Kris Mayes and the pre-election pact to sue Trump: Arizona deserves sunlight

Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes was part of a coordinated plan by Democratic attorneys general to prepare lawsuits against a second Trump administration months before voters made their choice, according to a confidential document obtained by The Center Square and reported by the Arizona Daily Independent. The planning began as early as April 2024 and came nearly seven months before Donald Trump was reelected and almost nine months before his inauguration.

The effort carried a nickname, Project for Federal Accountability, and was memorialized in a document titled “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT.” It laid out coordination and aimed to avoid waiving confidentiality over privileged materials. If you are wondering whether this looks like prewriting lawsuits before the public acted, former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff called the timing “not normal at all.”

Mayes has joined 46 lawsuits against the Trump administration since January 2025, according to the report. Her office, through spokesperson Richie Taylor, downplayed the timing, saying there is “nothing particularly significant” about the April 2024 date and that the office uses common interest agreements with Republicans and Democrats depending on the case.

At least 22 Democratic attorneys general appear to have signed the agreement, with zero Republicans, the report states. Signatures started April 28, 2024, months before President Joe Biden exited the race and before Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee. Former Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, now that state’s governor, said the day after the election that his office had been preparing for months, even going line by line through Project 2025 and tracking Trump’s campaign remarks.

The lawsuits have not been cheap. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his state’s suits have cost $19 million and described them as apolitical, adding that if Trump follows the law he will not get sued. California lawmakers separately authorized up to $25 million for “federal accountability litigation,” and New Jersey’s governor added $1 million in his budget tied to the Project for Federal Accountability, according to records cited in the report.

Results so far are mixed. Just Security, described as a nonpartisan law and policy journal, counts 11 cases closed in favor of plaintiffs and four dismissed in favor of the federal government. Not every attorney general joins every case, and different offices take the lead on different filings, the report notes.

O.H. Skinner, a former Arizona solicitor general, called the timeline “very revealing,” arguing that whatever was said in public, the planners privately had confidence Biden would not win and only worried about federal overreach when the other team was in charge. In his words, they set out to “build a juggernaut” to slow the president’s agenda.

The secrecy piece is not trivial. Hundreds of pages released by the Washington Attorney General’s Office about the coordination came largely blacked out under work product exemptions, with The Center Square pursuing appeals. Retired Connecticut judge Thomas Moukawsher questioned whether such a broad “federal accountability” common interest claim can justify withholding records, calling it “a little strange.”

Democrats have not exactly denied the partisan lens. Virginia’s attorney general said planning started as soon as it was clear Trump would be the nominee, while Sen. Tim Kaine likened the posture to 2009 Republican resistance to President Obama’s stimulus, summing it up as “everything he’s for, we’re against.” For historical context, state attorneys general filed 122 multistate suits against the Biden administration too, with some by Democrats and a few bipartisan, but even Shurtleff says the arms race has become “ridiculous.”

Arizona’s stake is simple. Mayes has put Arizona into 46 Trump-era lawsuits and signed onto a confidential pact built to coordinate and cloak strategy. Taxpayers deserve to know how much this costs, what the office is not doing while it is doing this, and what the objective metrics of success are for Arizona residents rather than a national partisan scoreboard.

If Mayes believes this is routine, prove it. Release the agreement, itemize Arizona’s expenditures tied to this project, and publish the criteria for when the office sues, joins, or sits out. Arizona needs an attorney general who looks like a neutral law enforcer, not a pre-election campaign committee with subpoena power.

See an error? Email corrections@saguarosignal.com. We append material corrections to the article.