A Maricopa County judge has rejected several claims dismissing charges filed against so-called false electors in Arizona in the case filed by State Attorney General Chris Mays.

Defendants in the case, all Republicans, have been charged with fraud and other felony for signing and filing documents that falsely claimed that President Donald Trump had defeated former President Joe Biden in the Arizona presidential election.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers has denied a claim by the lawyers of defendant Tyler Bowyer. Those who claimed that the state had no authority to bring about the incident in the first place. They argued that the federal government has the sole power to resolve disputes over presidential electorals, and that power has preceded the state’s ability to prosecute.

Myers also denied allegations that the indictment taken over by the Arizona major ju trial in May 2024 did not claim that the defendant committed an actual crime.

Defendant’s attorney asked Myers to dismiss the suit under Arizona Court rules, which requires the case to be withdrawn if “the defendant “sanctions acknowledge all claims indicted and have not yet committed a crime.” According to Arizona Supreme Court precedent. However, Myers found that rather than proven the indictment itself a flaw, he questioned whether the defendant had enough evidence to support the allegations made in the indictment.

He then refused to discuss the arguments by Senator Jake Hoffman’s lawyers who argued that the activities allegedly filed in the indictment were protected by the US Constitution.

“[T]His indictment aims to punish alleged crimes of forgery, conspiracy and fraud — none of which are constitutionally protected activities,” Myers wrote on March 20.

Myers also rejected an attempt by former Senate candidate Jim Ramon, who was accused of signing fraudulent documents Trump claimed to have beaten Arizona in 2020, and her office stopped stopping reporting on the ongoing incident.

The defendant’s lawyers alleged that Mays and her representatives made inappropriate statements to the media about the case in an attempt to shake up public opinion that could affect the future pool of ju umpires.

“We have shown that there is a clear pattern when there is any development in a case, rather than unfolding in court where it belongs, the prosecution runs to the media and blames the defendant using exaggeration and rhetoric, who not only divorces from the facts, but also divorces from what they have claimed.

Myers admitted that due to the growing public interest in the case, “the content being discussed in the media is much more debated than most cases currently pending in the Arizona Attorney General’s office.”

However, Myers said Mays’ office has restricted public comments on the case since Ramon filed his allegations.

“However, a change in the situation could convince the court to reconsider its position on the issue,” he wrote.

Another move Dismissing a lawsuit under Arizona law designed to protect First Amendment rights And preventing politically motivated prosecutions is still pending.