Arizona Appeals Court Forces AG Mayes to Justify Withholding Election Records

The Arizona Court of Appeals has vacated a lower court ruling and remanded a public records case involving Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Judicial Watch for further proceedings, according to a decision filed April 29, 2026.

The case, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Mayes (No. 2 CA-CV 2025-0322), was heard in Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s disposition states the case was “vacated and remanded” to the lower court.

The dispute stems from a public records request filed by Judicial Watch seeking communications between the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the States United Democracy Center (SUDC), which had provided information to the office regarding its investigation into individuals who submitted alternate elector certificates following the 2020 election.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, the appellate court found deficiencies in how the Attorney General’s Office handled the request, including failing to provide sufficient detail to justify withholding certain documents under claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. 

The court said that when asserting such privileges, the office was required to produce an index describing the withheld materials with enough specificity to allow a court to evaluate those claims, adding that “Index entries must contain more than generalities.”

However, the index provided “supplies no context about the withheld emails that would allow a court or any other party to determine if a privilege applies,” according to the opinion of appellate Judge Jeffrey Sklar, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel. 

The appellate court also found that the Attorney General’s Office did not conduct an adequate search for responsive records, noting limitations in the use of date and keyword filters. 

The ruling does not require the immediate release of the requested documents. Instead, it directs the lower court to reconsider the matter after the Attorney General’s Office provides a more detailed explanation of the withheld materials and the basis for any claimed exemptions.

Following the ruling, Warren Petersen commented on the decision in a post on X, writing that the court had ruled against Mayes “for improperly withholding public records” and describing the outcome as “a big win for transparency and the rule of law.”

Big win for transparency and the rule of law and another loss for our liberal AG.
 
The AZ Court of Appeals just ruled against AG Mayes for improperly withholding public records when Judicial Watch sought information about AG Mayes’ interactions with States United — a left wing… pic.twitter.com/cTo2fIAfMD

— Warren Petersen (@votewarren) April 30, 2026

Petersen also stated that he had filed an amicus brief in support of Judicial Watch in the case.

The case arises in the context of a broader investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into individuals who submitted a slate of alternate electors to Congress after the 2020 election.

A related report by Megan Barth in the California Globe detailed similar coordination involving the Nevada Attorney General’s Office and the SUDC, reporting that officials worked with the group on election-related policy efforts. The report also detailed ties between the personnel in SUDC-coordinated briefings and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on charges including wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The DOJ alleged that “between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America.”

Further proceedings in the Arizona case will take place in Maricopa County Superior Court following the appellate ruling. A spokesman for Mayes told reporters the office has no comment on the court ruling.