🗳️ Democracy in the Dark: Santa Cruz County's Three-Year Campaign to Avoid Accountability Reaches Final Stage
AUDIT USA's Supreme Court petition asks one question: Can governments bankrupt citizens for asking how votes were counted?
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
Imagine you asked your teacher for a copy of your test answers so you could check your grade. Your teacher says “I’ll give them to you on Friday after school.” 📅
But on Friday, instead of handing you the answers, the teacher sues you in court ⚖️, claiming they’re not sure if students are allowed to see their own tests.
You didn’t do anything wrong—you just asked a question. ❓
The lawsuit goes on for three years 🕰️.
Finally, a judge says “This lawsuit never should have happened” and dismisses it. 🧹
But even though you won 🏆, the court won’t make the teacher pay your lawyer’s bills 💸, even though the law says they have to.
That’s basically what happened to AUDIT USA when they asked Santa Cruz County for election records called Cast Vote Records 🗳️.
The county promised to send them 🤝, then sued instead ⚔️.
Now AUDIT USA is asking Arizona’s Supreme Court 🏛️ to force the county to follow the law and pay the legal bills they caused by filing a lawsuit everyone agrees was wrong from the start.
It matters because if governments can sue people for asking questions without paying when they lose 🚫💰, it stops regular people from being able to hold their government accountable 🔍✊.
⚖️ They Sued Us for Asking: AUDIT USA Takes Its Fight for Transparency to Arizona’s Highest Court
Santa Cruz County’s three-year crusade to punish citizens for requesting election records hits the Supreme Court — and the stakes couldn’t be higher for public accountability across Arizona
🔑 Key Takeaways:
AUDIT USA petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court on November 19, 2025, asking them to review a Court of Appeals decision that refused to award mandatory attorney fees after Santa Cruz County lost a baseless three-year lawsuit
Santa Cruz County promised to deliver Cast Vote Records on August 18, 2022, then filed a lawsuit against AUDIT USA that same day without ever asking if there was actually a dispute—billing records show they’d spent 67.7 hours preparing the lawsuit while promising cooperation
Every court agreed the lawsuit should never have been filed, calling it “not ripe,” seeking an “advisory opinion,” and lacking a “genuine controversy,” but lower courts refused to hold the county accountable under fee-shifting statutes
The 2024 Arizona Supreme Court decision Arizona Republican Party v. Richer established an objective standard for awarding fees against groundless lawsuits—but trial and appellate courts wrongly applied a subjective “bad faith” test instead
The Court of Appeals misquoted A.R.S. § 12-349, saying courts “may“ award fees when the statute says they “shall“—a critical error that let Santa Cruz County off the hook
AUDIT USA’s attorney, Bill Risner, is owed over $57,000 in unpaid fees for defending a lawsuit his clients never wanted, and the county had no justification to file
The case has statewide implications for public records access—if governments can sue citizens preemptively and walk away without consequences, transparency becomes a luxury only the wealthy can afford
¿Qué onda, raza? Grab your cafecito and settle in, because what started as a simple public records request in 2022 has morphed into a constitutional showdown that could determine whether Arizona’s counties can weaponize the courts to silence citizens who dare to ask questions about their own elections.
On November 19, 2025, AUDIT USA and its Executive Director, John R. Brakey, petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to review a deeply flawed Court of Appeals decision that technically sided with them but refused to hold Santa Cruz County accountable for three years of baseless litigation.
The stakes?
Whether government agencies can sue citizens for simply requesting public records, drag them through years of expensive legal battles, and walk away without consequences.
Translation: Can your county government bankrupt you with lawsuits just because you asked to see how they counted votes? Santa Cruz County says yes. AUDIT USA says hell no.
The Setup: A Promise Broken on the Day It Was Due
Here’s how this started, and trust me, the audacity is breathtaking.
On July 28, 2022, AUDIT USA—a national nonprofit dedicated to election transparency—requested six public records from Santa Cruz County, including the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from the August 2nd primary election.
The CVR is essentially a digital spreadsheet showing how every vote was cast (anonymously), allowing independent verification that ballots were counted correctly.
It’s not radical. It’s not partisan. It’s basic democratic accountability.
On August 11, 2022, Santa Cruz County’s outside attorney, Pierce Coleman, sent AUDIT USA’s lawyer, Bill Risner, a letter confirming they would “transmit records by 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2022.” Case closed, right?
Wrong.
