Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 700 views

    TX V Pa Motion For Leave Final - Azag

    Uploaded by

    paul weich
    The State of Arizona filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The brief would argue that election integrity is paramount and that Arizona vigorously defends election laws. It would also argue that if the Court accepts jurisdiction, it should act quickly to resolve the challenge and provide certainty to the nation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TX V Pa Motion For Leave Final - Azag

    Uploaded by

    paul weich
    700 views4 pages
    The State of Arizona filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The brief would argue that election integrity is paramount and that Arizona vigorously defends election laws. It would also argue that if the Court accepts jurisdiction, it should act quickly to resolve the challenge and provide certainty to the nation.

    Original Description:

    12/9/20

    Original Title

    20201209171850333_tx v Pa Motion for Leave Final - Azag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The State of Arizona filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The brief would argue that election integrity is paramount and that Arizona vigorously defends election laws. It would also argue that if the Court accepts jurisdiction, it should act quickly to resolve the challenge and provide certainty to the nation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    700 views4 pages

    TX V Pa Motion For Leave Final - Azag

    Uploaded by

    paul weich
    The State of Arizona filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The brief would argue that election integrity is paramount and that Arizona vigorously defends election laws. It would also argue that if the Court accepts jurisdiction, it should act quickly to resolve the challenge and provide certainty to the nation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    No.

    22O155

    In the Supreme Court of the United States


    STATE OF TEXAS,

    Plaintiff,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND
    STATE OF WISCONSIN,

    Defendants.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE


    AN AMICUS BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND MARK
    BRNOVICH, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL

    M ARK B RNOVICH
    Attorney General
    BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III
    Solicitor General
    Counsel of Record
    O FFICE OF THE A RIZONA
    A TTORNEY G ENERAL
    2005 N. Central Ave.
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 542-5025
    beau.roysden@azag.gov

    Counsel for the State of Arizona and Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

    The State of Arizona and Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General

    (collectively, the “State of Arizona”) respectfully move for leave to file a brief as

    amici curiae respecting the motions for leave to file a bill of complaint and for a

    preliminary injunction in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 37.2(a). If granted leave, the

    State of Arizona’s brief will make two primary points.1

    The State of Arizona will first argue that election integrity is of paramount

    importance. “Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution

    to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently

    cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974). Given this

    paramount importance, the State of Arizona, through its Attorney General,

    vigilantly fights to ensure election integrity, including for the 2020 election. The

    Attorney General participated in eight different suits to defend from attack Arizona

    election laws that were enacted by its Legislature. Indeed, in just a few months, the

    State of Arizona and its Attorney General will appear before this Court in the

    critical case of Brnovich et al. v. Democratic National Committee et al., No. 19-1257,

    and urge the Court to adopt a construction of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that

    not only follows the text of that statute but also recognizes that to ensure “fair and

    honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial

    regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (emphasis added);

    1Arizona has been named in another original action pending in this Court, which is
    captioned Donofrio v. Pennsylvania et al. That original action names many of the
    same States as this case. Given that pending case, the State of Arizona’s brief
    would be limited to the points discussed below.
    1
    see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932) (“[E]xperience shows” those

    “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure[s]” but also “safeguards”

    for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.”).

    The State will also argue that if this Court exercises jurisdiction over Texas’s

    complaint, it is equally important that the Court act quickly to give the Nation

    certainty. As a preliminary matter, it is the State of Arizona’s consistent position

    that this Court’s jurisdiction over actions between states is exclusive and non-

    discretionary. See Arizona v. California, 140 S. Ct. 684, 684-85 (2020) (Thomas, J.,

    dissenting). The State recognizes, however, that the Court’s current jurisprudence

    is that its jurisdiction over such matters is discretionary. If the Court either

    revisits its prior holdings or exercises discretion to accept jurisdiction here, then it

    is critical the Court resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty.

    CONCLUSION

    The State respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file an amicus

    brief respecting Texas’s motions.

    2
    December 9, 2020 Respectfully submitted.

    /s/ Brunn W. Roysden III .


    Mark Brnovich
    Attorney General
    Brunn W. Roysden III
    Solicitor General
    Counsel of Record
    O FFICE OF THE A RIZONA
    A TTORNEY G ENERAL
    2005 N. Central Ave.
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 542-5025
    beau.roysden@azag.gov

    Counsel for the State of Arizona and


    Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney
    General

    You might also like