'Return This Case to the Grand Jury': 124 Days Later, Mayes Has No New Fake Electors Indictment

On June 18, 2026, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced she was dismissing the state's fake electors case and promised to bring it back to a grand jury. As of Oct. 20, 2026, public court reporting shows no new indictment has been filed. The general election in which Mayes faces Republican Senate President Warren Petersen is on Nov. 3. Petersen has said that if he wins, he will drop the case.

In June, Mayes' spokesman Richie Taylor said the office would "return this case to the grand jury." By October, Taylor was declining to comment on any plans to refile. The vow is still standing. The calendar is running out on it.

In April 2024, a state grand jury indicted 18 people on conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges: the 11 Republicans who signed a certificate on Dec. 14, 2020, declaring themselves Arizona's electors for Donald Trump, plus five lawyers who worked for Trump and two former aides, among them Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Mark Meadows. Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.

The case shrank fast. Jenna Ellis took a cooperation deal, elector Loraine Pellegrino pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and Jim Lamon's charges were dropped in December 2025 after he agreed not to fight prosecutors' subpoenas for his messages.

Then the case hit the wall. In May 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers sent it back to the grand jury, ruling that prosecutors had not given jurors the text of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, the federal law the defendants say gave them a legal path to submit a rival slate. The Arizona Court of Appeals declined to step in. On June 4, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court declined too.

That ruling started a 15-day clock to get back to a grand jury. The attorney general's criminal division chief, Nick Klingerman, told the court the office could not make it, writing that "this case is complex and will require substantial presentation of evidence." The state asked for dismissal without prejudice, which keeps the door open. In August, Myers granted it and rejected Eastman's request to dismiss with prejudice, writing that "the interests of justice do not require" it.

Here is the arithmetic. From the June 18 announcement to today is 124 days. From today to Election Day is 14. A new indictment means presenting what Klingerman called a complex case to a fresh grand jury, this time with the Electoral Count Act in the room.

Votebeat reported the case could stretch into 2027 or 2028, which means only a Mayes win keeps a refiled case alive. Petersen beat Rodney Glassman in the July Republican primary. Both men had pledged to end the prosecution. Asked in November 2025 what he would do with the case, Petersen answered in two words: "Drop it." He called the case "a witch hunt" and said, "I won't use the office to persecute my political enemies." Glassman promised that on his first day, "this madness ends."

There is also a federal wrinkle that does not touch the state case. Trump's November 2025 pardons covered all 18 Arizona defendants, but only for federal offenses. They do not reach state charges.

The defendants want the door closed for good. In early October, Lamon filed a special action asking the Court of Appeals to rule that Myers should have dismissed the case under Arizona's anti-SLAPP law, which bars prosecutions "substantially motivated" by a desire to retaliate against the exercise of constitutional rights. In February 2025, Myers found the defendants had cleared the first step of that test.

Seven more defendants, including Eastman and Meadows, are making or joining the same argument. Eastman's lawyer, Ashley Adams, put it plainly: "You can't just dismiss your way out of an anti-SLAPP violation." The state's response to Lamon was due Oct. 16.

The defendants' case. The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty. Their core argument is that the electors signed a contingency slate: Arizona's result was still being challenged in court in December 2020, and they say they signed so that a Trump slate would exist if those challenges succeeded before Congress counted votes on Jan. 6. They point to the Electoral Count Act, which they say contemplated competing slates, as evidence they had no intent to defraud. Bowyer's lawyer, Anthony Pacheco, said the Supreme Court "got it exactly right." Mike Roman's lawyer, Kurt Altman, called the grand jury plan "comical."

The attorney general's case. The indictment alleges the electors signed a document calling themselves the "duly elected and qualified" electors when they were not. After the anti-SLAPP ruling Mayes said, "It is not the lawful exercise of free speech to file forged slates of electors." Congress has since amended the Electoral Count Act, in 2022, to allow only one governor-certified slate per state. Mayes has said she will keep pursuing the case regardless of the election, warning that dropping the charges means "we risk future manipulation."

For Attorney General Kris Mayes' office: Has a new grand jury been empaneled or presented with this case since June 18? Will the state seek a new indictment before Nov. 3? If not, why not, given the vow? What did the state file on Oct. 16? What has the case cost taxpayers?

For the Warren Petersen campaign: Does Petersen still intend to drop the case on day one? Would he review the evidence first? Would the state concede attorneys' fees in the anti-SLAPP appeals?

For defense counsel: If the anti-SLAPP appeal fails, what is the next step? Does any document from December 2020 record that the slate was meant to be conditional?

This story is based on public court records and reporting through Oct. 20, 2026, by the Associated Press, KJZZ, Arizona Capitol Times, Capitol Media Services, Arizona Mirror, Votebeat and Axios Phoenix; grand jury proceedings are secret, so activity not yet public could change the picture. We are looking for the state's Oct. 16 filing, cost figures, and anyone who knows whether the case has been re-presented. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, the Warren Petersen campaign and counsel for the defendants were asked for comment; responses will be added with a dated update. Tips: [email protected]. Corrections: [email protected].