Arizona AG Brnovich SCOTUS case importance in oral hearing today Tue March 2, 2021, Ga folded to Abrams DNC demands and AZ fighting to maintain election laws

Arizona AG Brnovich SCOTUS case importance in oral hearing today Tue March 2, 2021, Ga folded to Abrams DNC demands and AZ fighting to maintain election laws

“The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis

“[email protected] 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

Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al., Petitioners
v.
Democratic National Committee, et al.

This should be an open and closed case.

The procedures being questioned follow those of most states.

By the Constitution, the states have control over election procedures.

High powered law firms in conjunction with leftist activists such as Stacey Abrams, across the country, attacked many states’ election procedures.

In Georgia they folded and employed procedures that were contrary to state laws, thus invalidating election results.

Arizona’s honest Attorney General Mark Brnovich did not.

Hence today’s hearing.

From the Brnovich Amicus Brief in Texas v PA GA MI WI, Dec 9, 2020.

“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.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163258/20201209171850333_TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf

From the Brnovich Amicus Brief in the AZ Senate Maricopa County case Dec 30, 2020.

“The Arizona Legislature has broad authority to investigate the County’s
administration of the 2020 general election to determine whether Arizona law regarding election administration should remain the same or be changed. In resolving this matter, the Court should (1) recognize the Arizona Legislature’s broad authority to issue legislative subpoenas, (2) exercise deferential review of the subpoenas at issue, (3) hold that the presiding officer of either house or the chairman of any committee have the authority to issue subpoenas reviewing the County’s administration of elections, and (4) reject any effort by the County to interpose separation of powers concerns.”

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Maricopa%20County%20v%20Fann_%20AGO%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

From the Brnovich Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

“QUESTIONS PRESENTED
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?”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1257/142431/20200427105601341_Brnovich%20Petition.pdf

Why did the Supreme Court take this case?

It goes to the core of the constitution and states rights to administer elections.

Secondly, AG Brnovich is on defense, not offense.

Corrupt Trump and supporters hater SOS Katie Hobbs elbow bumps Gov Ducey after prematurely certifying the AZ election results while the election hearing was being held.

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

https://mewe.com/i/citizenwells

https://gab.com/citizenwells

https://rumble.com/user/CitizenWells

https://parler.com/profile/Citizenwells/posts