PHOENIX – U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego and Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego can no longer keep their 2016 divorce documents secret, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled late Wednesday.

The court denied the former couple's request to delay Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper's order releasing most documents. Her lawyers wanted time to convince the judges that they should give them a chance to argue that Napper was wrong.

“The Court concludes that the Gallegos have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits,” Justice Clint Bolick wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court. “Nor have they demonstrated irreparable harm of any kind if the reprieve is not granted.” ''

Bolick said the two failed to present evidence that there were serious legal issues that needed to be addressed or that their difficulties in releasing the information would be far greater than the Washington Free Beacon's argument that withholding the information would harm the public interest. The online publication sued to have the records released.

It is unclear how quickly the documents will be published. Napper previously said he would order their release on Friday.

Ruben Gallego is the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate against Republican Kari Lake in the Nov. 5 election, and Kate Gallego is seeking another term as mayor. Early voting began last week.

Lawyers for the formerly married couple filed papers Tuesday asking the Arizona Supreme Court to intervene. They sought an immediate order delaying the release until they could argue why they believe much of the divorce file should be shielded from public view.

“The improper unsealing of any part of the underlying divorce record is irreparable and cannot be cured later if a decision is made in error,” their attorney Daniel Arellano wrote in the new pleadings on behalf of the two elected Democrats.

“This court or any other court cannot ring the proverbial bell once previously sealed information has been unsealed,” Arellano told the justices. “Even if this court overturned the high court’s decision, the Gallegos’ rights to retain portions of it would remain void.” “The sealed or redacted record would have been invalidated without a stay.”

“This court must issue a stay to allow the Gallegos an opportunity to seek review and to allow the court to consider the petition,” Arellano said. “Without a suspension, the damage will be immense and irreparable.”

Lawyers for The Beacon, a conservative website that often attacks Democrats, filed their response late Wednesday. The publication alleged that the Gallegos had failed to meet legal requirements to block publication of the divorce filing.

Regarding a possible delay, they wrote: “This process will mean that the media and voters will not know about these supposedly public records until all votes are cast. This damage to the media and voters is time-sensitive and irreparable and began a week ago. “With the start of early voting, the problem will get worse every day through November 5th.”

Ruben Gallego, already a member of Congress at the time, filed for divorce from Kate in 2016.

He admits that this happened when she was pregnant and about to give birth. He never specifically addressed all of the issues that led to the lawsuit, but wrote in his memoirs that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from Iraq, where he served as a Marine.

Although the Gallegos lived in Maricopa County, the divorce case was filed in Yavapai County. They convinced the judge at the time – not Napper – not only to seal the files, but also to keep the entire matter off the court docket.

The divorce became clear years later when Ruben Gallego married Sydney Barron.

Beacon's lawyers recently said the publication learned of these records and requested that they be unsealed.

Napper agreed to allow the former couple to keep some things secret, including information about their son and some financial details. But everything else should be made available to the public, he said, ruling that “the original order sealing the entire file was improper under court rules.”

Dissatisfied with the limited redactions Napper allowed, the Gallegos sought relief from the state Court of Appeals. But Appellate Judge Brian Furuya, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel last week, said Napper did not abuse his discretion in denying certain redactions they requested.

“The State of Arizona initially assumes that court records are available to the public,” Furuya wrote. “The burden is on the party denying a motion to unseal to demonstrate why the records should not be unsealed.”

In this case, the appeals judge wrote, that meant the two would have to demonstrate “continuing or new compelling circumstances prohibiting access to court documents or parts thereof.”

“You cannot cope with this burden,” Furuya wrote.

Arellano told the justices this week that “serious questions” need to be answered about what a judge needs to find out before unsealing a file.

“The Gallegos have asserted forcefully that their overriding concern for privacy and security does not disappear simply because of their work as elected officials,” Arellano wrote. He said the two had presented “completely unrefuted … evidence demonstrating ongoing threats against elected officials and their minor child.”

Arellano said it was not about shielding either pair's official activities from the public, saying those records were “completely unrelated to their official duties.” The son “is not a public servant and has strong privacy and security interests of his own,” he noted.

“Sensitive details about the lives of the Gallegos and their minor child must be made public if Free Beacon succeeds,” Arellano said.

“Contrary to the Free Beacon's previous assertions, its interest, let alone a constitutional one, will not be compromised by proceeding with caution and suspending the high court's order while litigation continues,” he said. “They are still free to criticize that.” Gallegos as much as they like, and the Gallegos should not be denied a stay simply because the Free Beacon would prefer to release the details of the recordings before the upcoming general election .”

Lawyers for the Beacon have indicated in previous legal filings that it would be acceptable to keep some small parts of the file secret. But they said what the Gallegos asked Napper to keep secret went too far.

“Without even having access to what was redacted, Free Beacon was able to see that the proposed redactions resulted in a file that looked like a secret Central Intelligence Agency file, with pages and pages of black ink intended to ensure that no one knew anything about it.” “continues,” they wrote.