Judge sides against Mayes on Cochise County election administrator

A judge rejected a request from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes to block the Cochise County Board of Supervisors from handing over its election administration to the elected county recorder.

On Tuesday, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink turned aside Mayes’ request for an injunction blocking the February agreement from being implemented. Mayes had argued in her lawsuit that the board illegally delegated its oversight of elections to Recorder David Stevens.

But Fink said the agreement the board signed gives it sufficient oversight to meet the law’s requirements, including regular reports from Stevens to the board and its ability to overturn any decisions it finds objectionable.

“If there is a problem with the recorder’s performance of his election duties, these provisions are safeguards that are in the court’s opinion sufficient to ensure that the board means authority over the conduct of elections in Cochise County,” Fink said.

The decision came after an hour-long court hearing in which Solicitor General Josh Bendor, representing Mayes, tried to persuade Fink that the county was illegally delegating its authority to Stevens.

The county’s hired outside attorney, Timothy La Sota, said the Attorney General’s Office was nitpicking the agreement to find faults that weren’t there.

“If you look at the state’s critique of the agreement, it looks more like what a lawyer would put together for a client when they’re just kind of looking for things to pick out about something they don’t like,” La Sota told the judge. “’I don’t like how this is written,’ ‘I don’t like how that’s written.’”

La Sota pointed out that the county board, made up of two Republicans and one Democrat, retained the power to review decisions made by Stevens and replace him if it wants.

Those were important clarifications of the agreement, which the state read differently, Bendor said in an interview after the hearing ended.

He maintained that the judge’s decision was not a clear loss for Mayes. The attorney general had argued the agreement was so unclear about the board’s ability to oversee elections, including an upcoming one for a new jail tax, that it crossed the line into illegality.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“They cannot make a representation to the judge and then not implement it that way,” Bendor said. “So I think that’s important, and it means that the board does have supervisory authority over Stevens’ elections duties and that’s what the judge appeared to say, as well. I would hope that the defendants act consistent with their representations to the court, and if they do, then maybe there won’t be a need for us to appeal.”

The attorney general’s lawsuit pointed to a series of issues in last year’s election in Cochise County, where the board tried to have a 100% hand count conducted. That was blocked by the courts and the two Republican board members refused to certify the election results until ordered to do so.

Judge Fink, however, said those issues were irrelevant to his decision and that if the case went forward, he would have stricken them from the record.

Stevens said in an interview after the attorney general filed suit in March that the agreement does not give him carte blanche to do as he wishes.

Instead, it says the board must sign off on his decisions. He noted that the agreement was drafted by the County Attorney’s Office, and only two small changes were made by the board before they signed off on it.

Stevens, a Republican, said any thought that he might use his new role to affect the operation or outcome of elections is misplaced.

After Tuesday’s ruling, Bendor said the Democratic attorney general will continue to keep close tabs on election administration in Cochise County.

“We have to keep an eye on what’s going down there,” Bendor said. “I assume (Stevens) will follow the law, and we’ll keep an eye on things in case there’s any shenanigans.”