By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is preparing a lawsuit against House Speaker Mike Johnson for refusing to swear in Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected official. Mayes alleges Johnson is violating the law by delaying Grijalva’s swearing-in, potentially due to her support for releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files. Johnson dismisses the lawsuit as a publicity stunt, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demands Grijalva be sworn in, citing concerns about concealing the Epstein files. Johnson maintains he cannot swear in Grijalva during the recess, vowing to do so upon lawmakers’ return, and insists she can serve her constituents despite not being formally sworn in.
Read the original article here
Arizona Attorney General Drafting Lawsuit Against Speaker Johnson – This is the headline, the core of the matter before us. The situation is this: Arizona’s Attorney General, Mayes, is preparing legal action against House Speaker Johnson. The core complaint? Johnson is allegedly violating the law by refusing to swear in a duly elected Arizona congresswoman, Grijalva. Mayes has made it clear – and quite directly – that she believes Johnson’s actions are unconstitutional. She’s cited the fundamental principle that a Speaker doesn’t have the right to deny a state’s representative their seat in Congress. This is a serious matter, and the urgency is palpable.
The public sentiment, gathered from various perspectives, seems to be a mix of frustration and anticipation. The time for talk is over, it’s being said; the time for action is now. There’s a strong undercurrent of disbelief that the legal paperwork isn’t already ready, perhaps even filed. The idea is that if you’re going to threaten legal action, the documents should be drafted and ready to go. The common sentiment is that a lawsuit should have been filed the moment Johnson refused to comply. People are arguing that Republicans would have jumped on such an opportunity, unleashing a coordinated PR campaign. There’s a general feeling that the Democrats are “playing checkers,” while the opposing side, the Republicans, are playing a more strategic game.
Now, while the impatience is understandable, we also have to consider the legal realities. The AG needs to go through the proper “notice and cure” process. This means giving Johnson a deadline and a chance to comply before the lawsuit is filed. It’s about demonstrating good faith to the court, and it takes time. The suggestion of withholding taxes until the matter is resolved underscores the frustration and the sense of being denied representation. There’s an underlying recognition of the constitutional protection against “Taxation without Representation”. It’s a fundamental principle at the heart of the matter.
The process might seem slow, with some people feeling that the delay is a weakness. On the other hand, the argument is that this delay serves a strategic purpose. It’s about gathering all relevant information and providing Johnson with a chance to do the right thing. There’s also the need to consider potential counterarguments and prepare the legal strategy accordingly. In short, it’s about doing things deliberately and correctly.
It’s worth noting the comparisons. The speed with which other AGs have acted in the past is used as a point of reference. The example of Oregon’s AG, who prepared a lawsuit quickly in response to a Trump executive order, highlights the potential for rapid action. Also, the public is starting to become tired of delays. The perception is that the opposition is always prepared and always moving forward. The public wants to see a more decisive response, one that is as swift as the threats they are fighting.
One of the factors behind the delay, perhaps, is a strategic game. It’s been suggested that the drafting of the lawsuit is meant to buy time and to prepare for the inevitable pushback from the other side. This is about being able to adapt.