PHOENIXΒ β The 16 remaining defendants in Arizona's "fake electors'' case will be off the legal hook if the litigation drags on beyond the 2026 election and Attorney General Kris Mayes loses her race.
All three Republicans running for state attorney general against Democrat Mayes say that if elected, they will drop the case, in which the defendants were charged with fraud, conspiracy and forgery over documents submitted to Congress falsely claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election in Arizona.Β
And, at the rate the case is going, it is a real possibilityΒ β and a likelihood under certain scenarios βΒ that there will be no final outcome by Jan. 1, 2027 when a new term begins for the office of attorney general.
"Drop it,'' Senate President Warren Petersen said when asked what he would do with the case if he wins the August Republican primary and then defeats Mayes.
"It clearly is a witch hunt,'' he said. "I won't use the office to persecute my political enemies.''
The same from GOP candidate Rodney Glassman.
"On my first day in the attorney general's office this madness ends,'' he said in social media posts, also using the phrase "witch hunt indictments designed to harass and silence President Trump's supporters.''
And a day after entering the Republican race last week, Greg Roeberg posted that Mayes "continues to waste valuable resources going after political opponents.''
"On Day One, I'll restore the AG's office to its true purposeΒ β serving the people of Arizona,'' wrote Roeberg,Β who posted that he was a campaign attorney for Trump and included a photo of himself at Trump Tower in 2016.
All this becomes relevant because even Mayes' aide Richie Taylor acknowledges that the earliest the electors case could go to trial is next fall.Β
Mayes faces reelection in November 2026 after barely squeaking into office in 2022 with a 280-vote edge over Republican Abe Hamadeh.
Mayes said she will continue to pursue the charges regardless of what might happen in the 2026 general election β and regardless of what a potential successor might do. She said the decision is not about politics.
"It is about enforcing the law and upholding the fundamental integrity of our election system,'' she told Capitol Media Services.
Any decision to drop the case, by her or anyone who might succeed her, would have implications, she said.
"If we fail to hold accountable those who sought to overturn the legal winner of Arizona's electoral votes, we risk future manipulation,'' Mayes said.
She said she doesn't believe the 2026 election will be a referendum on whether she should have brought the charges in the first place. Instead, Mayes said, she believes voters will look at other actions taken by her office,Β ranging from bringing antitrust charges over rent price fixing, to fighting the Trump administration in federal court over cuts to state funding.
In the meantime, her case against the electors and those she says conspired with them remains stalled.
The April 2024 indictment says 11 Republicans signed a document after the 2020 presidential election falsely declaring that Trump won the popular vote in Arizona even though Joe Biden defeated him by 10,457 votes. That document was sent to Congress, a move the indictment contends was part of a national plan to throw the results of the race into doubt and have federal lawmakers declare Trump had won reelection.
This 2020 photo from the Arizona Republican Party shows the 11 GOP electors posing for a group photo after they signed documents falsely claiming the stateβs electoral votes were won by Donald Trump despite Joe Biden's victory in the state.Β
The indictment also says the scheme was hatched by seven other defendants aligned with Trump, including attorneys and Trump's then-chief of staff, who also were indicted. Trump himself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
One defendant, Loraine Pellegrino, has since pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false instrument; she was placed on probation. And Jenna Ellis, one of Trump's attorneys, had the charges against her dropped after she promised to cooperate with prosecutors.
The overall case came to a halt when Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers threw out the indictment, ruling that the grand jury were not told about an 1887 federal law on with how Congress should deal with multiple slates of electors from any state.
Myers said that key information could have caused grand jurors to reject the state's claim that the 11 Republicans who falsely claimed to be the state's true electors were trying to commit fraud and conspiracy.
Unable to get that ruling set aside by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Mayes is now trying to convince the state Supreme Court to reinstate the case.Β
But even if the Supreme Court agreesΒ β something that wouldn't occur until next year β there are issues that have to be resolved before any testimony can be presented.
The first is a claim by defendants that Mayes, in bringing the charges, violated the state's Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation law. That statute allows trial judges to throw out a case if a public official has used the legal system to punish and prevent speech on political issues.
Myers already issued a preliminary ruling that there appears to be enough evidence to suggest the indictment could be seen as an attack on what is "at least in part some arguably lawful speech.''
There hasn't been a final ruling on that, however, because Myers dismissed the indictment. If the charges are restored, that issue, including any possible appeals, must be resolved before the case can go forward.
Also pending is a claim by Christina Bobb, one of Trump's attorneys who was indicted, that Mayes and her entire office should be disqualified from pursuing the case.
Bobb contends that money Mayes received from the Democratic Attorney Generals Association for her legal defense fund was an improper payment so she would pursue the "fake electors" charges. Bobb contends there is a financial link between the Democratic Attorney Generals Association and States United, an organization that prepared a 47-page legal analysis for Mayes, on how to pursue the case, ahead of any charges being brought.
All of that is disputed by the Attorney General's Office.
Here, too, appeals of whatever Myers rules are possible, further delaying the case.
The timing gets even more problematic for Mayes if the Arizona Supreme Court does not reinstate the original indictment.
At that point Mayes would have to convene an entirely new grand jury and present all the same evidence she did the first time to get a renewed set of charges.
That, in turn, would start the legal process all over again.
