The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes over a trial court’s decision allowing a challenge to her prosecution of Arizona’s alternate electors for Trump in 2020 and their associates to go ahead on the basis that it violated the defendants’ free speech rights. One of the defendants, Trump’s former attorney Christina Bobb, filed a motion requesting that Mayes, her office, and her attorneys at the progressive group States United Democracy Center be disqualified from the case, suggesting Mayes’ actions were criminal.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers had ruled in February that there were enough grounds in the defendants’ motions to likely dismiss the prosecutions due to violating the First Amendment. He appeared to agree with the defendants’ accusations that Mayes violated the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits using the courts to suppress the First Amendment. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
A 3-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals — which included two left-leaning judges — ruled in response to Mayes’ appeal on June 5, “In light of the superior court’s remand of the indictment as to all defendants: IT IS ORDERED, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to accept jurisdiction of this special action, without prejudice to its reassertion should the matter return to the posture in which this special action was filed.”
Myers also recently told Mayes she would need to convene a second grand jury to indict the defendants, since she violated the defendants’ due process during the first grand jury proceeding by not providing the jurors with a copy of the 1887 Electoral Count Act (ECA). Defense attorneys argued that the ECA allowed for multiple slates of electors. It was amended afterwards in 2022 by Congress to restrict that, stating that the Vice President did not have substantive authority to reject slates of electors.
Bobb’s motion, which contained 222 pages of exhibits, summarized, “The public should be extremely concerned that the Arizona Attorney General, while in office, is receiving payments from a committee of the Democratic Party, in exchange for what appears to be granting them influence over this political prosecution.” She also alleged, “At worst, the actions raise serious questions of criminal activity.”
She asserted that Mayes “engaged in an improper and prejudicial relationship with States United Democracy Center,” violating her rights and attorney ethics rules, “which appears to have resulted in the Attorney General profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the defendants and taxpayers.” She said this has resulted in “irreparable conflicts of interest.”
Bobb traced the links between States United and Mayes, hinting that Democrats rewarded her with large amounts of money for prosecuting the defendants. She laid out how States United is an initiative of the Progressive State Leadership Committee (PSLC). PSLC has the same address and nearly identical leadership as the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), and DAGA pays the salaries of PSLC employees.
She said, “DAGA paid $50,000 to Kris Mayes’ ‘legal fund’ September 5, 2023, long after Kris Mayes’ campaign was over and just a couple months after the Attorney General’s Office signed a contract giving prosecutorial influence to States United.” This was around the time the grand jury investigation was opened, she said. DAGA made a second payment of $150,000 on “July 3, 2024, over 18 months after her campaign ended and roughly a month after Ms. Bobb and her co-defendants were all arrested, arraigned, and publicly humiliated.”
In contrast, Bobb noted that “DAGA made donations to the Arizona Democratic Party in 2022, during the campaign cycle, of only $25,000. Yet, Kris Mayes’ legal fund received $200,000 after the election was over, but while she was in office and developing this criminal case.” Additionally, “DAGA only minimally contributed to Kris Mayes’ campaign or legal fund during the 2022 election cycle, making three payments of $2,500, $2,800 and $1066.”
As a 501(c)(3), States United is prohibited by IRS regulations from donating any money to political campaigns.
Bobb asserted, “States United, as ‘an initiative of’ PSLC/DAGA, has an inherent conflict and cannot impartially participate in the prosecution of their obvious political opponents.”
Bobb said Mayes had a duty to disclose the relationship, but instead covered it up. It was disclosed accidentally when “the memo prepared by States United planning the legal strategy for this prosecution was attached to an AG pleading as an exhibit.” The memo, which was stamped “Attorney-Client Privilege” and “Attorney Work Product,” recommended who Mayes should prosecute and what charges to bring.
She asked, “The logical next question is will there be a third payment if she secures a conviction?”
As further evidence of Mayes attempting to hide States United’s role, Bobb noted that States United never entered an appearance in the case. Bobb went over the history of Norm Eisen, founder of States United and a progressive attorney known for organizing lawfare against Trump and election integrity efforts. “States United, as an organization, openly calls for the punishment of Trump attorneys, including Ms. Bobb and her co-defendants in this matter,” Bobb said. “Mayes also campaigned openly on her intent to seek indictment of Trump electors and supporters.”
In contrast, Mayes’ predecessor, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, declined to prosecute the case, Bobb said, referring it to the Department of Justice.
She cited case law which holds that both the Constitution and Arizona’s constitution guarantee “a due process right to be prosecuted by an impartial, disinterested and uninfluenced prosecutor.” Regarding state law, “Arizona courts have developed their own standard of disqualification based on an appearance of impropriety. any attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance of representing conflicting interests.”
Bobb listed multiple similar cases where prosecutors were disqualified, including in State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, where defendants alleged “an improper relationship of the prosecutors and the appearance of financial kick-backs generated from that prosecution.” In that case, “the Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutors and the entire office were disqualified from participating in the case based on the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.”
Bobb recommended as a resolution, “A variety of alternative prosecutorial agencies exist to which the case could be transferred, including the various County prosecuting offices and the United States Attorneys Office, or even appointment of a special prosecutor.”
The case includes numerous high-profile defendants, including Trump's former attorney and constitutional legal scholar John Eastman, Trump's former attorney Rudy Giuliani, and former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward and her husband.
Mayes, who was accused of lying about having any prosecutorial experience, issued a speech on video last year about the prosecution which got a lot of the law wrong. Mayes is also prosecuting Cochise County supervisors for delaying canvassing of the 2022 election over concerns about election impropriety, which Arizona Legislative leadership denounced and the Arizona Freedom Caucus condemned. The Maricopa County Republican Committee unanimously passed a resolution in 2023 calling to impeach Mayes over her lawfare and hostility to election integrity. A State House panel sought to impeach Mayes last year. Mike Davis, who leads the Article III Project, has suggested that Mayes may go to prison.