Turning Point sues to keep fake elector’s emails out of public view

Tyler Bowyer once described himself as “the guy that basically runs everything” at the Arizona-based, national right-wing organization Turning Point USA. Now the group is trying to prevent a batch of his emails from falling into the hands of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who is prosecuting Bowyer and others for their role in trying to overturn Arizona’s 2020 presidential election.

Turning Point USA and its activist wing, Turning Point Action, filed a federal lawsuit against Mayes on Feb. 21 to squash a warrant for “all data” from four of Bowyer’s email accounts, all of which are hosted by Google. The warrant specifically demands emails, chat logs, geolocation data and Google Drive files from November 2020 through January 2021. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge signed off on the warrant on Nov. 6 of last year.

Phoenix New Times requested a comment from Turning Point’s lawyer, right-wing attorney Dennis Wilenchik, and also attempted to reach Bowyer at three of the email addresses listed in the warrant. (The fourth was redacted.) They have not responded. A spokesperson for Mayes’ office declined to comment on the lawsuit.

A grand jury indicted Bowyer and 10 other “fake electors” in April 2024. After Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 election, Bowyer and the others signed a document declaring themselves “the duly elected and qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America.” They now face a litany of charges, including six counts of forgery and one count each of conspiracy, fraudulent schemes and artifices, and fraudulent schemes and practices.

Turning Point’s lawsuit attempts to draw a distinction between Bowyer’s actions as a fake elector and his actions as the former chief operating officer at Turning Point USA and the current COO of Turning Point Action. The suit admits that Bowyer “served as one of the ‘Republican electors’” in 2020 but notes that “he did so in connection with his role with the Arizonan Republican Party.” By contrast, the suit says, “Turning Point is not alleged to have been — and was not — involved” in the fake electors plot.

The Washington Post reported that Turning Point Action “arranged for seven buses to take 350 activists from several states to D.C. for the Jan. 6, 2021, rally near the White House.” A spokesperson for Turning Point said the group’s Jan. 6 involvement was limited to Trump’s speech.

Fourth Amendment violation?

Allowing Mayes to rifle through three months' worth of Bowyer's data, the suit says, would violate his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The suit argues that the emails were used “to engage in confidential and privileged communications with Turning Point’s lawyers and communications with and about Turning Point’s donors (some of whom are not subject to public disclosure requirements).” Executing the warrant would also expose Turning Points financial information, operations and “social welfare advocacy and political strategy.”

Of course, determining whether Bowyer used his two Turning Point emails to discuss or plan the fake electors scheme is the purpose of the warrant. Though the lawsuit attempts to sidestep the merits of the fake electors case — “Turning Point recognizes that the justice of that indictment is the question for another day and another forum,” it reads — it also dismisses Mayes’ interest in Bowyer’s emails as politically driven.

“Mayes is an Arizona state public official and politician whose antipathy towards the actions of President Trump and his administration to return the country to fiscal responsibility and limited government is well-documented,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit cites a YouTube video related to Trump’s second term, though Trump was not indicted in the fake electors scheme. The warrant for Bowyer’s data was also granted months before Trump took office for his second term and before Mayes’ office filed a series of lawsuits against his administration.

Turning Point’s suit asks a federal judge to declare the warrant unlawful, in part because more than five days have passed since it was issued. (Though it’s not clear that the warrant hasn’t already been executed.) In lieu of that, the suit asks a judge to require both sides to establish a process for reviewing the files in question to determine probable cause and to weed out material protected by attorney-client privilege.