by Matthew Holloway | Jun 1, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff, has filed a motion for the Maricopa County Superior Court to dismiss charges against him related to the prosecution of Arizona’s Republican alternate electors. Meadows argues that the charges made by Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes are “politically motivated.”
“Today we filed in the Arizona court a motion to dismiss Kris Mayes’s politically motivated charges against Mr. Meadows, which are clearly forbidden by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause,” said Meadows’ attorney George J. Terwilliger III. “The West Wing of the White House is the beating heart of the Executive Branch, and the Supremacy Clause bars states from attempting to police federal officials, like Mr. Meadows, who worked there. For too long, Mr. Meadows has been wrongfully included in this case and the Attorney General ought to admit the error of her ways and voluntarily dismiss this case now.”
As reported by KJZZ, another of Meadow’s attorneys, Ann Chapman, explained, “States lack jurisdiction to prosecute federal officials for conduct taken within the scope of their federal offices and duties because the Supremacy Clause bars such claims.”
Chapman emphasized that given Meadows lacked any role in President Trump’s campaign, everything he did was in his capacity as White House Chief of Staff. She told the outlet that “Meadows held no role in the president’s reelection campaign,” and that he was “responsible in his capacity as chief of staff for coordinating the president’s time and attention with the campaign.”
In April 2024, Mayes indicted 18 defendants, including Arizona’s 11 alternate electors who prepared a contingent certification for President Donald Trump after the 2020 election, naming Trump an “unindicted co-conspirator.” Earlier this month. the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that Attorney General Kris Mayes must redo her entire case.
Richie Taylor, a spokesman for the Arizona Attorney General, stated, “We vehemently disagree with the court, and we will file a special action to appeal the ruling.”
Mel McDonald, a former metro Phoenix county judge and U.S. Attorney for Arizona, explained to the Associated Press that courts remand cases to grand juries when prosecutors present misleading or incomplete evidence or fail to properly instruct jurors on the law.
“They get granted at times,” he said, but noted, “It’s not often.”
On May 19, 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam J. Myers dealt a significant setback to prosecutors by ordering the case against seven Trump campaign advisors and the 11 alternate electors back to a grand jury. Myers ruled that Mayes’ team failed to provide the text of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, central to the defense’s argument.
Defense attorney Stephen Binhak told the Washington Post, “We are extremely pleased with the court’s ruling, and we think the judge got it exactly right.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | May 20, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that Attorney General Kris Mayes must redo her entire case against the 2020 Trump electors.
In a ruling issued on Monday in Arizona v. Bowyer, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers sided with the electors’ argument that Mayes failed to instruct the grand jury as to the applicable provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, or “ECA.” Myers remanded the case back to the grand jury — meaning Mayes must start over if she still hopes to prosecute Trump’s allies in Arizona.
Myers didn’t buy Mayes’ justification for not providing the full ECA to jurors; the attorney general argued the provision of “relevant portions” of the ECA via several Kenneth Chesebro memorandums and an interview, a letter from State Sen. Jake Hoffman’s counsel, and a CNN article were sufficient.
Myers ruled Mayes had failed to provide due process to the electors by not providing “the actual text and provisions” of the ECA.
“A prosecutor has a duty to instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case,” stated Myers. “Due process compels the prosecutor to make a fair and impartial presentation to the grand jury. … Because the State failed to provide the ECA to the grand jury, the Court finds that the defendants were denied a substantial procedural right as guaranteed by Arizona law.”
Mayes indicted 11 electors for President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful 2020 run: Tyler Bowyer, COO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) arm Turning Point Action; Nancy Cottle, former electors chair and Arizona Federation of Republican Women leader; Sen. Jake Hoffman; former State Sen. Anthony Kern; Jim Lamon, 2022 Senate candidate; Robert Montgomery, former Cochise County GOP Committee chair; Samuel Moorhead, former Gila County GOP leader; Loraine Pellegrino, former electors secretary and president of Ahwatukee Republican Women; Greg Safsten, former Arizona GOP executive director; and Kelli Ward, former Arizona GOP chair, and her husband, Michael Ward.
The electors faced felony charges of conspiracy, fraud, and forgery.
These defendants argued the ECA protected their role as electors for Trump in 2020, saying the law allowed for competing electors in disputed elections.
Hoffman called the case against him and fellow electors “a witch hunt” and “a cheap political campaign promise” by Mayes.
“As I’ve said from day one, the truth is on my side, justice will prevail, and I will be vindicated,” said Hoffman. “In the meantime, Kristin will keep showing the public what a total joke she is.”
TPUSA founder and CEO, Charlie Kirk, called the ruling a “major embarrassment” for Mayes.
“It has been political from the very start and never should have happened, and we need to make sure all similar such charges are dropped against all Trump supporters, in all swing states,” said Kirk.
