rejected Meadows’ characterization of his actions as a mere middleman of communication between the president and others.
“Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on. Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme,” wrote Tuchi. “To allow Mr. Meadows to recharacterize the State’s indictment at the level of generality that he seeks to do would be to vitiate both the federal officer removal statute and the Supreme Court precedent interpreting that statute, as every criminal prosecution of a federal officer will in some vague sense involve that officer’s staying ‘apprised of what is happening.’”
The court also rejected Meadows’ reasoning for his untimeliness in filing his notice of removal: his pursuit of an effort to convince the state to drop the charges against him, and his awaiting a Supreme Court decision in the case Trump v. United States that would lend to his immunity defense.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | May 5, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Republican Party of Arizona (AZ GOP) won’t be punished for challenging the 2020 election. The court vacated the attorney fees awards issued by the trial court and court of appeals, and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.
“Petitioners’ claim was not groundless and arguably was made in good faith,” ruled the court. “‘Raising questions’ by petitioning our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws and noting the potential consequences of the failure to do so — particularly in the context of our elections — is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘long shots.’”
In a press release, the AZ GOP said the ruling was a victory for election integrity. The case concerned the party’s lawsuit against Maricopa County election officials’ administration of the mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election.
“This ruling reaffirms the fundamental legal principles that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action,” stated the party.
The AZ GOP’s lawsuit against the county sought declaration that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM), passed under then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, violated state law directing precincts to be the sampling source for the hand count, rather than voting centers.
The AZ GOP sued to prevent the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from canvassing the votes before the late November deadline.
In the ruling, authored by Justice John Lopez, the court determined the AZ GOP hadn’t brought a groundless claim, and that therefore the trial court and court of appeals had erred in awarding attorney fees against the AZ GOP.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was wrong to find the AZ GOP’s claim was groundless over several criteria: the party failing to name the secretary of state as a defendant, seeking mandamus relief unavailable as a matter of law, and improperly contesting a pre-election procedure.
“It is untenable to invoke an alleged procedural defect like the one in this case — readily remediable and, in fact, remedied one day after the complaint was filed — to irrevocably mar a complaint as groundless,” wrote Lopez. “Whatever the Secretary’s interest in Petitioners’ declaratory action, it was fairly debatable whether Petitioners’ naming of the County as a defendant in their complaint was adequate, and, regardless, the parties agreed to the Secretary’s intervention just one day after the complaint was filed.”
Lopez wrote that the requested mandamus relief was fairly debatable, not groundless.
“Thus, because the Maricopa County election officials enjoyed no discretion in the discharge of their hand-count duties — a prerequisite to mandamus relief rather than a legal disqualifier — the trial court erred,” wrote Lopez. “[W]e only hold that Petitioners’ requested mandamus relief was not groundless because it was at least fairly debatable, even if a ‘long shot,’ whether the County was obligated to conduct a hand count consistent with [the law] or an arguably conflicting EPM provision.”
Lopez further wrote that the trial court erroneously assumed that the challenged hand count constituted a pre-election procedure subject to the election-law time bar. The judge noted that the 2019 EPM also doesn’t include hand count among its pre-election procedures.
“[T]he hand-count protocol continues past the election’s conclusion. In fact, although the statute directs the sampling from precincts, the actual selection of polling places does not commence until after the election,” wrote Lopez. “The merits of Petitioners’ claim are not before us; therefore, we need not determine whether, or to what extent, the election-law time bar applies to a procedure, like the hand count, that straddles the election. We merely conclude that Petitioners’ post-election claim was not groundless because whether their claim was time-barred by our jurisprudential election-law procedural rule is at least ‘fairly debatable.’”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Mar 1, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Legislative Republicans in Arizona are advancing a bill to terminate your right to vote…well at least from the “comfort of your kitchen table,” according to Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts. Arizona’s beleaguered voters would instead have to “schlep down” to actual polling places.
But wait – it gets worse! The bill also eliminates the ability to cast your vote anywhere you choose, or it won’t count. Of course, in the real world you would’ve been repeatedly notified of your polling station, and if you went to the wrong one anyway, poll workers would helpfully direct you to the correct one.
Why are Democrats motivated to concoct these exaggerated arguments against in-person voting, which has always worked just fine for Americans? It began in the age of COVID when, to prevent unnecessary mingling, voting in-person was discouraged. Voters instead were sent a ballot which they could return at their leisure
Then, magic happened. Suddenly, Democrats became more likely to win. Close elections turned blue at the last minute, sometimes even after the official account was completed. Underdog candidates, almost always Democrats, begin to eke out victories.
