Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes faced a significant setback in her controversial criminal case against key Trump allies and alternate electors from the 2020 election. The defendants recently overcame a major legal hurdle in their effort to dismiss the case, citing an Arizona law designed to prevent politically motivated prosecutions.
In April of last year, Mayes’ office announced that a grand jury had indicted former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and five other former Trump aides on felony charges related to the Trump campaign’s challenge of the 2020 election results. The indictment, which includes charges of conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, also identifies Trump as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”
Eleven more Arizona Republicans who served as alternate electors have also been indicted, including former Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward, state senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Arizona’s RNC committeeman Tyler Bowyer. Progressive prosecutors have repeatedly referred to alternate electors as “fake electors” while pursuing felony charges of forgery and fraud against them.
Democratic attorneys general in Michigan and Nevada have pursued similar cases, though the Nevada case was dismissed by a Clark County district judge. Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis launched a comparable case in Georgia, which now appears to be stalled.
Mayes—who narrowly won her 2022 election by fewer than 300 votes—has vowed to press forward with the case, even after President Trump carried Arizona by a wide margin. However, the prosecution now faces serious jeopardy as defendants have filed a motion arguing that Mayes violated Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law. This law allows defendants to seek dismissal if they can demonstrate that “the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against, or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.”
Originally limited to civil cases, the law was expanded by Republican lawmakers in 2022 to include criminal charges. Meanwhile, the Arizona legislature is considering additional measures that could further undermine Mayes’ controversial case later this year. Last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers ruled that the defendants had presented sufficient evidence to proceed with their anti-SLAPP motion, according to a report from KJZZ Phoenix. However, the judge clarified that he has not yet determined whether the case will be dismissed entirely.
“The court finds that the defendant’s motions do include information that the charges in this case include, at least in part, some arguably lawful exercise of their rights of petition and speech,” Myers said in his ruling. He added: “Defendant’s motions also include information that the attorney general has made statements in the past, suggesting that what happened in this case should never happen again, which they argue shows a desire to deter the actions that were alleged in this case.”
Myers stated that the first step of the court’s process has been completed as he reviews the motion under the expanded anti-SLAPP law. Now, prosecutors from Mayes’ office will attempt to argue that the charges are warranted. “In this step two, the state will have the opportunity to show that the charges are justified by clearly established law and that the Attorney General did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate against the moving parties defendants exercise of their constitutional rights,” Myers said.
The judge gave Mayes 45 days to respond to the latest ruling. “We disagree with this ruling, and we will pursue an appeal,” Mayes said in a statement. “It is not the lawful exercise of free speech to file forged slates of electors to deprive Arizona voters of their right to vote.”
