On Tuesday, May 6, 2025, Tucson.com reported that the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that there was no conflict of interest preventing appellate judge Andrew Jacobs from participating in the fake electors case being prosecuted by Attorney General Kris Mayes. The decision addressed concerns raised by state Sen. Jake Hoffman, one of 11 individuals indicted in 2024 on charges including fraud and conspiracy for falsely claiming to be Arizona’s legitimate 2020 presidential electors.
The court’s ruling rejected Hoffman’s argument that Judge Jacobs should be disqualified from a three-judge appellate panel due to two $250 campaign donations Jacobs made to Mayes, who is prosecuting the case. The donations occurred before Jacobs was appointed to the bench.
The Supreme Court upheld a prior decision by David Gass, the chief judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, who determined that the contributions did not compromise Jacobs’ impartiality. Gass noted that the donations were made when Jacobs was still in private practice and that judicial ethics rules do not prohibit such contributions.
The case stems from actions taken after the 2020 presidential election, when Hoffman and 10 other Republicans allegedly prepared and sent documents to Washington, D.C., falsely asserting that Donald Trump had won Arizona’s popular vote. These documents claimed the group represented the state’s official electors, despite Joe Biden’s victory by over 10,000 votes, which secured his slate of electors.
The indictment also named several individuals connected to Trump, including his former chief of staff from his first term, as participants in the scheme. Trump himself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants have maintained they did nothing illegal, stating the documents were prepared in case legal challenges proved Trump the winner. Prosecutors, however, allege the effort was part of a broader strategy to prevent Biden from securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, potentially forcing Congress to decide the election’s outcome.
A key issue in the case involves Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect against lawsuits that aim to suppress free speech. In 2022, the Republican-led Legislature expanded the law to include criminal prosecutions, a change made amid discussions about charging the fake electors.
Hoffman’s attorney, Michael Columbo, argued that Mayes pursued the indictments with a “retaliatory motive.” He pointed to statements Mayes made during her 2022 campaign for attorney general, where she described the fake electors’ actions as criminal and linked them to the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
In February 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers found that the defendants presented enough evidence to suggest they might be protected under the anti-SLAPP law. Myers did not dismiss the charges but allowed the issue to proceed to the Court of Appeals, where Jacobs serves on the panel reviewing Myers’ ruling.
Mayes requested the appellate review, prompting Hoffman’s attempt to remove Jacobs based on the campaign donations. Columbo argued that Jacobs’ contributions, one made after Mayes’ public statements about the electors, suggested support for her prosecutorial stance, raising questions about his impartiality.
In dismissing Hoffman’s request, Gass emphasized that allegations of bias were insufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality. He also questioned whether rules for disqualifying judges apply to appellate judges and noted that judicial ethics permit political donations.
Source: Tucson.com
