The Arizona Supreme Court has denied Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould’s bid for immunity to pursue a hand count of ballots.
In a brief order, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to disturb a decision by the state Court of Appeals that Gould is entitled to such an order. That ends the case.
But Gould said it really doesn’t resolve the matter.
He pointed out that the ruling against him never addressed the question of whether he — or any supervisor from any county — is free to pursue a hand count without what he says are “threats and intimidation” by Attorney General Kris Mayes. Instead, the appellate judges said he had no standing to ask the court to prospectively grant him immunity because he has yet to get the supervisors to pursue a hand count, one that Mayes has said is illegal and told the board “may result” in criminal penalties.
“I believe it was because she didn’t arrest me,” Gould said of his inability to get courts to address the issue of whether he’s entitled to immunity.
“So, apparently, she’ll have to arrest me next time,” he told Capitol Media Services. “And she’ll be wrong. But then I’ll actually get a hearing.”
Still, Gould is unsure whether there really will be an opportunity in the future for him to put himself in Mayes’ legal crosshairs.
All this stems from the 2024 election when the Mohave supervisors were weighing whether to proceed with a hand count of the races. While initially scrapped, board Chair Travis Lingenfelter, one of the foes, put the issue back on the agenda.
That, said Gould, suggested Lingenfelter had changed his mind. And that, along with his own vote and that of Sonny Borrelli, would have provided the majority.
But just putting the issue on the agenda resulted in a letter from Mayes, read to the board at that meeting, warning the supervisors that going down that path “could result in various felonies and misdemeanor penalties.
“We hope you will choose not to violate the law and thus that it will not be necessary to consider whether criminal prosecution is warranted for conducting an illegal hand count,” the attorney general wrote.
Gould contends that, had it not been for Mayes’ letter, Lingenfelter would have voted for the hand count, providing the necessary third vote. So he filed suit, asking a trial judge to rule that the use of tabulating machines is not mandatory but optional, that the supervisors can make that choice, and that he “should not be subjected to threats and intimidation by the attorney general for voting to have hand counting be the primary initial method of vote tabulation.”
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled Gould had no basis to sue.
“The AG’s letter, which provided that criminal penalties ‘may result’ from the board’s vote and that criminal prosecution would be ‘considered’ for ‘conduct an illegal hand count,’ does not constitute a specific threat of prosecution,” wrote Judge Michael Kelly for the unanimous panel.
In fact, Kelly noted, the board never actually voted for a hand count. And that, the judge said, negates any claim by Gould that the court should give him legislative immunity because what he seeks is “contingent of speculate future events.”
It was that ruling that the Supreme Court refused to disturb.
Gould, however, remains convinced that nothing in Arizona law actually mandates the use of machines to count ballots. And that, he said, leaves open the possibility he may lead another fight to force a hand count of some future election.
For the moment, Gould said, it’s too early to tell.
“I have a new board,” he said, leaving him unsure whether there’s a third vote to go down that path — and risk criminal charges. And if that happens, said Gould, the case would be legally ripe for him to seek a ruling on whether hand counts are prohibited — and whether he is entitled to have a court say he can’t be prosecuted for voting for it.
