Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has initiated legal action to remove David Marshall from the office of Navajo County recorder, contending that Marshall is ineligible to hold the position under a provision of the Arizona Constitution that restricts legislators from taking other offices during their elected term. The petition, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Thursday, mirrors a separate suit filed earlier in the same week by Suzanne Hudspeth, the realtor who was a finalist for the appointment but was not chosen. Both filings focus on a single sentence of the state constitution that has long prompted differing legal readings about whether a lawmaker who resigns can immediately assume a different public post.
A speaker addresses an AFL‑CIO get‑out‑the‑vote event in Phoenix; the article reports the Arizona attorney general has filed a lawsuit seeking to remove a newly appointed county recorder.
The contested constitutional language states that “no member of the legislature” may hold another elected office or government position “during the term for which he shall have been elected.” That phrase has been interpreted in at least two ways: some maintain that it bars a sitting legislator from simultaneously holding another office unless and until they resign their legislative seat before being sworn into the new position, while others read it to mean a legislator may not take any additional office until the conclusion of the full term to which they were elected. State prosecutors, in the documents surrounding the attorney general’s action, wrote that Marshall was “ineligible to hold any other office until the expiration of the term to which he was elected,” and that he was thereby “unlawfully” holding the recorder’s seat. Hudspeth’s complaint uses similarly stark language, accusing Marshall of “usurping” the office.
Marshall resigned his seat in the Arizona House of Representatives before being sworn in as Navajo County recorder, and he has not publicly replied to media requests about the litigation. His attorney, Linley Wilson, however, told the attorney general in a May 6 letter that Mayes had misread the law. “Respectfully, your office’s position is incorrect,” Wilson wrote, adding that “the constitutional text, its historical purpose, the relevant Arizona authorities, applicable statutes, and persuasive decisions from other jurisdictions all strongly support the conclusion that Recorder Marshall is lawfully holding the office.” Wilson signaled preparedness to contest any effort to remove Marshall and argued that existing authority does not require ouster where an officeholder resigned before assuming the new post.
The circumstances that led to Marshall’s appointment trace to the resignation of former Navajo County Recorder Tim Jordan earlier this year after Jordan accepted a plea agreement stemming from criminal charges tied to a road‑rage incident. That vacancy was filled by the county board of supervisors, which was required by state law to name a successor from the same political party as Jordan. The board, on which Democrats hold three of five seats, selected Marshall from among the finalists, a move that drew attention because Marshall was viewed as the most conservative of the candidates. During his time as a state representative he was a member of the Freedom Caucus and backed measures that would ban vote centers, impose tighter limits on mail voting, and require hand‑counting of ballots in local contests, among other election‑related proposals.
Voters enter a polling site marked with Democratic and Republican precinct signs; the legal challenge in the story concerns the eligibility of Navajo County’s new recorder, who oversees local elections.
The litigation has produced an unusual alignment: a Democratic state attorney general and a conservative Republican challenger are both advancing legal claims against a newly appointed Republican election official. Hudspeth, who is represented by conservative attorney Tim La Sota, filed her complaint earlier in the week and had previously signaled an intention to contest Marshall’s eligibility. La Sota, who has longstanding ties to conservative circles at the state Capitol, argued in his filing on Hudspeth’s behalf that existing precedent supports disqualifying Marshall; he cited the 1961 Pickrell v. Myers decision but urged a conclusion opposite to the one Marshall’s lawyer draws from the same case.
At the center of much of the legal debate is a 1977 advisory opinion by then‑Attorney General Bruce Babbitt, which has often been invoked to support the stricter reading of the constitutional clause. Babbitt wrote that the provision “on its face, clearly prohibits the taking of any other office or employment during the elective term, whether or not the legislator resigns.” In an April 24 letter to Marshall, Mayes warned that unless Marshall stepped aside, her office would be prepared to seek a quo warranto action in the Arizona Supreme Court to resolve the issue, writing, “Therefore, unless you resign from your position as Navajo County recorder, this office will be required to file a quo warranto action in the Arizona Supreme Court.”
Wilson, in her correspondence with the attorney general, described Babbitt’s advisory opinion as “outdated,” “nonbinding,” and “unpersuasive,” and she urged that it represented merely “one lawyer’s view of the law and nothing more.” She cited a series of earlier court decisions she said pointed in a different direction. Among those she referenced was a 1973 ruling in which the state’s highest court declined to allow the attorney general to block the appointment of a member of the House to fill a Senate vacancy; a 1984 decision addressing enforcement of the state’s resign‑to‑run statute that emphasized enforcement only in situations where an incumbent fails to resign as required; and Pickrell v. Myers, a 1961 opinion in which the court concluded that a person elected to the legislature but never seated could nonetheless pursue appointment to a judicial post. Wilson wrote that because Marshall resigned his legislative seat before being sworn in as recorder, he was not a “member of the legislature” when he assumed the recorder’s duties: “Here, Mr. Marshall resigned from the Arizona House of Representatives before he was sworn in as Navajo County recorder,” she wrote. “When he assumed the recorder’s office, he was not a ‘member of the legislature.’”
La Sota invoked some of the same precedent in his filing for Hudspeth but reached a different interpretation, arguing that Marshall’s earlier swearing‑in and seating in the legislature made him a “member” subject to the constitutional bar. Wilson replied that she was unaware of any Arizona case in which a court had ousted an officer who had resigned from the legislature before taking another appointed office and that, in her view, reported cases resulting in ouster involved public officers who failed to resign or cure a disqualification before assuming their new posts. For now, the question of whether Marshall must vacate the recorder’s office will be resolved through the courts. The competing filings leave the matter poised for further legal briefing and, potentially, a decision that could test decades of advisory opinions and case law interpretations.
Kris Mayes holds statewide office and is a Democrat; she is running for reelection this year. The two separate legal challenges — the attorney general’s filing in Maricopa County Superior Court and Hudspeth’s earlier complaint — are now moving through the judicial system, and Marshall’s legal team has signaled its intent to defend his appointment. No court ruling has yet altered who is serving as Navajo County recorder, and the pending litigation will determine whether Marshall remains in the post for the remainder of the current term or is removed under the constitutional provision at issue.