The final two SCOTUS decisions, due in approximately 20 minutes, will be HUGE for elections and election law. I was going to write an explainer of what's at stake, but @rickhasen already wrote a tremendous one.
I worked on the case now known as Brnovich v. DNC while I was at the Arizona Attorney General's Office. I was on the trial team (we won); then on the appellate team, where we initially won two times before the full 9th Circuit, "sitting en banc," reversed.
I also helped win an emergency stay at the Supreme Court during an earlier portion of this case (it's been going since 2016).
However, I took no part in the briefing or arguments currently being considered by the Supreme Court, as I had left the the Arizona Attorney General's Office to join @marcoattorney by the time this matter worked its way back to SCOTUS.
@marcoattorney My former colleagues at @arizonaago and @GeneralBrnovich did a very good job briefing and arguing this matter. I expect the SCOTUS to uphold Arizona's laws at issue.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I predicted, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona's requirement that, for counties that use a "precinct based" model for voting, voters must cast their ballots in their correct precinct to be counted. It also upheld Arizona's ban on ballot collection/harvesting. #BrnovichvDNC
The second sentence of the opinion: "Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote."
In #BrnovichvDNC, the SCOTUS notes that in Arizona, "no special excuse is needed" to vote early during the 27-day early voting period. That's part of what "generally makes it easy to vote in Arizona." (Some states require a "reason" to vote early, and/or have shorter periods).