Two top Arizona officials—the secretary of state and the attorney general, both with Big Law counsel at their sides—are facing off against each other in a voting rights case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arizona's Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, hired a Jenner & Block team to oppose a petition brought by Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich. The attorney general, meanwhile, is working with lawyers from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Hobbs reached out to Jenner & Block for the representation, said Jessica Ring Amunson, chair of the firm's election law and redistricting practice. The firm is advocating pro bono for Hobbs, according to a contract The National Law Journal reviewed. "We care a lot about these issues, and we were happy to help," Amunson, counsel of record for Hobbs, said.

Jessica Ring Amunson of Jenner & Block 

Clashes between officials in states where power is divided spill over to courts occasionally, pitting one agency head against another. At the federal level, the U.S. Justice Department at times will take positions against agency heads, who either will not sign the government's brief or otherwise assert their disagreement in a separate brief.

In North Carolina, former state Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat and now the state's governor, refused to defend then-Governor Pat McCrory when he was sued after signing a law that struck down LGBT protections. The attorney general and secretary of state were recently on opposite sides of a suit challenging a ballot-signature requirement. "It's difficult to gather signatures during a pandemic," Amunson said.

Brnovich, the Arizona attorney general since 2015, is challenging a ruling by the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Arizona state solicitor general, Oramel Skimmer, is counsel of record for the state. The attorney general's office is being assisted by former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell of Wilson Sonsini. McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School, wasn't immediately reached for comment.

The appellate court, in a divided decision, ruled that two Arizona state voting requirements violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. The state rules in question are a policy that does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter's designated precinct, and a "ballot-collection law" that allows only certain people to handle another person's completed early ballot.

One section of the federal voting rights law—Section 2(a)—prohibits states from adopting voting qualifications, standards, or practices that "result" in "denial or abridgement" of the right to vote "on account of race or color." The Democratic National Committee and others challenged the two state voting requirements, and the Ninth Circuit ruled in their favor. Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Bruce Spiva are counsel to the DNC.

A second petition challenging the Ninth Circuit decision was filed by Jones Day partner Michael Carvin on behalf of the Arizona Republican Party. Snell & Wilmer attorneys were also on the petition. In that case, Amunson represents the Arizona secretary of state.

Briefs opposing the two petitions are to be filed by July 1. The justices are expected to take their first look at the election dispute at their Sept. 29 conference.