Arizona AG Mark Brnovich motion to file Amicus in Texas v Pennsylvania US Supreme Court Dec 9, “resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty”
“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems
” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official
“The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis
From the Arizona AG Mark Brnovich
Motion to file Amicus in
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
STATE OF WISCONSIN
“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); 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.”
Read more:
More here:
Citizen WElls 