A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had said it was proper for the committee to issue a subpoena seeking information about calls placed from Ward’s cellphone between November 2020 and January 2021. The information would not include the content or location of the calls.
Ward argued that would violate her First Amendment right to freedom of association. “In a first-of-its-kind situation, a select committee of the United States Congress, dominated by one political party, has subpoenaed the personal telephone and text message records of a state chair of the rival political party,” Ward’s lawyers told the Supreme Court.
Ward speculated that investigators intended to call all those whose numbers showed up, adding “There can be no greater chill on public participation in partisan politics than a call, visit, or subpoena, from federal investigators.”
The committee replied that Ward “played a significant role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election,” and that she invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about her role when she appeared before the committee.
“Dr. Ward participated in several improper efforts to subvert the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box, culminating in a fake-elector scheme that was instrumental in leading to the January 6th attack,” says the committee’s filing at the Supreme Court. “At best, her arguments amount to a claim that she has an absolute right to attempt to overturn a presidential election, yet at the same time Congress cannot take reasonable investigative steps to learn more about that plan that had such disastrous consequences for our nation.”
On a 2 to 1 vote, the 9th Circuit panel rejected Ward’s arguments.
“Ward participated in a scheme to send spurious electoral votes to Congress, a scheme that the Committee describes as ‘a key part’ of the ‘effort to overturn the election’ that culminated on January 6,” wrote Judges Barry G. Silverman, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Eric D. Miller, nominated by President Donald Trump.
The judges said, “There is little to suggest that disclosing Ward’s phone records to the committee will affect protected associational activity” because the subpoena does not “target any organization or association.”
Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, nominated by President George W. Bush, disagreed. “The communications at issue here between members of a political party about an election implicate a core associational right protected by the First Amendment,” she wrote. She added that “because the committee does not provide any actual explanation for its inquiry other than its general investigative interests” Ward has at least raised “serious questions going to the merits” of her First Amendment claim.
The committee said in its filings that the records sought “do not provide a list of phone numbers of Arizona Republican Party members — but rather a list of people with whom Dr. Ward communicated.” It labeled “categorically false” Ward’s claim that the committee intended to call those who show up in her records.
Instead, the committee said it wants to compare the list to a “set of names and phone numbers of people who were involved in various aspects of the multi-pronged plot to overturn the 2020 election” that the committee has accumulated.
As the 2020 election unfolded in Maricopa County, home to a large number of…
Read More: Supreme Court acts on Ward’s request to shield records from Jan. 6 committee