Mayes spokesman Richie Taylor said their office would file an appeal.
“We vehemently disagree with the court and we will file a special action to appeal the ruling,” said Taylor.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Dec 21, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona Republicans scored a significant victory in court over the state’s top elections official.
On Thursday, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma championed a recent court ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney over contested provisions within the 2023 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). According to a release issued by the Arizona House of Representatives, “the court sided with Speaker [Ben] Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen in their legal challenge, declaring that the Secretary overstepped his authority and infringed on the Legislature’s exclusive lawmaking powers.”
Speaker Toma released a statement in reaction to the decision, saying, “This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and today’s decision reaffirms that foundational principle. Secretary Fontes attempted to overstep his authority, but the court recognized these actions for what they were – unlawful and unenforceable. I am proud to have led this fight to protect the constitutional role of the Legislature and to ensure that Arizona’s election laws are upheld as written. It’s a win for all Arizonans who value fair, transparent, and accountable election policies.”
President Petersen said, “A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.”
In a comment to AZ Free News, Petersen added, “We’re disappointed that the judge delayed the effective date of the AEVL provision but everything else was a big win. We will continue to do all we can to secure our elections and boost voter confidence.”
Arizona House Republicans shared that the court ruling “invalidated multiple provisions in the EPM, including:
- A rule altering how voter registrations are managed for non-residents, in violation of Arizona statutes.
- A rule excusing errors in circulator registrations, undermining strict compliance requirements for initiatives and referendums.
- A rule limiting the role of county Boards of Supervisors during the canvassing process and improperly allowing the Secretary to exclude county results from the statewide canvass.”
While this past election cycle has come and gone, Fontes will have one more opportunity to fashion an EPM before the next one, and he has Democrat allies in Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes to potentially rubberstamp his schemes yet again. Arizona legislative Republicans are awaiting the next installment of the EPM to ensure that any out-of-order provisions will be quickly discovered and challenged in court to protect the integrity of Arizona elections.
Fontes dropped the current EPM just before the statute-mandated deadline of December 31, 2023, after securing approvals from Hobbs and Mayes. For the first time since 1978-1979, Democrats controlled the top three statewide offices in Arizona (Governor: Bruce Babbitt, Attorney General: John LaSota, Secretary of State: Rose Mofford). One of the most significant consequences of securing this power trifecta is the ability to negotiate, craft, and green light the state’s Elections Procedures Manual without initial interference from opposing political voices, as required by law every two years.
At the end of January, Petersen and Toma filed a challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court over Fontes’ EPM, which has been ongoing up until (and through) this week’s decision.
When the EPM was published at the end of last year, Governor Katie Hobbs, who preceded Fontes, said, “Partisan politics should have no role in how we run our elections. This EPM builds on the 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM from my tenure as Secretary of State and will ensure dedicated public servants from across the state will have the guidelines they need to administer free and fair elections. Together, we can protect our democracy and make sure every Arizonan has the opportunity to have their voice heard.”
As Secretary of State, Hobbs was required to finalize the EPM in 2021, but a divided government shared with Republican Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich stymied the quest to secure a green light for the manual. Hobbs and Brnovich were also mired in an ongoing political feud, which resulted in legal bar charges that the Secretary of State brought against the state’s top prosecutor and several of his attorneys. After receiving Hobbs’ updated manual, Brnovich sued the SOS “to compel her production of a lawful EPM.” Brnovich alleged that “the SOS failed to provide the Governor and Attorney General with a lawful manual by October 1, 2021, as required, and instead included nearly one-hundred pages of provisions not permitted under the EPM statute.” The challenge from the former Attorney General was rendered unsuccessful, and the state was forced to revert to the previous cycle’s EPM (2019) to govern the 2022 races.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Dec 11, 2024 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa Superior Court dismissed a challenge to a school district’s dual language program, citing lack of standing.
The plaintiff, Patricia Pellett, is a Scottsdale Unified School District parent, and not part of the district she challenged, Creighton Elementary School District (CESD). Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne’s wife, Carmen Chenal Horne, represented Pellett in the case.
Back in August, Horne said that it was irrelevant that Pellett didn’t have a child in CESD schools.
“Under a provision in the initiative that said that a student of any parent in the state could bring an action against any school district in the state that violates this initiative,” said Horne.
The challenge to CESD arose from Horne’s crusade against dual language programs. Horne’s aim is to have all schools teach only through immersion programs. Dual language models teach students subjects in languages other than English for part of their education, whereas immersion has students taught their subject matter entirely in English.
State law enacted through a voter initiative (Proposition 203 passed in 2000) requires that public schools teach the English language through English-spoken courses and English language classrooms, unless parents are eligible to provide prior written informed consent for bilingual education techniques or those educational methodologies permitted by law.
