House Budget Moves to Limit Attorney General’s Authority in Election Legal Battles

A contentious provision added to the Arizona House budget is poised to curtail Attorney General Kris Mayes’ authority to prosecute election-related cases.

Crafted by Representative Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, the measure would compel prosecutors to seek approval from both judiciary committees before initiating lawsuits about elections. This requirement hinges on prior judicial findings of “prima facie” evidence of violations under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, designed to shield political speech from legal retaliation.

This development follows a recent ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers. He indicated there is substantial evidence in the “fake electors” case, suggesting that the indictments may infringe on lawful speech. Mayes has opted to appeal this ruling, leaving uncertainty over the implications for ongoing cases.

Should Kolodin’s provision be enacted, it could significantly hamper not only Mayes but any county prosecutor’s ability to file future election-related charges. Pima County Attorney Laura Conover remarked that the requirement would inherently chill prosecutors’ willingness to act on politically sensitive cases.

A single indication of a violation could effectively grant legislative committees—currently under Republican control—the power to veto new election-related legal actions. This raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers, according to Conover.

Richie Taylor, spokesperson for Mayes, criticized the proposal, asserting it creates a pathway for legislative interference in prosecutorial decisions.

Kolodin, however, dismissed claims of unconstitutionality, arguing that the legislature has a right to exert oversight over the budgeting process as it relates to prosecutorial actions.

He described the measure as a necessary tool to prevent so-called “tyrannical weaponization” of government aimed at political prosecutions. Kolodin is a member of the Arizona Freedom Caucus and is running for state secretary.

This controversy also intersects with ongoing legal actions stemming from the 2020 presidential election. Mayes secured an indictment against 11 Republicans linked to false claims about electoral votes, spearheaded by individuals now facing serious legal consequences.

Proponents of the budget provision argue it is designed to safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions. Yet, critics refute this, asserting that it undermines the autonomy required for effective legal action.

The ongoing debate reflects broader tensions over political influence in the judiciary, particularly concerning high-profile cases involving election integrity. As legal maneuvers continue, stakeholders in Arizona remain divided on the implications of such legislative controls.