Arizona AG Sues Cochise County to Stop MAGA Election Deniers From Disrupting Elections

by

Above: Cochise County’s rogue Republican County Supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd.

When last we checked in on rogue Republican Cochise County, its MAGAt Board of Supervisors was refusing to certify the 2022 election results to aid the false claims of Trump’s endorsed candidates, “Krazy Kari” Lake, Abe Hamadeh, and Mark Finchem that the election was botched in Maricopa County and that they should be declared the winners. The Courts stepped in and the rogue Republican County Supervisors backed down. Judge Issues Writ Of Mandamus To Cochise County Supervisors – They Have Until 5:00 p.m. To Certify The Canvass Of The Vote (Update: Vote Certified!), and Secretary of State’s Office Asks Attorney General To Investigate Rogue Republican Cochise County Supervisors.

Advertisement

Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby, who questioned voting machines in the November election— now faces a recall attempt. Arizona Has Its Own Big Lie. This Man Is Fighting Back.

Last month, the rogue Republican Cochise County Board of Supervisors gave control over its elections to its MAGAt election denier County Recorder, David Stevens, after longtime elections director Lisa Marra resigned after the abuse she suffered from MAGAt Republicans in rogue Cochise County.

Jen Fifield reported for Votebeat, Cochise County gives election skeptic recorder near full control of elections:

Elections in Cochise County will now be run almost entirely by Recorder David Stevens, an election skeptic who has said he does not fully trust all of his county’s election procedures and believes the county can and should move to hand-counting ballots.

The Board of Supervisors for the southern Arizona county voted 2-1 on Tuesday afternoon to transfer the board’s election oversight to Stevens, giving up their statutorily-prescribed control over the appointment of the county’s elections director, Election Day procedures, ballot counting and presentation of election results. Republicans Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd voted yes, and Democrat Chairwoman Ann English voted no.

The supervisors moved forward despite a warning from the attorney general’s office they received on Monday night, in which the solicitor general wrote that he had serious concerns about the legality of the drafted agreement.

“If you are aware of legal authority for the draft Agreement, please promptly provide it to us,” Solicitor General Joshua Bendor wrote.

The move comes after Crosby and Judd for months challenged the county’s fall election procedures in ways that drew national attention, including attempting to illegally hand count all ballots and then refusing to certify the election results, against the advice of the county attorney and the secretary of state. The turmoil led to the recent resignation of the county’s well-respected elections director, Lisa Marra, who said she was disparaged and harassed as she refused to comply with the efforts.

Stevens helped propel the full hand count against the legal advisement. Even before Marra left, the board had already proposed giving him more control over elections.

The recorder is close with former GOP secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem, who built a campaign on false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

While Arizona law splits election duties between the recorder and supervisors, many counties have given the recorder more authority over election procedures in the past, including Maricopa County for decades and, currently, Yuma County. Bendor appeared concerned about Cochise County’s proposal, though, because of the lack of clarity around just how much authority supervisors were giving Stevens – perhaps including establishing voting locations, appointing workers, approving ballot contests, and finalizing results. When Maricopa County agreed to grant more authority to the recorder, for example, the supervisors still approved voting locations, and the elections director still presented finalized results to the board.

Crosby and Judd dismissed Bendor’s letter. After a closed session to discuss the letter, Judd said she didn’t see a problem going ahead.

“I realize we have been advised, we have this letter, oh my gosh, but it doesn’t sound like it has enough character or meat,” Judd said. “It’s not accusatory enough. It’s almost like (Attorney General Kris Mayes) didn’t know what to tell us, she just wanted to tell us something to try to stop us.”

Democrat Ann English said she felt the board was acting in an inappropriate and ill-advised manner, considering she doesn’t believe there are problems with the county’s elections or vote-counting machines.

“We built this house on sand,” English said, clearly referencing the false claims about election fraud the board has heard in recent work sessions leading up to the supervisors’ decision. “I think you have vilified the election process.”

The decision came after hours of impassioned public comment both for and against the plan. Some argued that giving Stevens more control over elections threatened to derail the integrity of the county’s system. Others, repeating the unfounded claim that the county’s vote-counting machines are insecure, said Stevens would bring more trust to the system and it would save the county money by not immediately appointing a new elections director.

What role will Stevens have?

The agreement approved Tuesday is only temporary. It is set to end on Dec. 31, 2024, just after the November 2024 presidential election.

It names Stevens as interim elections director, an edit that Stevens made to the document just before it was passed. His edits were not posted publicly before the vote, but the board discussed some of them while voting.

It says that he will have the ability to appoint the permanent elections director. It also lists a few duties that Stevens will have, such as managing special taxing districts, but then says generally “the Recorder shall be responsible for all other election functions.”

The Arizona Attorney General has now stepped in to rein in rogue Republican Cochise County. Here’s the lawsuit.

