Texts undercut Arizona lawmaker's claim hearing testimony was a surprise

PHOENIX — A Chandler lawmaker defending herself against an ethics complaint swore Thursday that she was not aware ahead of time that a Scottsdale insurance agent planned to present what was later called “unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations” at a legislative hearing.

But Rep. Liz Harris’ repeated statements that she didn’t know what Jacqueline Breger was going to say at a special election hearing in late February appeared to be contradicted by a series of text messages the Ethics Committee released.

Those texts show Harris and Breger messaging back and forth two days before the Feb. 23 hearing called by Republicans to question Arizona’s election administration. They discussed the headline for her presentation on a committee agenda to avoid giving hints about its contents.

Harris also appeared to work to avoid providing electronic copies of what Breger intended to present to House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli in advance by advising Breger to only bring printed copies of her presentation. That could have given Toma and Borrelli a chance to block Breger’s testimony at the joint Senate and house committee hearing.

Harris, a freshman Republican lawmaker who believes the fact-less allegation that the state’s election system is rife with fraud that led to defeats by Republican candidates, repeatedly said under questioning Thursday that she didn’t know Breger’s presentation would devolve into a bizarre series of allegations.

They included that Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, several Republican Maricopa County supervisors, 12 Maricopa County Superior Court judges and Mesa Mayor John Giles all had taken bribes that came in the form of money laundered through a scam involving real estate deeds.

Breger also presented documents to the committee that listed others — including Toma — as guilty of corruption. She also listed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon church, as being involved. Many lawmakers are members of the church.

That testimony at the February hearing — and Harris’ apparent hand gesture cutting off Breger when state Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, asked who had invited her — triggered the ethics complaint by Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson.

Stahl Hamilton’s complaint accused Harris of violating state defamation laws and bringing “disrepute and embarrassment” to the House of Representatives by inviting Breger and allowing her to testify.

The formal charge the committee is considering — Thursday’s hearing ended with the five-member panel issuing no decision — was on the specific charge of “disorderly behavior” under House rules. The panel can dismiss the complaint, censure her or even ask the whole House to expel Harris.

Republican Rep. Travis Grantham asked Harris repeatedly about the text messages. But Harris repeatedly swore that she did not know what Breger planned to present before her testimony, which was scheduled for 20 minutes but went more than twice as long.

“I’ll ask you right now, did you know that Miss Breger was going to come in here and present the information she presented that day in the special elections hearing?” Grantham asked.

“Representative Grantham, absolutely, positively 100%, no,” Harris responded.

Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson, also a member of the Ethics Committee, wasn’t buying it and pushed Harris some more, although committee chair Rep. Joseph Chaplik kept him on a short leash.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Harris presented a defense that included repeated references to the state constitution and her belief that lawmakers are obliged to allow citizens to come and present information to the Legislature.

“The people have the right to speak freely, petition the government and hold their government officials accountable,” Harris said in her lengthy rebuttal to the allegations. “We must ensure that these rights are protected and that the people are empowered to exercise them.”

The original February hearing itself led to finger-pointing between Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen over who was responsible for allowing Harris to call Breger.

Petersen said he had asked that all materials be reviewed by Borrelli ahead of time.

“That was not shared with him and was a surprise to the committee,” he said.

“I assure you, had he known about the report (Breger planned to present), he would not allow it to be included,” Petersen said. “It was definitely not the proper venue to make such allegations nor to assess the credibility of such a statement.”

Toma, for his part, refused to take the blame for allowing the hearing to go forward.

“So he-he,’’ the speaker told Capitol Media Services of Petersen’s role. “We agreed to it collectively.”

And Toma, in turn, blamed Harris for “bad judgement” in inviting Breger “to present unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations in a legislative forum.”

At the start of the hearing, Chaplik pointed out that it was not the panel’s role to decide if defamation had occurred or to question the integrity of the state election system. He followed up with a written statement that note the hearing was “not a trial.”

“It was strictly an opportunity for committee members to formally hear from Representative Harris and gather facts in consideration of a specific and internal House matter: whether Representative Harris engaged in disorderly behavior,” he said.

No date has been set for the committee to reconvene.

Chaplik said he wants to give members the opportunity to “fully review the evidence and deliberate.”