On August 18, 2022—the exact day the county promised to deliver the records—Santa Cruz County filed a 39-page lawsuit against AUDIT USA and John Brakey, seeking a declaratory judgment about whether CVRs are public records and demanding that AUDIT USA pay the county’s attorney fees.
Let that sink in.
The county didn’t call to say they’d changed their minds. They didn’t ask if AUDIT USA would even contest a refusal. They didn’t consult the Secretary of State or request a free legal opinion from the Attorney General—both of whom help counties interpret election law. They just sued.
And here’s the kicker: Billing records obtained through discovery show that Pierce Coleman had already logged 67.7 hours preparing the lawsuit before they sent that August 11th letter promising to hand over the records.
They were planning this ambush while literally promising cooperation.
Three Years, Two Appeals, and Zero Accountability
The Pima County Superior Court quickly saw through the charade. In December 2022, Judge Casey McGinley dismissed the case, ruling it was “not ripe, improperly sought an advisory opinion, and lacked a genuine controversy.”
In plain English: There was no actual dispute. Santa Cruz County had sued someone who wasn’t even fighting them.
Judge McGinley awarded AUDIT USA’s attorney Bill Risner $19,961.67 in mandatory fees under Arizona Revised Statute § 12-348, which requires fee awards when a government sues and loses.
But Santa Cruz County—apparently allergic to taking the L—appealed. Twice.
After the first appeal, the trial court reaffirmed its dismissal but denied additional attorney fees that had accumulated over the years of litigation. Then the Court of Appeals issued a decision on October 20, 2025, affirming the dismissal (good!) but refusing to award the mandatory fees and sanctions required by Arizona law (bad!).
The result?
AUDIT USA’s attorneys—who spent three years defending against a lawsuit everyone agrees should never have been filed—got paid for a fraction of their work. Bill Risner is still owed more than $57,000.
The Legal Smoking Gun: Arizona Republican Party v. Richer
Here’s where the math gets real interesting, compa.
Arizona law is crystal clear. A.R.S. § 12-349 requires courts to award attorney fees and sanctions when a party “brings or defends a claim without substantial justification.” The statute defines that phrase as meaning the claim is “groundless and not made in good faith.”
For years, Arizona courts struggled with what “not made in good faith” actually means. Does it require proving the government intended to harass you? Or is there a lower bar?
In 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court answered that question definitively in Arizona Republican Party v. Richer. The court held that “good faith” must be judged objectively—meaning it doesn’t matter what the government believed it was doing. What matters is whether “a reasonable attorney should have known the claim was groundless.”
The Richer decision explicitly tied this standard to three factors courts must consider under A.R.S. § 12-350:
The extent of any effort made to determine the validity of a claim before filing
The extent of any effort made after filing to dismiss invalid claims
The availability of facts to assist in determining validity
Let’s apply that test to Santa Cruz County’s conduct, shall we?
Did they make any effort to check if their lawsuit was valid before filing? Nope. They never contacted AUDIT USA to ask if there was even a disagreement. They never requested guidance from the Arizona Attorney General or Secretary of State—both of whom provide free legal opinions on election law. They just sued.
Did they narrow or dismiss their claims once litigation started? Hell no. Even after AUDIT USA’s motion to dismiss made clear there was no actual controversy, the county kept pushing. They appealed. Then appealed again. For three years.
Were facts available showing the lawsuit lacked merit? Absolutely. The county’s own August 11th letter promising to provide the records proved there was no dispute. The Election Procedures Manual—which the county cited in its own complaint—could have answered their supposed legal questions.
And get this: In a separate case, Maricopa County had already provided AUDIT USA with CVRs without drama, proving Santa Cruz’s “concerns” were manufactured.
Under the Richer standard, this case is a slam dunk. Santa Cruz County’s lawsuit was objectively groundless. A reasonable attorney would have known it. Fees are mandatory.
But both the trial court and Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard—a subjective “bad faith” test asking whether the county believed its claims were valid, rather than whether a competent lawyer should have known better.
That’s not how the law works, carnales. And AUDIT USA is done playing nice.
The Court of Appeals Screwed Up—Repeatedly
AUDIT USA’s petition to the Supreme Court doesn’t just argue that the lower courts applied the wrong legal standard. It systematically dismantles multiple factual and legal errors in the Court of Appeals opinion:
Error #1: Misquoting the Statute
The Appeals Court wrote that courts “may“ award fees under § 12-349. But the statute actually says courts “shall“ award fees. That’s not a typo—it’s the difference between discretionary and mandatory. The legislature chose “shall” for a reason: to stop governments from abusing the legal system without consequences.