Jen Fifield reports for Votebeat, Why Arizona’s attorney general is suing Cochise County for giving its recorder control over elections:

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing Cochise County for giving its recorder near-full control over the county’s elections, according to a lawsuit Mayes filed Tuesday.

Mayes believes that, when agreeing last week to give Recorder David Stevens the authority to run the county’s elections, the county supervisors weren’t clear enough that they still have the final say over certain decisions, according to the Arizona Superior Court complaint.

State law requires the supervisors to approve decisions such as where to put voting centers and who to hire to work the polls, for example, and they must also finalize election results.

In a statement Tuesday, Mayes equated the agreement to an “unqualified handover” that could give Stevens the potential to cloak future changes to the county’s elections from the public.

“I am deeply concerned this move might shield or obscure actions and deliberations the Board would typically conduct publicly under open meeting law,” Mayes wrote.

Mayes is asking the court to stop Stevens from exercising the authority given to him in the agreement, to stop him and the supervisors from spending money related to the agreement, to recover any related money that has already been spent with interest, and to declare the agreement void.

Already, Mayes is investigating potential violations of the state’s open meetings law related to the board’s election administration decisions over the past several months, according to letters her office sent the supervisors last week.

Mayes, a Democrat, is taking aim at the Republican-controlled board of the southern Arizona county that was twice found in violation of state law last year, first when attempting to complete a full hand count of ballots cast in November’s election and then when they refused to certify the county’s election results. The supervisors began considering giving Stevens — an election skeptic with close ties to former GOP secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem — more power over elections after the county’s elections director, Lisa Marra, refused to go along with the illegal hand count, and Stevens supported it. Marra eventually resigned, citing harassment and disparagement.

The two Republicans on the board, Supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, approved the new agreement with Stevens on Feb. 28 even though Mayes’ office had warned the supervisors it had concerns. According to Mayes’ complaint, supervisors also moved ahead against the advice of the county attorney, who agreed the plan was illegal.

Reached by phone Tuesday, Crosby said that he believes the supervisors had the authority to enter into the agreement. But he also said that he and Judd were clear when approving it that they would be willing to amend it if needed.

“From the beginning, I have said that if the agreement needs to be tuned up, we can tune it up,” Crosby said. “In other words, maybe [Mayes] will have really good ideas.”

Crosby said that he wanted to move forward with the agreement, despite Mayes’ warning, because of the timeliness of the matter. The county is holding a special district election in May, and given Marra’s resignation, it needed an interim elections director to plan the election. Stevens was the best choice, Crosby said.

The agreement put Stevens in charge of elections until shortly after the November 2024 presidential election, and gave him the authority to appoint a permanent elections director.

Cochise isn’t the first county to give its recorder more duties than those prescribed under law. Arizona law splits duties between supervisors — who oversee the management of polling places, ballot counting, and Election Day voting — and the recorder, who oversees early voting and voter registration. But Maricopa County for decades allowed its recorder to run the county’s elections, and Yuma County currently does this as well.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told Votebeat recently he believes counties should have the authority to make decisions that best fit their needs.

But Mayes in her statement said that while the law does allow counties to give the recorder more election duties, Cochise County’s agreement crossed the line because it won’t “allow both entities to work hand in hand to fulfill their statutory duties openly and transparently.”

“While counties may appropriately enter into cooperative agreements with their recorders to manage elections, Cochise County’s agreement steps far over the legal line,” Mayes wrote.

The agreement, for example, appears to illegally give the recorder the supervisors’ authority to hire elections staff, decide on the budget, and present the finalized results of county elections. 

“Section 5 gives the game away: it provides that elections employees ‘shall report to and act under the supervision of the Recorder [to advise him on] all election and Special Districts related matters that are within the statutory responsibility of the Board,’” the complaint says.

Stevens has long expressed doubt about the security of elections, and he repeats many unfounded GOP talking points on the insecurity of mail-in voting and tabulation machines. He told Votebeat he believes there should be a conversation in Cochise County about eliminating machines and instead hand-counting ballots, and he is pursuing a state grant to add unprecedented security features like watermarks to the county’s ballots.

Mayes worries that Stevens now may be able to move forward with decisions without the public knowing, in contrast to the supervisors, who were required to approve decisions in public.

“If Defendants are allowed to implement the Agreement, the residents of Cochise County may be deprived of the full transparency to which they are entitled regarding public officials’ deliberations about systemic changes to the conduct of elections,” the complaint says.

There may also be grounds for the U.S. Department of Justice Voting Rights Section to intervene to ensure the integrity of elections in Cochise County so that no voter is disenfranchised by the lunatic ravings of MAGAt Republican election  deniers. The U.S. Attorney for Arizona should explore if there are jurisdictional grounds to intervene under the federal Voting Rights Act. Look to the section 3 bail-in provision to possibly bring Cochise County under DOJ preclearance regulation.





Advertisement

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.