The Court has already found that AG Mayes was substantially motivated by hostility toward the First Amendment rights of the electors/defendants; time for the political, weaponized prosecution to end.

The Arizona Supreme Court today denied Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ appeal of the trial court’s decision remanding the Trump electors case to a new grand jury because of a flawed and biased presentation to the original grand jury. True to her hyper-partisan form, AG Mayes promptly announced that she will be seek to obtain a new indictment from a new grand jury. With her re-election just five months away, there is no doubt that the case will be front and center in the upcoming election. As Axios reports: “The legal blow comes as Mayes faces a tough reelection fight and could turn the fake electors [sic] case into a campaign issue, testing voters' appetite for continuing the politically charged case.”

But one thing that all the news coverage has overlooked is an even bigger problem for Mayes. Back in February 2025, before his ruling about the flawed grand jury proceedings, Judge Myers ruled that “Defendants have established prima facie proof that the filing of the charges was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.” That ruling was pursuant to Arizona’s unique anti-SLAPP law (anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), which was amended in 2022 to apply to criminal prosecutions, the only state in the country to have such a law. Once the Defendants make out a prima facie case that the prosecution was motivated by violations of First Amendment rights, as Judge Myer found to be the case here, then the prosecution must “show that the charges are justified by clearly established law and did that the Attorney General did not act in order to deter, prevent, or retaliate against the Defendants’ exercise of their constitutional rights.” AG Mayes has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to offer evidence of her motives. Her public statements were damning enough!

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The anti-SLAPP law was designed so that prosecutions motivated by animus against those exercising their First Amendment rights can get the prosecution dismissed at the outset, without having to suffer through years of expensive litigation and criminal court process. Because the charges were filed more than two years ago, we’re already a long way from the “outset.” Convening a new grand jury and seeking new indictments will prolong the criminal proceedings even further. Now that AG Mayes has made clear her intent to proceed with a new grand jury, perhaps Judge Myers should interject and revive his order that she respond to the anti-SLAPP motion and demonstrate—if she can, which is unlikely—that this prosecution was not political.

The Judge’s order from February 2025 is attached, with the key finding highlighted. Also attached is my anti-SLAPP motion, along with the anti-SLAPP motions from a couple of my co-defendants, which include additional evidence of AG Mayes’ political bias and anti-First Amendment motives.

02 18 25 Order Finding Anti Slapp Prima Facie Case Highlighted139KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 06 21 Eastman Anti Slapp Motion To Dismiss654KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 06 24 Lamon Anti Slapp Motion7.66MB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 06 24 Ward, M Anti Slapp Motion To Quash 011524KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 06 24 Hoffman Anti Slapp Motion451KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 07 08 Hoffman Supp Evidence Anti Slapp1.03MB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload2024 07 26 Legislative Leaders Motion For Leave To File Amicus Brief2.99MB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload

.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.