When the trial wrapped on March 29 in Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the deadline for filing final argument briefs was set for close of business today (April 8).
Of course, therefore, I was excited when the day came that we would get to see what would be in those final arguments. Alas, today it is not to be.
Last Friday, counsel for both sides stipulated (agreed) to a request for a two-day extension of the deadline. One might be tempted to infer that since the stipulation was written and submitted to the court under the heading of plaintiffs' counsel (Cantelme & Brown, along with Michael Liburdi for Snell & Wilmer), that those attorneys may have been desperate and having trouble cobbling together a coherent final argument. If that is the case, counsel for the AIRC was gracious in agreeing to the stipulation.
There is, however, no tangible evidence (that I am aware of) to support such an inference, leaving it only as idle speculation (on my part).
So, I will revisit the issue of what will be in the final argument briefs on Wednesday.