Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law Litigation

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

Print Page

(page last updated July 3, 2008 at 9:20 AM)

Case Information

Current Court: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS and 3:06-cv-1575-PHX-ROS)
All Courts: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS and 3:06-cv-1575-PHX-ROS); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case 06-16702, 06-16706); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 06A375, 06A379; 06-532, 06-533)
Topic(s): Voter ID
State: Arizona
Date Filed: May 9, 2006

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

Status: The parties in two of the related district court cases (06-1362 and 06-1575) have rearched an agreement and have stipulated to the dismissal of the cases. The remaining case (06-1268) is currently scheduled for trial on July 1.

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

District Court Documents