Error #2: Focusing on the Wrong Issue
The Appeals Court spent paragraphs discussing whether there was “legal uncertainty” about CVR disclosure. But that’s irrelevant. The lawsuit wasn’t dismissed because CVRs are obviously public records. It was dismissed because there was no actual dispute between the parties. The county sued the wrong people, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Concepts like justiciability and ripeness aren’t “procedural technicalities”—they’re foundational to how courts work.
Error #3: Relying on False Information
The Appeals Court opinion cited AUDIT-USA v. Maricopa County to suggest CVR disclosure was legally uncertain. But that case wasn’t about CVRs at all—it was about ballot images, which are protected by different laws. In fact, Maricopa County gave AUDIT USA its CVRs without filing a lawsuit. The Court of Appeals literally got its facts wrong.
Error #4: Treating a SLAPP Suit as a “Mistake”
The opinion characterized Santa Cruz County’s conduct as merely “procedurally defective,” as if they’d filed the wrong form. But this wasn’t a paperwork error. The county spent over $100,000 in taxpayer money hiring Pierce Coleman to prepare and maintain a three-year legal assault against a nonprofit election-transparency group—all to avoid making a simple phone call or requesting a free legal opinion.
What AUDIT USA Is Asking For—And Why It Matters to You
The petition asks the Arizona Supreme Court to:
Accept review due to the statewide importance of these issues
Reverse the Court of Appeals’ flawed analysis of § 12-349
Remand the case with instructions to apply the correct objective standard
Award mandatory attorney fees and sanctions under A.R.S. §§ 12-348, 12-349, 12-350, and 39-121.02
“Our attorneys deserve to be properly paid for their defense of a lawsuit we didn’t ask for and didn’t want,” John Brakey said in the November 20th press release. “The Supreme Court also needs to correct the several errors in the Appeals Court opinion.“
Ken Bennett, AUDIT USA’s Board Chair and former Arizona Secretary of State, put it even more bluntly: “Allowing these errors to stand would allow Santa Cruz County to avoid accountability and would potentially be harmful to anyone requesting public records in Arizona.“
He’s right. And the implications extend far beyond one borderland county.
The Bigger Picture: Transparency as a Borderlands Resistance Issue
If you’re wondering why Three Sonorans cares about a wonky legal case involving election records and attorney fee statutes, let me connect the dots for you, mi gente.
This isn’t just about one nonprofit’s fight for reimbursement. It’s about whether Arizona’s most vulnerable communities—Indigenous nations, immigrant families, working-class barrios across the Sonoran Desert—can hold their governments accountable without being financially destroyed for asking questions.
Public records laws exist because sunlight is the best disinfectant.
They allow journalists, community advocates, and everyday citizens to investigate how tax dollars are spent, how elections are conducted, how environmental permits are issued, and whether officials are serving the public or lining corporate pockets.
But those laws only work if governments can’t retaliate against requesters by burying them in litigation costs.
Arizona’s fee-shifting statutes—like § 12-349—are supposed to prevent exactly that kind of abuse. They say: If you’re a government agency and you sue a citizen without justification, you pay. That’s the price of deterring harassment lawsuits.
Except Santa Cruz County found a loophole: Just claim you “believed” your lawsuit was valid, and courts will let you off the hook.
Think about what that means for borderlands communities.
Want to request water-use records from a county subsidizing data centers in the desert?
Want to see how sheriffs are spending money on border enforcement?
Want to verify your votes were counted correctly?
Under the standard Santa Cruz County is defending, governments could sue you preemptively, drag you through years of appeals, and walk away without paying a dime—as long as they can convince a judge they thought they had a point.
That’s not transparency. That’s tyranny with a gavel.
From RTA to Santa Cruz: A Pattern of Concealment
For those who’ve followed John Brakey’s work, this isn’t his first rodeo confronting Southern Arizona’s culture of governmental concealment.
Brakey spent nine years battling Pima County over corruption at the Regional Transportation Authority, ultimately compiling a 76-page document of evidence that the courts refused to allow him to present. As he wrote in his personal reflection attached to the press materials: “We spent nine years, and we learned how a corrupt system works.”
That experience taught him something crucial: Transparency battles aren’t won by appealing to officials’ better angels. They’re won by forcing courts to apply the laws that officials want to ignore.