“[A]ll children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms,” states the law.
Eligible circumstances include parents with children who already know English, older children, and children with special needs.
The Arizona State Board of Education has determined that parental waivers for immersion aren’t required, a finding affirmed by Attorney General Kris Mayes last year. Mayes published that opinion in response to a request on legal clarity from state representatives as to whether the language models used by seven school districts — Glendale Elementary, Kyrene Elementary, Phoenix Elementary, Mesa Public Schools, Laveen Elementary, Creighton Elementary, and Mexicayotl Academy — warranted corrective action by ADE.
Horne dismissed Mayes’ opinion as “ideologically driven” and not based in law.
Horne turned to Pellett to challenge schools’ dual language programs after Maricopa County Superior Court ordered Horne to pay over $120,000 in legal fees earlier this year.
The judge, Katherine Cooper, ruled that state law didn’t authorize Horne to ask the courts to rule on school district compliance with Proposition 203. Cooper ruled that only the State Board of Education possessed authority over dual language programs, citing the board’s responsibility for developing and approving immersion models. Cooper further declared that Horne had no justiciable claim, either, and ruled that parents and guardians had the power to file lawsuits to enforce the proposition.
“The school districts, like all public and charter schools, are required to follow a model as approved by the State Board,” ruled Cooper.
Horne’s response was to accuse the ruling as avoidant of the merits of the case. He reiterated that the voter-approved initiative (Proposition 203) required children to be taught in English.
With Horne’s continued challenges to the existence of dual language programs and advocacy for immersion programs, the Arizona School Boards Association says it will advocate for greater reliance on 50-50 models.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Nov 15, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen has chosen to recuse himself from the alternate electors case after reports revealed a series of emails he sent to his colleagues that openly defended Vice President Kamala Harris and urged other jurists to do likewise.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the controversy that preceded Cohen’s recusal centered around a series of emails in which he demanded that his fellow judges and commissioners stand in defense of then-Democratic Presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. The Judge offered these emails in response to criticisms levied against Harris that she was a “DEI Hire.” Cohen particularly characterized the issue in racial and gender-based terms calling upon white men in particular to defend Harris, along with any colleagues who identified as “person(s) of color.”
Cohen wrote in part, “It does matter if your chromosomes are made up of ‘XY.’ It matters even more if your skin color is characterized as ‘white’ or Caucasian. We must speak out. We must tell those within our circles of influence that this s**t must stop. NOW! We cannot allow our female colleagues to feel as if they stand alone when there are those who may intimate that their ascension was anything other than based upon exceptionalism. We cannot allow our colleagues who identify as being a ‘person of color’ to stand alone when there are those may claim that their ascension was an ‘equity hire’ rather than based solely upon exceptionalism. We no longer can stay silent merely because others are exercising their right to free speech — we, too, have that same right and must exercise it.”
Attorneys representing Republican state Sen. Jake Hoffman, a defendant alongside several other prominent Republican figures facing charges for their participation in an alternate slate of Electoral College votes during the 2020 Presidential Election, told the Associated Press that Judge Cohen “bears a deep-seated personal political bias that overcame his professional judgment.”
Arizona attorney Mark L. Williams, who represents former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told the AP, “Given the statements the judge made, I think it’s appropriate that he recuse himself.”
He added, “The way I see it, the case against Mr. Giuliani and the other defendants is falling apart and I think the attorney general should just wind down the case and dismiss it.”
Michael Colombo of Dhillon law group, writing on Hoffman’s behalf in a motion for recusal, explained, “The utter contempt Judge Cohen displayed against President Trump in his Aug. 29 email makes it clear that Senator Hoffman — who is on trial for exercising his First Amendment rights as a supporter of President Trump — cannot receive a fair trial before Judge Cohen.”
Columbo also took aim at Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes writing, “While Judge Cohen is entitled to his political opinions and speech, his rhetoric and exhortation precisely mirrors the evidence of hostile partisan political zealotry at the heart of the motions to dismiss that have been languishing before the Court for months. In short, the evidence before the Court of the Attorney General’s unlawful retaliation against Defendants includes her demonization of Republicans as well as her Chief Deputy comparing Republicans to Nazis and the Defendants in this case to Vladimir Putin.”
He added, “Even if Judge Cohen can somehow separate his apparent detestation of President Trump from his adjudication of a case that centers around defendants’ political activity in support of President Trump, the appearance of impropriety is a stain on this case that cannot be removed.”
Cohen, scheduled to retire in January, defended his actions in the text of his order, and even doubled down claiming, “This judicial officer expressed in an email support for the exceptionalism of the judicial officers of Maricopa County and was a stand for decency and respect. What was contained in the email is not reflective of bias.”
Per Courthouse News, all scheduled hearings are now vacated and the case is on hold pending the assignment of a new judge.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
