Judge to hear arguments in election interference case against Cochise County supervisors

A Maricopa County judge will hear oral arguments Friday in an ongoing criminal case against two Cochise County supervisors accused of interfering with the 2022 election.

Tom Crosby, 64, of Sierra Vista, and Peggy Judd, 61, of Willcox, are each charged with felony counts of conspiracy and interference with an election officer. They currently serve on the Cochise County Board of Supervisors as Republicans.

The two voted to delay certification of the vote last year . They said they wanted a meeting to hear evidence about county vote-tallying machines and whether they were properly certified. By that time, they had ignored repeated legal advice from the board's attorneys that their actions were illegal .

Crosby and Judd were quickly sued, including by then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. One lawsuit resulted in a court order to certify the result, which the supervisors convened to do — though Crosby didn't show up . Judd ultimately joined Supervisor Ann English, a Democrat, in voting 2-0 to send the results to Hobbs just four days before the statewide canvass.

Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes later investigated and presented the case to a grand jury, securing an indictment . She made clear while announcing the charges that she wouldn't tolerate "attempts to undermine our democracy." But the move has drawn criticism from some Republican leaders of other counties.

Crosby and Judd both pleaded not guilty to the charges during a December court appearance . Since then, they've filed motions to dismiss the case and challenged the grand jury proceedings that led to their indictment. On Friday, they will argue those motions in court.

What do the motions say?

Crosby and Judd both filed separate motions to dismiss the case and send it back to a grand jury for a new finding.

Crosby said in his motion to dismiss the case that the state election interference law he is charged under is "vague and ambiguous and overbroad, and unconstitutional as applied here to a member of a Board of Supervisors voting in his official capacity."

"The case was brought purely for political purposes by the attorney general and is an egregious abuse of powers," the motion reads.

State attorneys said the law is "plain and understandable to an ordinary person."

"The defendant understood it, knew that his refusal to comply with his mandatory, ministerial duties would in fact interfere with the AZSOS’ discharge of her own duty to canvass the election and nevertheless chose to delay canvassing the results," they wrote in a response to Crosby's motion. "Because he is not immune from criminal prosecution, and the venue is proper, the defendant's motion must be denied."

Crosby's motion to remand argues prosecutors violated his procedural rights and erred during grand jury proceedings by failing to properly instruct the grand jury on the applicable law, utilizing evidence protected by attorney-client privilege and allowing "misleading" testimony and "obviously biased" witnesses.

Judd's motion to dismiss alleges a state grand jury lacked jurisdiction to investigate and indict her and Crosby on election interference charges. Her motion to remand, like Crosby's, challenged specific grand jury procedures. Judd alleged that she was not properly informed of her rights, that legislative immunity applied in the case and that there were errors during testimony that prejudiced the grand jury against her.

State attorneys defended their indictment, writing in responses to Crosby and Judd that the grand jury was "properly instructed on the pertinent law" and that Judd was "properly instructed on her rights."

The motions from both Crosby and Judd extensively quoted portions of the grand jury proceedings, which were previously sealed by the court. The Arizona Republic is currently seeking to intervene in the case to unseal full transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.

What happens next?

In recent months, prosecutors and defense attorneys have begun preparations for trial.

Legal filings show that attorneys anticipate a trial lasting five to six days. The state could call up to 14 witnesses, and the defense could call up to 30.

A trial is currently scheduled for August. But lawyers can participate in settlement talks at any point during the pre-trial phase. If Crosby and Judd were to accept plea deals, their trial could be vacated and they could proceed to sentencing.

The charges against Crosby and Judd are class 5 felonies, the second-least severe felony under Arizona law. If convicted, the supervisors could face prison time up to 2 1/2 years and a $150,000 fine.

Sasha Hupka covers county government and election administration for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip to share on elections or voting? Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com . Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka . Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps .

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Judge to hear arguments in election interference case against Cochise County supervisors