The Arizona Supreme Court has handed a significant legal victory to several allies of President Donald Trump, declining prosecutors’ request to revive a 2024 indictment in the so-called “fake electors” case and allowing a lower court’s ruling tossing the charges to stand.
The decision, dated June 2 and made public on June 4, denied a petition from state prosecutors seeking to send the original indictment back to a grand jury. While the court did not provide an explanation for its ruling, the outcome upholds an earlier decision that found serious flaws in the original grand jury proceedings.
The case, known as Arizona v. Ward, involves 18 defendants, including former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, who were indicted over their involvement in submitting alternate electoral certificates following the disputed 2020 presidential election.
The ruling does not completely end the case. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office has indicated that prosecutors plan to restart the process by presenting the matter to a new grand jury rather than abandoning the prosecution altogether.
Still, the decision represents a major procedural setback for the state and a notable victory for the defendants, who have long argued that the original proceedings were fundamentally flawed.
At the center of the dispute was the finding by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge that the grand jury was not shown the text of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, a federal law cited by the defense as relevant to understanding the actions taken by the alternate electors.
The lower court concluded that this omission undermined the integrity of the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the indictment and resetting the case back to the grand jury stage.
The controversy stems from the aftermath of the 2020 election, when Republican electors in Arizona and several other battleground states signed alternate electoral certificates supporting Trump while legal challenges to the election results were still moving through the courts.
Critics argued that the alternate electors attempted to substitute themselves for the officially certified Democratic electors. Defendants, however, have maintained that the certificates were submitted to preserve legal options while election disputes remained unresolved.
Notably, similar prosecutions elsewhere have encountered significant difficulties. Cases in Georgia and Michigan were ultimately dismissed, while Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped his federal election interference case against Trump after his election victory in November 2024.
Arizona Rep. Abe Hamadeh sharply criticized Attorney General Mayes for continuing to pursue the case.
Writing on X, Hamadeh accused Mayes of wasting taxpayer resources on what he described as an “obsessive” pursuit of Arizonans who served as alternate electors following the 2020 election.
As prosecutors prepare to present the case once again, the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling serves as another reminder that politically charged cases must still meet strict legal standards. For the defendants, the decision marks an important victory in a legal battle that continues to unfold, while supporters see it as further evidence that due process remains a cornerstone of the American justice system.
