Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Legal Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions county payment for Supervisor Crosby's legal defense in 2022 election litigation
Summary
During public comment a Cochise County resident urged supervisors not to approve up to $300,000 reportedly requested for a supervisor's legal defense related to 2022 election actions; Supervisor Crosby responded by restating his motion from November 2022 and denying wrongdoing.
Get email alerts on the Ethics Legal Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the July 1 Cochise County Board of Supervisors meeting a resident urged the board to reject a reported request by Supervisor Crosby for up to $300,000 in county funding to cover legal costs arising from the board’s actions related to the 2022 midterm election. The resident said the costs had already imposed direct and indirect burdens on taxpayers and asked how online donations to the supervisor’s legal defense were accounted for.
Lisonbee Morris told the board she was “concerned about the $300,000 that supervisor Crosby is requesting from the county, which would ultimately come out of county taxpayers' pockets.” She said the board had been warned that expanding hand counts and refusing to certify election results could lead to lawsuits and taxpayer costs, and she asked how any online donations intended to help pay legal bills had been used.
Supervisor Crosby responded from the dais, saying he had restated the November 18, 2022 motion as “Table accepting the election results till Monday November at 10AM until such evidence about lawful certification by an accredited laboratory is presented and confirmed by persons with expertise in the field, and you may want to reference ARS 16 4 4 2 b.” He denied that he was guilty of wrongdoing and said he had declined to accept a plea deal because he believed his actions were appropriate.
Crosby also suggested the board had been misagendized at times and said he believed other supervisors should have taken similar actions. No motion or vote on county payment for legal defense was recorded at the July 1 meeting; the matter remained in public comment and in later discussion the board did not take action to authorize payment during the session.

