STATE OF WISCONSIN
(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
STATE OF WISCONSIN
(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