Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The decision temporarily resolves a quandary that could have disenfranchised the group and swayed down-ballot ... The Arizona Supreme Court said Friday that nearly 100,000 voters stuck in limbo ...
The court has original jurisdiction in a few other circumstances, as outlined in the state constitution. The court meets in the Arizona Supreme Court Building at the capitol complex (at the southern end of Wesley Bolin Plaza). The Arizona Court of Appeals, subdivided into two divisions, is the intermediate court in the state.
The plaintiffs asked the Court to vacate the certification of Arizona's election results and issue an injunction to stop state election officials from certifying the election, so that the Arizona General Assembly can appoint electors. [22]
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that roughly 98,000 Arizonans whose voter registration status was in limbo will be able to participate in the full ballot in November. ... rules, leaving the ...
In April 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by state Republicans to end early voting, including mail-in balloting. More than 80% of Arizona voters use the early voting system that has existed for over 30 years. [114] Mail-in balloting has existed in Arizona for over a century. [115]
The fight to keep a proposed border initiative off Arizona’s Nov. 5 ballot is not over yet. Immigrant advocates kept the issue alive this week by filing notice to the state Supreme Court that ...
Arizona voters will get to decide in November whether to add the right to an abortion to the state constitution. The Arizona secretary of state's office said Monday that it had certified 577,971 signatures — far above the required number that the coalition supporting the ballot measure had to submit in order to put the question before voters.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (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.