Arizona Prosecutors Clash with Fake Electors Over Claims of Political Bias

PHOENIX (AP) — A pivotal three-day hearing wrapped up Wednesday regarding the case against a group of Republicans accused of attempting to overturn the results of Arizona’s 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors maintain that their intentions are strictly legal, countering claims from the defense, which argues that the actions in question fall under protected free speech.

Judge Bruce Cohen of Maricopa County Superior Court is evaluating demands from at least twelve of the eighteen defendants indicted in April. The charges include fraud, conspiracy, and forgery. Among those facing legal action are eleven individuals who submitted a document incorrectly stating that Donald Trump had won Arizona, along with two former aides of Trump and five attorneys associated with him, including Rudy Giuliani. Although Trump himself has not been charged, he is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment.

The indictment alleges that Giuliani pressed Maricopa County officials and state legislators to alter the election outcome. Additionally, he reportedly encouraged Republican electors in December 2020 to cast votes for Trump. Giuliani is also accused of promoting unfounded claims of election fraud during a gathering in downtown Phoenix, where he criticized officials for allegedly neglecting to verify the election results.

Prosecutor Nicholas Klingerman asserted that the indictment was a product of an Arizona grand jury, emphasizing that it does not stem from any anti-Republican sentiments. Klingerman stated, “This prosecution involves nothing more than enforcing the law against those who are alleged to have committed frauds, forgeries, and conspiracies to change the outcome of a lawful election.” He added that the prosecution aims to educate the public and deter similar future actions.

In response to the hearings, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, characterized the defendants’ motions as attempts to distract from the facts. She firmly reiterated, “the indictments in this case were not politically motivated.”

Defense attorneys have strongly articulated their position, hinging their arguments on free speech protections. They pointed to an Arizona statute designed to prevent silencing critics through unfounded legal actions. They claim that Mayes has shown bias against Trump and his supporters while pursuing these indictments.

The statute in question, often described as an anti-SLAPP law, was modified in 2022 to extend protections to individuals facing most types of criminal charges. It allows parties involved in legal actions stemming from the exercise of their rights—including speech—to request a motion for dismissal if the action is primarily intended to retaliate against constitutional rights.

While prosecutors argue that this law is inapplicable to the current case, issues have emerged regarding the differentiation between speech and alleged unlawful actions. Judge Cohen expressed concern over this distinction during the hearing.

As for the timeline of the ruling on the motions to dismiss, Judge Cohen indicated he would make decisions on each motion separately but did not provide an exact date for the rulings. Notably, former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis reached a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, resulting in the dismissal of her charges. In contrast, Republican activist Loraine Pellegrino has already pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and received probation.

The remaining defendants have entered not guilty pleas, with their trial set to begin on January 5, 2026. Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows is seeking to transfer his case to federal court, where his legal team plans to pursue a dismissal of the charges.

This content has been produced by Arizonanews.org. It reflects the latest developments in an ongoing legal case that addresses significant questions about electoral integrity and constitutional rights.