During the recent debate between Attorney General Kris Mayes and Warren Petersen, Ms. Mayes questioned Mr. Petersen’s legal experience and qualifications. Under Arizona’s Constitution, his training and experience qualify him to serve as our next Attorney General. 

Attorney General Kris Mayes’ claims fly in the face of well-settled Arizona constitutional law. Unfortunately, Ms. Mayes denied Arizona voters this crucial legal information, either through negligence or dishonesty.  

Specifically, Ms. Mayes’ attacks on Mr. Petersen’s professional background and experience disregard the relevant contrary language of Arizona’s Constitution and our Supreme Court’s seminal decision in State ex rel. Sawyer v. LaSota, 119 Ariz. 253, 254, 580 P.2d 714, 715 (1978), in which the Court stated that, under Art. 5, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution, the Executive Department consists of the Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, and the Attorney General. 

Section 2 of Art. 5 sets forth the eligibility of state offices in this language: No person shall be eligible to any of the offices mentioned in Section 1 of this article except a person of the age of not less than twenty-five years, who shall have been for ten years next preceding his election a citizen of the United States, and for five years next preceding his election a citizen of Arizona. 

In LaSota, the Court held that additional statutory preconditions for the office of Attorney General are of no force or effect. The Constitution, not campaign rhetoric, controls eligibility. 

Based on publicly reported information about Mr. Petersen’s background as a businessman, 14 years’ experience as a lawmaker, and current role as State Senate President with extensive experience overseeing both criminal and civil litigation, he is well qualified under the law to become Arizona’s next Attorney General if elected. 

Even before graduating law school, and while temporarily licensed to serve as a prosecutor in the Scottsdale Municipal Court, Mr. Petersen personally prosecuted persons who had allegedly violated Arizona’s criminal laws. As a result, he secured convictions against defendants charged with DUIs and criminal assaults—a record of prosecutorial success that even a career prosecutor would be proud of. 

Ms. Mayes’ public record before her election as Arizona’s current Attorney General pales in comparison to Mr. Petersen’s. She was a newspaper reporter, a postgraduate journalism student back East, then a newspaper reporter in Phoenix, and a law professor at ASU’s Law School specializing in energy law and sustainability. The public record also shows that even while claiming to be a Republican, she benefitted from non-litigation political appointments, including the Corporation Commission, with support from Democratic politicians in Arizona. Before becoming Attorney General, Ms. Mayes had little if any experience as a trial lawyer, and none as a prosecutor in any criminal misdemeanor or felony court case. 

In a not-too-subtle about-face, Ms. Mayes then switched parties, stating she did so to pursue her personal political objectives. Using public funds, she used her Office to join nationwide anti-Trump Administration lawsuits filed by several Blue State AGs, many with Democratic Socialist agendas. 

Ms. Mayes’ public avowals that she has not engaged in political lawfare and is simply the Attorney General for all Arizonans, regardless of political stripe, are not consistently supported by her record as our current Attorney General. 

Senate President Petersen’s public record shows a wealth of legal and political experience that reasonably should protect the rights of all Arizonans. Rather than promoting policies one would expect from Democratic Socialist attorneys general and while deflecting Ms. Mayes’ defamatory insinuations about his qualifications, Mr. Petersen has had one stated objective: the welfare of all Arizonans, regardless of political stripe — Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and patriotic Democrats. Arizona citizens would act reasonably and with common sense by taking him at his word and electing him this November. 

Richard Brooks is a sole practitioner specializing in civil and criminal trial and appellate litigation, as well as attorney disciplinary matters.