Wyoming AG’s bombshell disclosure in Gray case merits more court action

Wyoming Attorney General Keith Kautz made an astonishing state Supreme Court filing last week that raised a big red flag about conflict of interest. 

Kautz is the state’s chief attorney and, therefore, represents Secretary of State Chuck Gray. So then why did Kautz think it was a good idea to personally appoint two “special prosecutors” to evaluate whether Gray — his own client — should be charged with a crime? 

The only way for Kautz to guarantee an impartial determination would have been to ask a judge to select the attorneys, but he didn’t. Par for the course in a controversy that began last August, when Gray, the state’s chief elections officer, admittedly handed over confidential Wyoming voter data to the U.S. Department of Justice. Gray said he went to the attorney general to seek advice about how to handle the federal request.

Gray was the first official in 16 states to comply with the DOJ’s request. To date, eight federal courts have found the requests unlawful.

Before we get into the details of the Wyoming case, it’s important to remember that every bit of illogical political spin Kautz and Gray have used to claim that justice has been served occurred in the wake of an April 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump that aimed to illegally overhaul and take control of major parts of the nation’s election system.

Last October, a federal court permanently blocked Trump’s executive order. But his administration has doubled down on other threats to the security of this year’s midterm elections, serving as the backdrop that makes many Wyoming voters and officials fear that Gray’s potentially illegal release of voter data — and Kautz’s legal advice to provide it — must continue to be fought in the courts.

Under Wyoming law, it’s a misdemeanor to release confidential voter information. For an election official, it rises to a felony for violating the state’s election code.

In January, the Wyoming League of Women Voters sounded the alarm over Gray, a staunch Trump ally, turning over sensitive voter information to the federal government, including birth dates, addresses, drivers’ license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. That data belongs to the state.

The group asked Gov. Mark Gordon to order Kautz to examine the secretary of state’s authority, by statute, rule and regulation, and issue an opinion on Gray’s actions.

That’s when Gray first said Wyoming’s AG approved his data release after collaborating on a “routine voter list maintenance effort.” Kautz cited their attorney-client privilege and did not disclose their discussions.

Meanwhile, Fremont County Clerk Julie Freese publicly said she was “perturbed” at Gray for releasing the information.

“I think the problem was [Gray] never even told the clerks, and they are very, very angry in our state,” Freese told a meeting of the U.S. Election Commission in Chicago in April. “And I don’t blame them.”

The same month, George Powers, a retired Cheyenne attorney, filed an official complaint with the AG’s Office alleging that Gray had violated state elections laws. Since Kautz had reportedly counseled the secretary of state, Powers suggested that he have a judge appoint an independent prosecutor.

Kautz replied on March 4 that Powers’ complaint would be handled in accordance with the AG office’s policies, the law and state professional conduct rules for attorneys.

The record indicates Powers wrote back several hours later, thanking Kautz for acknowledging the complaint and asking him what the office’s policies are and where he could find them.

This is where things get undeniably weird.

Kautz wrote back a half-hour later to tell Powers “there are no written policies” and “no response will be forthcoming.” To Powers’ next attempts to get answers to his questions, the AG said investigations and charging decisions are “not conducted in the public square.”

Thus began the attorney general’s effort to stonewall, which continues to this day. Kautz argued Powers wasn’t injured by Gray’s actions, so his complaint has no standing, even though he’s a voter, and like all voters in the state, his personal information was given to the DOJ despite specific state statutes prohibiting such releases.

At this point, Kautz called the case “moot.” It is decidedly not, because of what then transpired.

Four weeks passed with no apparent action by the AG. On June 2, Powers filed a petition with the Wyoming Supreme Court — where Kautz once served as a justice — to appoint a special prosecutor because the attorney general had neglected his clear duty to do so.

Last Tuesday, Kautz made the surprise announcement: he did appoint two independent prosecutors to decide if Gray should be charged with a crime before Powers asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Lo and behold, neither one did!

Kautz refused to name the prosecutors who declined to file charges against Gray, because he claimed he didn’t have to. He said there was an investigation conducted by his own office, protected by a so-called “Chinese wall,” an internal information barrier.

The second investigation was turned over to a private Wyoming law firm, in conjunction with a Wyoming county prosecutor. Kautz has not disclosed the names of any parties that conducted the probe, but the public has the right to know.

Kautz said Powers had no reason to think he was doing nothing about the request for a special prosecutor, because he had no obligation to disclose how he was addressing the complaint. Kautz asserted he was following the DOJ’s guidelines to keep an ongoing investigation quiet to avoid infringing on the rights of the accused. The accused, of course, is Kautz’s client.

Essentially, Kautz said he did everything he had to under the law to answer the complaint — he just didn’t reveal his special prosecutors’ findings before Powers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to recuse the AG from the case.

Anyone who has seen Gray respond to all criticism during his days as an elected official can easily guess how he handled this controversy from the beginning.

Gray blasted Powers’ complaints as “nothing more than lawfare and weaponization of the legal system by leftists and the insider media.” It’s the only gambit Gray knows, and it’s way past stale.

In an email to Cowboy State Daily, Gray wrote, “I have and will continue to stand for the truth, and I will continue to comply with the law and advance election integrity and voter list maintenance.”

Fortunately, Powers isn’t backing down. The public should join him in demanding to see the names of the private lawyers and prosecutors Kautz appointed, and the full results of both investigations.

Powers’ attorneys — Ryan Semerad and Rob Shively — explained in a statement why it is essential to hold Gray accountable for his actions.

“Justice requires a truly independent review — by someone the attorney general did not choose,” the lawyers wrote. “Elected officials are not above the law, and they deserve no special treatment when they are accused of misusing the power the people gave them.”  

Semerad and Shively noted that by Kautz’s own admission, he had a decision not to charge Gray in hand before their client filed a petition with the Supreme Court, “and said nothing.”

They rightfully contend that the attorney general cannot keep a citizen in the dark, force him to sue, and then call the lawsuit unnecessary.

And the investigations conducted by Kautz’s own office, and the private lawyers he selected and deputized, are not proof of justice served, but a demonstration of why our government must have checks and balances. 

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “No one can be permitted to judge his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his own judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”