OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Share

Last Updated: February 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Gonzalez v. Arizona; Navajo Nation v. Brewer; Purcell v. Gonzalez

Case Information

Date Filed: May 9, 2006
State: Arizona
Issue: Voter ID
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Case 06-16702, 06-16706, 08-17094)

Issue:

Whether Arizona's voter identification requirements disparately impact minorities in the state and, as such, are unconstitutional.

Status:

Order Granting Rehearing En Banc entered 4/27/11.  Order of Preliminary Information Regarding Rehearing En Banc entered 4/28/11. En banc oral argument scheduled for 6/21/2011.

Case Summary

In this case Plaintiffs, registered voters in Arizona and voters' rights groups, challenged Proposition 200, a law that imposed new restrictions on voter registration and voting. Among these restrictions was the requirement that registrants provide proof of citizenship; the six forms of identification valid to prove citizenship are: (1) a state issued driver's license; (2) a U.S. birth certificate; (3) a U.S. passport; (4) a U.S. naturalization document; (5) another immigration document that proves citizenship; or, (6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number. When voting at the polls, voters must provide identification with their name, address and photograph, or two forms of identification with their name and address. Voter mail registration applications, prescribed by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, are no longer provided.

Plaintiffs claimed that the State of Arizona did not obtain preclearance to stop using the prescribed voter mail registration applications. Plaintiffs also alleged that the voter identification requirements disparately impact Latinos as Latinos are less likely to possess the forms of identification required to register to vote and cast a ballot. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that the enforcement of these new voter identification requirements diverts funds from programs that would encourage voter turnout. Accordingly, Plaintiffs sought a Preliminary Injunction preventing the enforcement of these voter identification requirements.

The district court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 11, 2006.

Case Analysis and Commentary from Election Law @ Moritz

Court of Appeals Documents (Second Appeal)

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (First Appeal)

United States Supreme Court Documents

Related Links

Top 10 Election Issues

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

 

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Edward B. Foley

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error. 

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...