Latest news with #CochiseCountyBoardofSupervisors
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Election certification trial pushed back, pending judge's decision on motion to dismiss
Photo by Getty Images The trial to determine whether Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby conspired to interfere in the duties of the Secretary of State's Office when he refused to certify the results of the 2022 election has been pushed back from May to September. During a Friday morning hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, Brian Gifford, the attorney representing Crosby, argued that the case should be dismissed because of incorrect language in the grand jury indictment and what he described as the state's failure to identify a co-conspirator in the case. Crosby and Supervisor Peggy Judd, the two Republican members of the three-member Cochise County Board of Supervisors, were both indicted in 2023 on felony charges of conspiracy and interference with an election officer for their refusal to certify the results of the 2022 midterm election by the state-mandated deadline. GOP county supervisors across the state faced intense pressure not to certify the election results in 2022 amid unsubstantiated claims by prominent Republican candidates and influencers, including failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, of election fraud in Maricopa County. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Cochise County Board of Supervisors only voted to certify the election results after a judge ordered it to do so. Cochise was the only Arizona county to miss the Nov. 28 certification deadline, putting the county's votes at risk of not being counted. Even after the court order, Crosby refused to attend the certification meeting. In October, Judd pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of refusing to perform the duty of an election officer, a misdemeanor, as part of a plea deal. On Friday, Gifford argued that the indictment in the case was impermissible because it failed to directly identify a co-conspirator in the conspiracy charge, making it impossible for Crosby to prepare to defend himself at trial. Gifford claimed that prosecutors for the Arizona Attorney General's Office provided no evidence that Crosby and Judd communicated outside of public meetings about their plans not to certify the election results. And any comments they made during public board meetings were protected by legislative immunity. 'How can defendant Crosby prepare a defense against the charge of conspiracy if he has no notice of who the state is claiming he allegedly conspired with? It's ludicrous,' Gifford said. But Todd Lawson, prosecutor for the Attorney General's Office, said that the defense didn't get to decide whether there was evidence of a conspiracy, but that was up to the jury. Gifford also told the judge that the indictment incorrectly accused Crosby of conspiracy to delay the certification of election results instead of conspiracy to interfere with the certification, which is the actual charge brought against him. Gifford said that if the correct language had been used, perhaps the grand jury would not have returned an indictment, adding that the jury would see the indictment and would possibly be confused by it. 'Crosby could admit to everything in the indictment but not be found guilty for conspiracy to interfere,' Gifford said, since the indictment only accuses him of conspiracy to delay, not to interfere. He argued that delaying the certification of the results was not the same as interfering with the certification of results, especially since the results were still certified in time to meet the deadline for the secretary of state to sign off on the results. Lawson countered that Crosby's efforts to delay the certification equaled interference. 'The delay is interference,' he said. 'The goal is to create chaos, to create litigation to create a situation where the legislature needed to declare a winner, to create a situation where the Secretary of State could not perform her job because of questions about whether the information that she was acting on was sufficient to declare winners.' Lawson also criticized Gifford's insistence that Crosby's refusal to certify the election results was a 'victimless crime.' 'With hindsight, the defendant is now claiming, 'see, I didn't intend to interfere because look, without my involvement whatsoever, the canvass actually did (happen) after a short delay that didn't wind up actually interfering with anything.' But Lawson pointed out that without a lawsuit from then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and a subsequent court order that required the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to certify the election results, things might have turned out differently. He reminded the judge that Crosby still refused to certify the results, even after the court ordered him to, and that it was the other two supervisors that ultimately voted to certify in his absence. 'The bank robber who walks out of the bank and drops the money, he still intended to rob the bank,' Lawson said. 'He just didn't get far.' Fish told the court on Friday that his ruling on the motion to dismiss probably wouldn't be coming for at least a week. The court already denied an earlier motion to dismiss from Crosby in February when he argued that his actions were protected by legislative immunity and that they were improperly filed in Maricopa County. An appeals court agreed with the lower court. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Cochise County officials want to sue over colleagues' legal bills from 2022 election delay
