A state judge on Tuesday denied multiple motions to dismiss andremand charges against two Cochise County supervisors accused ofinterfering with an election officer in 2022.
Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, two Republican supervisors of Arizona's southeasternmost county, were indicted in November — barely a year after they voted to delay canvassing the county’s general election resultspast the legal deadline. Arizona prosecutors say the delay interferedwith then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ job to certify the statewideresults.
Defendants say the case should be dismissed because,while the countywide canvass was completed after the Nov. 28, 2022,deadline, Hobbs still certified the results before her own deadline ofDec. 5. They also claim the state grand jury that indicted them has nojurisdiction over the crimes they’re said to have committed.
Maricopa County Judge Geoffrey Fish disagreed and denied their motions through multiple opinions that hit the docket Tuesday.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a press release that her office is prepared to move forward with the case.
“This is a serious case, and the charges have merit,” she said. “Today's ruling by the court supports that.”
Crosbyfirst suggested delaying the election canvass during a Nov. 18, 2022,meeting while responding to concerns from constituents over unprovenclaims of election fraud — peddled mostly by Republican politicians whosay the last two general elections were stolen from Republicancandidates.
A group of Cochise County citizens led by a man namedPaul Rice, who claimed to be experts in voting machine certificationlaboratories, told Crosby they feared the machines used in CochiseCounty weren’t properly verified. Crosby told them they could presenttheir argument against a representative from the secretary of state’soffice on Nov. 28, 2022 — the supervisors’ legal deadline to completethe canvass.
Hobbs declined to send a representative to themeeting, as she had already released information affirming theaccreditation of the voting machines, backed by a ruling from theArizona Supreme Court.
“All they had to do was come refute what Rice was saying, and they didn’t do so,” Crosby said in a grand jury hearing on Nov. 13, 2023.
Whenhe arrived to the supervisors' meeting on Nov. 28, 2022, Crosby foundthat the only item on the meeting agenda, created by the board’s chairand only Democrat, Ann English, was the immediate acceptance andcertification of the election results. Crosby said in his motion to dismissthat because the public hadn’t been properly notified that the canvasswould be completed that day, doing so would result in an open meetingviolation. Therefore, he and Judd had no choice but to vote to delayonce again.
Hobbs sued, and a state judge ordered the board tovote to canvass the results on Dec. 1, which it did by the end of theday. Hobbs certified the statewide results before her Dec. 5 deadline,which Crosby says is proof that no interference took place. He alsoargues that he and Judd enjoy legislative immunity from interferenceaccusations because the votes to delay were actions within theirgoverning authority.
State prosecutor Todd Lawson told the courtin April that the supervisors' actions created “confusion” and “chaos”and were part of a larger conspiracy to cast doubts on elections andpotentially shift political power in Arizona. He added that choosing notto canvass election results can’t be protected by legislativeprivilege, because the act is a ministerial duty that supervisors don’thave the power to refuse.
Judge Fish sided with the state on the question of legislative privilege, but left the matter of interference up to a potential jury.
“Thefailure to hold a vote and conduct the canvass as a non discretionaryfunction of the (board of supervisors) in order to delay and hold ahearing on the validity of the voting machines, does not amount to alegislative act,” Fish wrote in an opinion dated Sunday.
Fish also rejected Judd’s argument that the grand jury didn’t have the authority to investigate the case.
Arizona lawallows the state grand jury to investigate, among other things, “anyform of intentional, knowing or corrupt misconduct involving any personcompensated by public funds,” Fish wrote in an opinion dated Tuesday.“There is no question both defendants are compensated by public funds.Defendants are county supervisors paid for with public tax funds.”
Bothdefendants argue that the case should be remanded back to the grandjury, which they say received misleading testimony from county attorneyBrian McIntyre. Crosby added that the state failed to instruct the grandjury on specific definitions in statutes.
Fish foundthe state has no obligation to clarify definitions unless asked to bythe grand jury. He also wrote that most of McIntyre’s testimony amountedto factual disputes for a trial jury to decide, but his legalconclusions were accurate and fair.
“The presentation of evidenceto the grand jury was fair and impartial and defendant’s due processwas not violated,” he wrote in an opinion dated Saturday.
Trial is tentatively set for August 15 in Phoenix, with a pretrial conference on August 8.
