OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Case Information

Date Filed: May 9, 2006
State: Arizona
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: 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 9th Circuit (Case 06-16702, 06-16706, 08-17094); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 12-71)

Issue:

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

Current Issue: Whether, under the Elections Clause of the Consitution, the Circuit Court properly applied a heightened preemption test in this case, allowing the NVRA to preempt Arizona's law.

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. Court of Appeals Opinion filed 4/19/12. Temporary U.S. Supreme Court stay 6/14/12. U.S Supreme Court Stay Vacated 6/28/12. Petition for certiorari filed 7/16/12. Petition for certiorari granted 10/15/12. State Petitioners' Brief filed 12/7/12. Oral argument held 3/18/13. Opinion issued 6/17/13. Final Judgment (District Court) filed 9/11/13.

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

United States Supreme Court Documents (Second Appeal)

Court of Appeals Documents (Second Appeal)

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents (First Appeal)

United States Supreme Court Documents (First appeal)

Related Links

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Accuracy About Voting—Needed on Both Sides of Debate

Edward B. Foley

The Golden Rule fully applies: speak truthfully about voting as you would have others also speak truthfully about voting.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump video outlines first 100 day plans

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted on Fox28 about Donald Trump’s latest video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office.

"Take immigration for example, one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign, not just building the wall, but reversing some of President Obama's actions on immigration, in particular the protection of the immigrant children," Tokaji said. "There will be a big backlash from the growing Latino population if he acts too aggressively on that, something that could hurt the Republican Party for decades."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

In Michigan Recount, Conflicting Rulings from Sixth Circuit and Michigan Court of Appeals

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Michigan Court of Appeals issued differing opinions regarding whether the Jill Stein-initiated recount should proceed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court\'s order requiring the recount to commence, while the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of State Canvassers should not have granted Stein\'s recount petition as a matter of state law. Another hearing is scheduled in federal court today. The cases are Stein v. Thomas (federal court) and Schuette v. Board of State Canvassers (state court).

more info & analysis...