In-person voting came to be depicted as an onerous infringement on our fictitious right to convenience, much more difficult than a trip to the grocery store or a doctor’s office. Exceptions were readily granted for the elderly, infirm, or geographically unavailable. Still, requiring the able-bodied to vote in-person was nothing more than voter suppression, barely more tolerable than Jim Crow.
What difference does it make where you vote? Most Americans don’t realize elections must be rigorously protected from fraud. The election process to a political grifter is like a bank to a thief. Within lies wealth and influence if you can crack it. Every election produces mountains of anecdotal evidence of widespread fraud, although unfortunately no official statistics are kept.
Moreover, all this activity occurs in a system with no systematic method for detecting fraud. When it is sought, the results can be shocking. The multiple irregularities found too late in the 2005 Rossi/Gregoire gubernatorial election in Washington and the ineligible votes cast in Al Franken’s 2010 senatorial election in both cases would have been more than enough to change the outcome.
American elections in the last century have been designed to ensure security of the ballot. On election day, registered voters not claiming a hardship exemption present themselves to a local polling place with a signed photo ID. They are physically protected from inappropriate influence both inside and outside the polling booth. They would drop their completed ballot into a secured receptacle, the contents of which would be delivered to local election officers under strict chain-of-evidence protocols.
With bulk-mail voting, all the precautions vanish. Millions of unsolicited ballots are mailed to poorly maintained lists of voters, many of whom have moved or don’t exist. Nobody knows or can know what happens to the ballots until they are returned by mail. The notably unreliable signature verification process is the lone fraud protection.
Whether the ballot actually reached the intended recipient, who actually filled out the ballot, and whether any illegal aid was supplied to the voter are all categorical unknowns.
Still think bulk-mail voting is basically reliable? Read on.
A Rasmussen poll of 1,085 voters after the 2020 election revealed that fully 21% admitted to filling out a ballot on behalf of another voter. Also,17% said they voted in a state where they were not a permanent resident, and another 17% said they signed a ballot for someone else. Remember, too, the 2020 election was touted as our “most secure of all time,” and these survey numbers were obtained directly from voters who were unlikely to over-report themselves.
Up to 80% of Americans doubt our elections are secure. Some are conspiracy kooks fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time. But many others have justifiable concerns about a system increasingly dependent on bulk-mail voting.
Deep doubts about election validity are not healthy in a democracy. Although bulk-mail voting is popular, convenience-loving Americans should rethink their choice. Casting your ballot in person is a small price to pay for ensuring our republic.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Elizabeth Troutman | Jan 23, 2024 | News
By Elizabeth Troutman |
Arizona State University’s McCain Institute hosted a discussion on the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2023.
The organization, which claims to be nonpartisan, invited CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett and left-leaning election law advocate David Becker to discuss their 2022 book, “The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of ‘The Big Lie,’” with Executive Director of the McCain Institute Evelyn Farkas.
“This book, although it was written in 2022, is incredibly timely… because right now… we have the former president of the United States in D.C.’s court of appeals sitting there listening to an argument about whether he should have immunity for actions that he took, things that he said in the 2020 election,” Farkas said.
In 2020, the election process was “placed under more pressure than ever since the Civil War” and “was carried out with the highest turnout ever, the most diverse populace ever to participate in a presidential election in our history,” according to Garrett.
“Those things are signs of success, not failure,” Garrett continued.
The discussion fell on the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach at the U.S. Capitol and focused on “what actually happened in the 2020 election.” The speakers discussed the “misinformation” designed to “con and beguile Americans into chasing phantom allegations of election crimes.”
“People who spread disinformation don’t necessarily have to convince you of the lie, they just have to convince you that nothing is true,” Becker said at the event.
The election “was an impressive example of democracy at work, despite attempts to overshadow its success,” according to the McCain Institute.
The McCain Institute has a history of dwelling on the 2020 election years after the fact. The ASU center hosted a panel discussing “election denialism” and former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election in February.
Inspired by Senator John McCain and his family, the McCain Institute is part of Arizona State University and based in Washington, D.C. The book discussion was part of the institute’s Authors and Insights book talk series, which started in 2020.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
