Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
December 2, 2020: Bowyer v. Ducey: Arizona United States District Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2:20-cv-02321 Dismissed Lawsuit seeking de-certification of Arizona results, litigated by Sidney Powell. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and ...
These remaining two lawsuits were dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021. [103] On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020, election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment. [104]
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. 647 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and specifically the applicability of Section 2's general provision barring discrimination against minorities in state and local election laws in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v.
The Republican National Committee wants the Supreme Court to block up to 40,000 of the Arizona's registered voters from casting ballots in the presidential election. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican push that could have blocked more than 41,000 Arizona voters from casting ballots for president in the closely contested swing state, but ...
Arizona enacted a law in 2005 requiring new voters to provide proof of citizenship, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not impose that requirement on those who used a ...
The Arizona Supreme Court is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Arizona. Sitting in the Supreme Court building in downtown Phoenix, the court consists of a chief justice, a vice chief justice, and five associate justices. Each justice is appointed by the governor of Arizona from a list recommended by a bipartisan commission.
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town's motion for summary judgment. [30] The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding the town's ordinance was content neutral. [30] Citing Hill v.