ONE MINI-SURPRISE: 2 Of AZ's U.S. Representatives and a Baker's Dozen AZ State Lawmakers Urging SCOTUS To Hear Texas' Trump Case; AZAG Brnovich Walks the Line

 Two of Arizona's four Republican Congressional Representatives signed onto a proposed amicus (i.e. "friend of the court") brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider Texas' unusual action to overturn the Presidential election. Somewhat surprisingly, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-CD4) was not among the 106 Trump loyalists; only Reps. Andy Biggs (R-CD5) and Debbie Lesko )R-CD8) took that step.

Separately, 13 Arizona state lawmakers signed onto a different proposed amicus brief, with colleagues from Idaho and Alaska. Many of them are the ones who participated in last week's information-gathering "hearing" at a Phoenix hotel with Rudy Giuliani. Filed by three Peoria attorneys who specialize in fighting the IRS in the name of "defending freedom", the brief argues that "an elite group of sitting Democrat officers" - figured out how to "illegally and unconstitutionally change the rules established by the Legislatures in the Defendant States." The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to bust the "oligarchy's" plot.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich walked a much more careful line in his filing. He does not actually state that he supports Texas' lawsuit, but just wants to weigh in on two subjects: the catch-all term of "election integrity" and the obligation of the Court to hear an action brought by one state against others.

The latter is an issue that the Attorney General's Office has butted heads with the Supreme Court just recently. Arizona unsuccessfully tried to convince the Justices to act as a trial court in a direct action against the State of California about state taxation issues. (Arizona also tried to bring a direct action against the Sackler family to keep them from hiding monies in the many actions against Purdue Pharma related to the opioid crisis.)

The Supreme Court's reluctance to take either of Arizona's actions is part of the reason many legal experts believe Texas' election action is unlikely to find favor at the Supreme Court.

Yesterday's Arizona request gently acknowledges this hurdle:

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. As a preliminary matter, it is the State of Arizona’s consistent position that this Court’s jurisdiction over actions between states is exclusive and nondiscretionary. See Arizona v. California, 140 S. Ct. 684, 684-85 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). The State recognizes, however, that the Court’s current jurisprudence is that its jurisdiction over such matters is discretionary. If the Court either revisits its prior holdings or exercises discretion to accept jurisdiction here, then it is critical the Court resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty. 

(Notably, Arizona did not submit a proposed amicus brief along with its request for permission to file it.)

20201209171850333_tx v Pa Motion for Leave Final - Azag by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcast.