Maricopa County Judge Dismisses Supervisor Gould’s Lawsuit Against AG Mayes

PHOENIX — Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould’s request for a judicial order to prevent Attorney General Kris Mayes from imposing what he claims are threats regarding election counting has been denied. During a recent ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bradley Astrowsky noted that there is no immediate threat of prosecution against Gould.

Judge Astrowsky explained that Mayes had merely indicated that a decision to eliminate electronic voting machines “may result” in legal consequences. He further asserted that the judicial branch cannot limit the discretion of the executive branch concerning actions that have not yet occurred.

In response to the ruling, Gould expressed frustration. “It seems like I have to get arrested to have them do anything,” he stated, highlighting his concern that Mayes could still potentially file criminal charges against him.

The root of the conflict in Mohave County began last summer when supervisors considered a hand count for the upcoming 2024 elections. The proposal was ultimately rejected in August by a 3-2 vote. However, the debate resurfaced three months later when board Chair Travis Lingenfelter revisited the issue, allowing Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli to advocate for the legality of hand counting.

During this meeting, Mayes’ letter was read aloud, warning board members that pursuing a hand count could lead to felony or misdemeanor charges. She urged them not to violate the law, stressing that this could result in criminal prosecution if an illegal hand count were conducted.

Gould believes that had it not been for Mayes’ warning, Lingenfelter might have voted to proceed with the hand count, which would have given Gould the necessary support. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that using tabulating machines is optional, not mandatory, and that he should not face intimidation for advocating a hand-count method.

Judge Astrowsky dismissed Gould’s request, noting that the matter was not actionable at this time. He clarified that courts can intervene only in cases of “present controversy,” rather than in preemptive situations based solely on differing interpretations of the law.

Moreover, Astrowsky remarked that Gould had not shown any obstruction to his voting rights on the board. Instead, the supervisor cited a chilling effect on his ability to vote according to his principles due to Mayes’ warnings about potential legal repercussions for the board’s actions.

Gould, however, maintains that Mayes essentially issued a threat, indicating he could face arrest if the hand count were to pass. He argues that the attorney general’s interference compromises the board’s voting integrity and decision-making process.

Beyond the immediate legal implications, Gould expressed concern about his constituents’ diminishing faith in the electoral process. “My worry is that they might stop voting altogether,” he stressed, dismissing suggestions that this sentiment is merely a reaction to losses by high-profile candidates like Donald Trump and Kari Lake.

Arizona courts have previously dismissed multiple lawsuits questioning the reliability of tabulating equipment during the 2022 election. Research by the Brennan Center for Justice suggests that hand counts may actually introduce more errors, despite safeguards like mandatory machine testing and random audits comparing machine counts with hand counts.