AG Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Threats Over Hand Counting Ballot Controversy

A judge has dismissed a request from Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould seeking protection from perceived threats by Attorney General Kris Mayes related to his push for hand counting elections. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bradley Astrowsky concluded that Gould’s claims did not demonstrate an imminent threat of prosecution.

Astrowsky pointed out that even if Mayes’s warning about potential criminal penalties was deemed a threat, judicial intervention would be inappropriate. “It is a violation of the separation of powers for the judicial branch to tell the executive branch what it can and cannot do concerning an act that has yet to occur,” he said.

Gould expressed frustration with the ruling, suggesting that legal action might be necessary for his concerns to be taken seriously. He remains apprehensive about the possibility that Mayes could still pursue charges against him.

This controversy dates back to last summer, when the Mohave County Board of Supervisors considered implementing a hand count for upcoming elections. However, the proposal was ultimately rejected by a 3-2 vote in August, with Gould advocating for the change.

The issue resurfaced three months later when Board Chair Travis Lingenfelter revisited the hand count proposal, motivated in part by Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli’s arguments supporting its legality. During that meeting, a letter from Mayes was read, warning supervisors that pursuing a hand count could expose them to multiple felony and misdemeanor charges.

In her letter, Mayes advised supervisors, “We hope you will choose not to violate the law and thus that it will not be necessary to consider whether criminal prosecution is warranted for conducting an illegal hand count.” Gould believes Mayes’s warnings influenced Lingenfelter’s decision to switch his support on the matter.

Gould filed suit against Astrowsky, seeking a ruling that would affirm the permissibility of hand counting as an alternative to machine counting in future elections. However, Astrowsky reiterated that Gould’s request lacked legal standing, emphasizing that courts can only address matters involving present controversies, not hypothetical disputes.

The judge also noted that Gould had not been denied the opportunity to vote on any board actions, but rather felt his ability to act according to his beliefs was diminished by the attorney general’s influence. “This is not a threat of injury to any legal right that plaintiff possesses,” Astrowsky stated, dismissing Gould’s concerns.

In response, Gould contended that Mayes issued a veiled threat regarding possible arrests should the hand count proposal pass. “She’s essentially threatened to arrest me,” Gould said, questioning whether a decision would lead to criminal charges.

Gould raised broader concerns about public trust in the electoral process, expressing that constituents may become disillusioned if they perceive the system as compromised. He dismissed any notion that this skepticism stemmed solely from the rhetoric of political figures losing elections.

Amid this legal tussle, it’s essential to highlight that Arizona courts have consistently rejected lawsuits alleging inaccuracies in voting tabulation equipment from previous elections. Moreover, studies suggest that manual counts may inadvertently introduce errors, despite existing protocols aimed at ensuring integrity in the voting process, such as mandatory pre- and post-election equipment testing.