Arizona and Wisconsin AGs Persist in 2020 Election Probes Despite Legal Defeats
PHOENIX, Ariz. — Nearly six years after the 2020 presidential election, legal battles surrounding the contested results continue to unfold in Arizona and Wisconsin as Democratic attorneys general Kris Mayes and Josh Kaul press forward with investigations into Trump campaign supporters. Despite significant legal setbacks and widespread criticism, both officials remain committed to pursuing cases related to the so-called “alternate electors” and other election challenges that took place during that tumultuous period.
In Arizona, Attorney General Mayes, who narrowly won her office in 2022 by fewer than 300 votes, has aggressively pursued indictments against eleven alternate electors and seven other defendants, including Mike Roman, the Trump campaign’s head of operations on election day. This marks a stark departure from her predecessor, Mark Brnovich, who declined to take action against individuals who challenged the 2020 election results, recognizing that their efforts were legally protected.
Mayes’ prosecution strategy has faced judicial rebuke. A Maricopa County trial court dismissed the initial indictment, citing that Mayes failed to provide the grand jury with the full context of the Electoral Count Act of 1887—a complex federal statute governing the certification of presidential electors. The court emphasized that if the statute permitted the defendants’ conduct, the state could not sustain its case. This federal law supersedes state statutes in election matters, a principle reinforced by the recent Electoral Count Reform Act passed by Congress to clarify ambiguities in the original legislation.
Following the dismissal, Mayes appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which declined to hear the case, prompting her to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review. Legal experts suggest the justices should uphold the lower court’s decision, underscoring the importance of federal preemption in election law.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Attorney General Josh Kaul continues to investigate similar allegations involving alternate electors and Trump campaign officials. Both Mayes and Kaul face re-election campaigns next year, leading critics to accuse them of using these prosecutions as political tools rather than pursuing impartial justice.
Supporters of the investigations argue that these cases are necessary to uphold election integrity, while opponents contend that the challenges to the 2020 election were lawful exercises of First Amendment rights and protected under the Electoral Count Act. Historical precedent shows that election results have been contested in multiple past cycles, including in 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016, often through legal challenges and objections during the electoral certification process.
The controversy also touches on broader debates about the limits of prosecutorial discretion and the politicization of the justice system. The U.S. Department of Justice has maintained that alternate elector slates submitted in 2020 were symbolic and intended as contingencies should Congress reject certified results, not fraudulent attempts to overturn the election.
As these cases proceed, they continue to draw national attention, reflecting ongoing divisions over the 2020 election’s legitimacy and the role of the judiciary in resolving electoral disputes. Observers note that the persistence of these investigations, despite legal hurdles, signals a broader trend of “lawfare”—the use of legal systems to achieve political ends.
For now, the fate of these prosecutions remains uncertain as courts weigh the complex interplay between state authority and federal election statutes. The outcomes could have lasting implications for how future election challenges are handled and the boundaries of lawful political dissent.
More information on the Electoral Count Act and federal election laws can be found through the National Archives and the Federal Election Commission.
Leave a Reply