No.09Al133IN

THE

SUPREME

COURT

OF

THEUNITEDSTATESJOHN

MCCOMISH,NANCYMCLAIN,

and

TONYBOUIE,

Plaintiffs

-

 p

pe

llees

v.

KEN

BENNETT,

in

his

officialcapacity

as

Secretary

of

State

ofthe

State

ofArizona,

and

GARYSCARAMAZZO,ROYANN

J.

PARKER,

JEFFREY

L

FAIRMAN,LOUISHOFFMAN

and

LORIDANIELS,

in

their

officialcapacityasmembersof

the

ARIZONACLEANELECTIONSCOMMISSION,

Defendants-Appellants

and

CLEANELECTIONSINSTITUTE,INC.,

Defendant

Intervenor-Appellant

OnRenewedEmergencyApplicationtoVacateAppellate

Stay

Entered

by

theUnitedStates

CourtofAppealsfor

theNinth

Circuit

DEFENDANT INTERVENOR APPELLANT S

RESPONSE

TO

PLAINTIFFS

RENEWED

EMERGENCYAPPLICATIONTO

VACATE

APPELLATE

STAYAND

TO

STAY

MANDATE

BEFORETHE

HON.

JUSTICE

ANTHONY

M.

KENNEDY

BRADLEY

S

PHILLIPS*GRANT

 

DAVIS-DENNYELISABETH

J.

NEUBAUER

PUNEET

K

SANDHUMUNGER,TOLLES

 

OLSONLLP355

S

Grand

Ave.,Suite3500LosAngeles,

C

90071 213 683-9100;facsimile: 213 687-3702Brad.Phillips@mto.com

Counselfor

Defendant Intervenor

 Counsel

of

Record

 

MONICAYOUNmonica.youn@nyu.eduANGELAMIGALLYangela.migally@nyu.edu

THE

 RENN N

CENTER

FOR

JUSTICE

ATNYU

SCHOOL

OF

LAW161Avenueof

the

 mericas

NewYork,NY10013Telephone: 212 992-8158Facsimile: 212 995-4550TIMOTHYM.HOGANARIZONA

CENTER

FOR

LAW

IN

THE

PUBLIC

INTEREST

202E.McDowellRoad,

Suite

153Phoenix,

 

85004Telephone: 602 258-8850

 

T LEOFCONTENTS

 ge

CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT.ivINTRODUCTORYSTATEMENT1BACKGROUND3ARGUMENT9

 

TO

OBTAINTHERELIEFTHEYSEEK PLAINTIFFSMUSTSATISFY

THE

STRINGENTSTANDARDSBOTHFORSTAYINGTHEMANDATEUNDERTHEALLWRITSACTANDFORVACATEUROFANAPPELLATESTAY9II.THECOURTSHOULDDENYPLAINTIFFS APPLICATIONTOSTAY

THE

MANDATE10

A

Plaintiffs ApplicationFails

To

ComplyWith

Supreme

CourtRule2310

B

PlaintiffsHaveNotSatisfiedTheAllWritsAct

Standard

For

Staying

TheCourtOfAppeals

Mandate

10

 

PlaintiffsFail

To

Show

That

A

Stay

OfThe

Mandate

IsNecessary

Or

Appropriate

In

Aid

Of

ThisCourt sJurisdiction12

2

PlaintiffsHaveNotShown

That

The

MeritsOf

TheCaseAreIndisputablyClear

In

TheirFavor13III.THISCOURTSHOULDDENYPLAINTIFFS MOTIONTOVACATE

THE

APPELLATESTAYOFTHEDISTRICTCOURT S

INJUN TION

23

A

Defendants

Had

ALikelihood

Of

SuccessOnThe

Merits

24

B

TheBalanceOfThe

Hardships nd

ThePublic

Interest

TippedDecidedly

In

Favor

OfDefendants

25CONCLUSION28

1