The Cochise County Board of Supervisors wants to know if it can sue its insurance provider and former county attorney for damages after two supervisors were denied insurance coverage in an ongoing election interference case. The move by county officials centers on legal bills incurred by former Supervisor Peggy Judd and current Supervisor Tom Crosby, a pair of Republicans who voted in 2022 to delay the certification of the election. The delay came despite documentation supplied by the state election director showing the voting machines were certified, repeated legal advice from the county attorney that their actions were illegal, and a warning from the county's insurance provider that it would not cover legal bills stemming from the vote. They were quickly sued and eventually indicted by a grand jury for felony counts of conspiracy and interference with an election officer. Cochise County is among thirteen of Arizona's counties that have joined together to secure insurance through the Arizona Counties Insurance Pool. Though the pool is designed to cover some legal bills, Republican former Cochise County Attorney Bryan McIntyre said it only pays expenses related to civil litigation, not criminal actions brought against public officials. That meant Judd and Crosby were not covered by the Arizona Counties Insurance Pool and had to foot their own legal bills. Judd in October 2024 pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor as part of an agreement with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, which investigated and presented the case to a grand jury. Crosby currently faces felony counts of conspiracy and interference with an election officer. He petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case against him. Supervisor Frank Antenori, a Republican former state legislator who was elected to the board in 2024, said the new lawsuit came from concerns public officials would "go bankrupt because of a political difference with an attorney general." 'I don't want to be bankrupt and deny my kids their inheritance because I took a political stand on an issue,' he said. The Arizona Counties Insurance Pool and McIntyre did not respond to requests for comment. The current board of supervisors wants to make sure they don't foot the bill for future decisions they might make 'in good faith,' Antenori said during a special board meeting on Feb. 5. He said the insurance pool told him it would not cover the legal fees in the case against Judd and Crosby because the supervisors were going against the advice of the county attorney. Judd had her life was 'basically taken away from her,' Antenori said. He noted that she ultimately lost her house to pay for legal bills. He also said she had to move in with her mother and has very little to live on during her retirement. 'She thought she was doing what was best for her constituents,' he said. 'She heard from a lot of voters they wanted her to do a deep dive and look at what happened in that election before approving the canvas.' Supervisor Kathleen Gomez, a Republican who was elected to the board in 2024, said that had she been a sitting board at the time, she would not have certified it. 'I made a joke that no matter what I would probably end up going to jail for my constituents,' Gomez said. Gomez's statement echoed a similar statement Judd made two years prior when the board of supervisors was considering a full hand count of the ballots ahead of the 2022 election. Judd said during a board meeting she could go to jail for her vote after the county attorney told her and the other supervisors repeatedly that hand counting was unlawful. 'I'd like to take this chance. My heart and my work have been in it, and I don't want to back down. I might go to jail,' Judd said about the hand count proposal. Judd and Crosby ultimately voted to authorize a hand count audit of voting precincts. Trial court judges blocked the hand count, a decision that was affirmed by the state appeals court last year. The Arizona Counties Insurance Pool warned the supervisors at that time that it would not cover any legal costs resulting from the matter, noting it would be improper to expect other member counties in the insurance pool to pay Cochise County's attorney bills in the face of a lawsuit. During the board meeting on Feb. 5, Antenori requested the county hire outside counsel to investigate whether the board has a case against the insurance pool and McIntyre. He suggested hiring Rusing Lopez and Lazari, a firm with offices in Scottsdale and Tucson, who he said would be willing to look into whether they have a case. Antenori told Paul Correa, chief civil deputy county attorney, that the crux of the issue is that McIntyre's legal opinion was taken on by the attorney general and the insurance pool. 'I would like to remedy that, and I would like to set a precedent so if this occurs again, we have the ability to get multiple opinions, and that the attorney's one opinion ... isn't the one that is used to beat us over the head because we decided to go against your opinion and go with another opinion,' Antenori said. Correa said in the instance where board members disagree with the county attorney's advice and interpretation of a statute, finding a second opinion would be a valid practice and help when the insurance pool is deciding whether to insure board members. Gomez and Antenori voted to hire the firm of Rusing Lopez and Lizardi to provide them with legal counsel and determine if they have a claim against ACIP and McIntyre. Crosby left the room during the discussion and did not vote. Reach the reporter at The Republic's coverage of southern Arizona is funded, in part, with a grant from Report for America. Support Arizona news coverage with a tax-deductible donation at This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Cochise County officials want to sue over bills from election delay
