And what the prosecution will do next is up to the prosecution.

In a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Hobbes said Arizona law identified Chris as the only person who could accuse someone of violating a set of existing laws regulating the conditions under which an abortion could be performed. He said he was specifically authorized to nominate Attorney General Mays.

Hobbes told Mitchell, along with copies to the 11 other county prosecutors who sent letters Monday seeking the order to be rescinded, telling them that as county officials they have specific statutory powers. He said he had no choice.

“If you disagree with the wisdom of these laws, we encourage you to work with lawmakers on the legislative process,” Hobbes said in the letter. “Similarly, if there are concerns about how future governors will utilize this statutory power, such concerns should be addressed in the legislative process.”

What is not mentioned in the letter, however, is whether Mr. Hobbes, when presented with such a legal change, would actually sign it.

Friday’s letter itself is not surprising.

As soon as he received the report on Monday, the governor said he would not retract it.

“I will continue to use my legal authority to protect Arizonans from extremists who seek to prosecute women and doctors for their medical decisions,” she said in a Twitter post. .

But it merely gave the equivalent of a political and philosophical response. The governor has now detailed her legal response. She also clarified what would happen to her claims if the county attorney decided to challenge her in her court.

Janine Ecuyer, a spokeswoman for Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, who is leading the challenge, said county attorneys are aware of the governor’s official statement and are already holding discussions. But she declined to say what she would do next.

The crux of the problem lies in the extension of the governor’s powers.

Hobbes provided that the Governor may direct the Attorney General to “prosecute and defend any proceeding in state court in which this State or any officer of this State is a party or has an interest.” Quoted the statutory provisions.

The issue is whether this simultaneously removes all 15 locally-elected county attorneys from their unique right to press charges if they believe they have violated the criminal code.

The 12 prosecutors who wrote to Mr. Hobbes, not including prosecutors in Pima, La Paz and Apache counties, argue otherwise.

“The current situation in Arizona, since the state system, is that the duty and discretion of criminal prosecution for public crimes rests with county attorneys unless the statute provides otherwise,” they told Hobbes. . They called her order an “out-and-out attempt” to “obstruct the discretion of prosecutors in the performance of their duties as elected officials.”

They also told Mr. Hobbes that reliance on that provision of the Act was legally wrong. The law “relates only to pre-existing individual cases and not to entire categories of crime, including crimes that have not yet occurred,” they said.

“To suggest that the governor may strip prosecutors from local elected officials is a significant overstatement,” they said.

“Congress has explicitly granted this authority,” Hobbes said.

By putting Mays in charge of all cases, the governor also noted that “15 different county attorneys have identified potential disparities in the interpretation and application of abortion laws that can undermine or limit access to legal health care.” It also said that it will prevent “things”.

One of the issues county prosecutors will have to decide going forward is whether they can seek a declaratory judgment from the court for exceeding Mr. Hobbes’ authority.

Judges generally do not like to rule based on purely hypothetical cases. Instead, they prefer what lawyers call “actual litigation or controversy.” There are actual facts to determine what is legal and what is illegal.

That means the county attorney may have to wait until the county attorney decides to accuse the provider of abortion law violations and Mays moves to take up the case before trying the governor’s authority. means that

Hobbs reminded Mitchell of that fact.

“Considering that your office recently admitted that it does not have open abortion-related prosecutions, this provision of the order does not immediately affect your office,” the governor said.

“And based on recent statements by other county attorneys that they have little or no interest in abortion-related prosecutions, this order may never affect any county attorney.”

“If, and only if, you or another county attorney choose to bring an action in superior court for the purpose of an abortion-related prosecution, the Attorney General will comply with the order and (state law) all obligations related to that case. will be accepted.”

It could take months, if not more.

At this point, state appeals courts have ruled out states making abortion illegal except to save the mother’s life, despite then-Attorney General Mark Brunovich’s assertion that last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling was handed down. Stopped enforcing territorial law. Overturns Roe v. Wade, making it law again in Arizona.

Instead, appeals court judges said a 2022 law banning abortions only after the 15th week of pregnancy would prevail. And so far, there is no evidence that any live fetal abortions have taken place since that date.

Another law prohibits doctors from terminating a pregnancy if the doctor knows that the woman wants the baby because of the sex or race of the baby. The other criminalizes abortion when the only reason is genetic defects in the fetus.

That argument is currently pending in the Arizona Supreme Court.

But while there are no cases pending, it would be wrong to say that the district attorney has no interest in pursuing abortion laws.

Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McGran told the Supreme Court in April that he wanted to intervene in a pending legal battle over whether the territory-era law or the 15-week ban is enforceable. He said this was important because Mays, who replaced Brnovic in January, has not defended the old law.

Liberty Alliance attorney Jacob Warner, representing McGlenn, told the judge that his client needed to step in to represent “the interests of all people in his jurisdiction.” . And that means “fully enforcing” the laws of the territorial era, he said.

“This interest is now in serious jeopardy,” Warner told the court.

Judges have yet to rule on whether he can join the case.

Hobbes took a slightly more conciliatory approach in his letter.

“Thank you county attorneys across the state for their daily work and for their service to the people of Arizona,” she wrote. “Nothing in this order should interfere with its ability to carry out its activities, such as its focus on reducing violent crime in its neighborhoods and keeping its streets safe.”