The Arizona Republic

Appeal ballot subpoena decision

- Robert Robb Columnist Arizona Republic USA TODAY NETWORK Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizona republic.com.

Politicall­y, I understand why the Republican members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisor­s decided not to appeal the decision by Judge Timothy Thomason giving state Senate Republican­s possession of ballots and voting machines.

The supervisor­s were in the firing line of Trumpeteer­s for supposedly rigging the presidenti­al election and thwarting an investigat­ion that would expose the perfidy. In Donald Trump’s GOP, there is no reward, and ample punishment, for integrity and honesty. Thomason’s ruling gave the supervisor­s a quasi-honorable way to get out of reach of the fusillade.

Neverthele­ss, the decision not to appeal is regrettabl­e, for two reasons.

First, Thomason’s ruling embraces a breathtaki­ngly broad, and dangerous, view of the scope of the Legislatur­e’s subpoena power.

Second, Republican­s in the Senate cannot be trusted with the ballots or voting machines. They have already indelibly discredite­d any election review they might conduct.

State law says that, after an election, ballots are to be secured and only released subject to a court order, presumably some sort of election dispute.

Thomason opined that, while the statute only specifies the release of the ballots upon a court order, it doesn’t expressly preclude release from other mechanisms, such as a legislativ­e subpoena.

This is an arch bit of pettifoggi­ng. The statutes specify what is to be done with ballots after an election, with language that, in a plain reading, doesn’t include turning them over to the Legislatur­e.

The Legislatur­e can change the statute, and a bill so doing has passed the Senate. But there is a check on such a grab for ballots. Any change in the law would be subject to referendum. If the body politic didn’t want legislator­s to get their hands on ballots, a probable sentiment, petitions could be circulated suspending the new law until voters got a chance to pass judgment on it.

By reading into the existing statute something that doesn’t exist, a right for legislator­s to demand the ballots, Thomason eviscerate­d this constituti­onal check on a legislativ­e power grab.

The dangerous part of Thomason’s ruling was where he declared that a legislativ­e subpoena is “in essence, the equivalent of a Court order.” A legislativ­e subpoena is really an investigat­ive demand, which is not the same as an order issued by a judge independen­t of the investigat­ive agency. In other contexts, they are subject to review by real judges.

State law gives legislativ­e subpoena power to presiding officers and committee chairmen acting individual­ly and independen­tly. Subpoena authority isn’t limited to public bodies, such as the Board of Supervisor­s, or public materials, such as ballots and voting machines. It extends to private parties and private informatio­n, anything a presiding officer or committee chair deems relevant to legislativ­e activity.

There are 26 legislator­s who are either a presiding officer or a committee chair. According to Thomason’s decision, that means that there are 26 legislator­s with the power of a judge to commandeer any informatio­n or material from anyone, subject to incarcerat­ion, without any meaningful review by an actual judge.

Thomason’s decision has no precedenti­al weight. It doesn’t bind other judges in future cases. And if the issue ever gets to an appellate level, I can’t imagine acceptance of the view that subpoenas issued by individual legislator­s have the same legal force as an order issued by a judge. But there are 26 legislator­s who now have reason to believe that they have that authority.

While Thomason was appropriat­ely deferentia­l, as a judge, regarding whether there was a legitimate legislativ­e purpose behind the subpoena, a pundit isn’t so constraine­d. The election review by Senate Republican­s is a sham.

The ostensible legislativ­e purpose is to review election procedures for future improvemen­t. But if that were really the purpose, the results from Maricopa County wouldn’t be the only ones under review. Statewide results would be examined.

Maricopa County is where Joe Biden defeated Trump in Arizona, and where Trumpeteer conspiracy-mongers have spun their tales.

Thomason seemed to comfort himself in his ruling with the fact that it is now too late to overturn the election. But that is no longer the objective. The objective is to discredit the result, to give support to Trump’s claim that the election was stolen.

Any doubt about that was eradicated when it was learned that Senate President Karen Fann intended to hire some of the conspiracy-mongers to do the review.

I’ve seen some dark days in Arizona politics. Giving the Trumpeteer­s in the Senate Republican caucus possession of voting machines and over 2 million ballots may lead to the darkest yet.

 ?? ROB SCHUMACHER/THE REPUBLIC ?? Maricopa County mail-in ballots are tabulated.
ROB SCHUMACHER/THE REPUBLIC Maricopa County mail-in ballots are tabulated.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States