Mark Brnovich AG of Arizona et al v DNC et al Oral arguments before SCOTUS March 2, 2021, ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting
“The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis
“.@realDonaldTrump has made it abundantly clear he’s more interested in pandering to his neo-nazi base than being @POTUS for all Americans.”…Katie Hobbs Arizona Secretary of State
“Ignoring evidence of election fraud because the election is already over is like ignoring a murder because the victim is already dead.”...Common sense
From Prescotte Enews March 1, 2021
“The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will review a case challenging Arizona’s election integrity laws concerning ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting.
In 2016, Arizona passed HB 2023 to restrict ballot harvesting in Arizona unless the person collecting the ballot is a family member, a person living in the same household, or a caregiver. Since the 1970s, Arizona has required people to vote at their specific precinct.
General Brnovich intervened on behalf of Arizona after the Secretary of State refused to defend the measures.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) is asking SCOTUS to bring clarity to these matters after a misguided ruling by the Ninth Circuit struck the measures down.”
Us Supreme Court
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021
CASES FOR ARGUMENT TODAY
Tuesday, March 2
BRNOVICH V. DNC
ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY
(Consolidated – 1 hr. for argument)
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al., Petitioners
Democratic National Committee, et al.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules
to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At
issue here are two such provisions: an “out-ofprecinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the
voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members,
caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and
about twenty States limit ballot collection.
After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A
Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed—against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous
dissents joined by four judges.
The questions presented are:
1. Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
2. Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?”