Court Rejects Meadows’ Bid to Shift Election Case to Federal Level

Judge's gavel, scales of justice, and open book.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows faces another setback as a federal judge rejects his bid to move the Arizona election case to federal court.

At a Glance

U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi denied Meadows’ request to transfer his Arizona indictment to federal court
Meadows failed to meet the deadline and show good cause for the delay
The judge ruled that Meadows’ alleged actions were not part of his official duties as Trump’s chief of staff
Meadows faces charges in both Arizona and Georgia for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results
This decision marks Meadows’ second unsuccessful attempt to move his case to federal court

Judge Denies Meadows’ Request, Citing Missed Deadline and Lack of Connection to Official Duties

U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi has rejected former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ attempt to move his Arizona indictment to federal court. The judge cited Meadows’ failure to meet the filing deadline and inability to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Judge Tuchi stated that Meadows “has failed to show good cause that might permit the Court to excuse the untimeliness.”

Furthermore, the judge ruled that Meadows “failed to demonstrate the offenses charged in the state’s prosecution relate to his” official duties when he was Trump’s chief of staff. This decision underscores the court’s view that Meadows’ alleged actions in challenging the 2020 election results were not part of his official responsibilities.

A judge has rejected a bid by Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to President Donald Trump, to move his charges in Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court, marking the second time he has failed in trying to get his charges out of state court. https://t.co/oE6CE5awsD

— FOX 10 Phoenix (@FOX10Phoenix) September 17, 2024

Charges and Allegations Against Meadows

Meadows, along with 17 others including Rudy Giuliani and Boris Epshteyn, was indicted by an Arizona state grand jury for their alleged efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss. The charges include nine felony counts, such as conspiracy, forgery, and fraudulent schemes. Prosecutors allege that Meadows was involved in organizing false Republican electors’ votes in Arizona and six other states.

“Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme,” the judge wrote. “Few, if any, of the State’s factual allegations even resemble the secretarial duties that Mr. Meadows maintains are the subject of the indictment.” Tuchi said.

The indictment claims that Meadows knew Trump had lost the election and arranged meetings and calls related to the fake elector conspiracy. Eleven Trump supporters falsely proclaimed Trump the victor in Arizona, despite Joe Biden’s certified win, declaring themselves “duly elected and qualified” electors.

Judge rejects former Trump aide Mark Meadows’ bid to move Arizona election case to federal court https://t.co/Crkj2HtnEI

— Daily Press (@Daily_Press) September 17, 2024

Implications and Next Steps

This ruling marks Meadows’ second unsuccessful attempt to move his case to federal court, following a similar rejection in Georgia. The decision returns Meadows’ case to Maricopa County Superior Court, where he and other defendants are seeking dismissal. Meadows has pleaded not guilty to the charges in both Arizona and Georgia.

“seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the president’s campaign.” Meadows’ attorneys said.

As the case unfolds, it raises critical questions about the integrity of electoral processes and the constitutional boundaries of executive power. The Arizona indictment refers to Trump as an unindicted coconspirator, adding another layer of complexity to the legal proceedings. With prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin also filing charges related to the fake electors scheme, this case continues to have far-reaching implications for the political landscape.