And that’s exactly what this Supreme Court petition does.
What Happens Next—And How You Can Help
The Arizona Supreme Court now has several options:
Accept the petition for review, hear arguments, and issue a ruling clarifying that fee-shifting statutes must be applied using an objective standard—potentially setting precedent that protects public-records requesters statewide.
Deny review, leaving the Court of Appeals’ flawed opinion as published precedent and giving Arizona’s 15 counties a roadmap for harassing transparency advocates without consequences.
Remand for reconsideration, sending the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to apply the Richer standard correctly.
While we wait for the Supreme Court’s decision, here’s what you can do:
Read the full investigative reports that AUDIT USA has published documenting Santa Cruz County’s pattern of concealment and retaliation. Start with John Brakey’s three-part series “They Sued Us for Asking” on his Substack, which includes video versions and links to all the court filings.
Share this story with anyone who thinks government transparency is worth defending—especially if they live in Santa Cruz County and want to know why their tax dollars funded a three-year SLAPP suit instead of schools, roads, or public health.
Support independent journalism that holds power accountable. Subscribe to Three Sonorans and help us keep covering the stories Arizona’s mainstream media ignores.
Request your own public records—and document what happens. If Arizona counties think they can intimidate one well-resourced nonprofit, imagine what they’ll try with individual citizens. The best defense against government overreach is a raza that refuses to stop asking questions.
A Note of Hope: La Lucha Continues
It would be easy to look at three years of litigation, tens of thousands in unpaid legal fees, and a Court of Appeals opinion riddled with errors and feel despair. But that’s not the lesson here, compa.
The lesson is that Santa Cruz County threw everything they had at AUDIT USA—and lost. The lawsuit was dismissed. The courts agreed it should never have been filed. The only question now is whether Arizona law will be enforced as written, requiring the county to pay for its abuse of the legal system.
And regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, AUDIT USA has already accomplished something powerful: They’ve created a public record of exactly how a local government weaponizes litigation to avoid accountability. Every invoice. Every contradictory email. Every misrepresented fact. It’s all documented now, available for journalists, researchers, and future litigants to study.
As John Brakey put it: “Transparency shouldn’t require years of litigation. We hope the Appeals Court corrects the record and reinforces that government agencies cannot drag citizens into court without a legitimate dispute.“
Órale. That’s not just a legal argument. That’s a declaration of resistance.
Because at the end of the day, democracy doesn’t die in darkness because governments turn off the lights. It dies because we stop demanding they turn them back on.
And borderlands communities? We’ve never been afraid of the dark.
Discussion Questions
Should Arizona counties be allowed to sue citizens preemptively over public records disputes, or should they be required to wait until an actual disagreement exists? What safeguards would you want to see?
The Court of Appeals acknowledged Santa Cruz County’s lawsuit was improperly filed but refused to impose financial consequences. Does that create the right incentives, or does it just encourage more harassment lawsuits?
AUDIT USA’s mission is to make elections “transparent, trackable, and publicly verifiable” through tools like Cast Vote Records. Do you think Arizona voters should have access to these records to independently verify election results? Why or why not?
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message below or via email (all messages kept confidential) at ThreeSonorans@gmail.com.
Thank you, D.A. Morales, for taking the time to dig deep, fact-check the record, and tell this story with honesty, courage, and context. You captured exactly what’s at stake — not just for AUDIT USA, but for every Arizonan who believes government should never punish people for asking simple questions.
For three years, Santa Cruz County used taxpayer money to file a lawsuit that every court agreed should never have been brought in the first place. And yet the courts refused to apply the mandatory fee-shifting laws meant to protect citizens from this kind of abuse. That’s why we filed our petition with the Arizona Supreme Court — because if governments can sue you for requesting public records and walk away without consequences, then transparency becomes a luxury reserved only for the wealthy.
D.A.’s article lays out the truth plainly:
This case is about whether democracy will belong to the people or whether local governments can weaponize the courts to intimidate the public into silence.
I want to thank D.A. not just for the article, but for helping the public understand what’s really happening behind the scenes — something too few journalists in Arizona have been willing to do. Independent journalism is the backbone of accountability, and today he proved why it’s so essential.
I hope everyone reading this will share his story widely. People need to see what’s happening right here in our own backyard. Sunshine isn’t optional — it’s the only way democracy survives.
Thank you, D.A. Your work matters more than you know.
John R. Brakey, AUDIT USA