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

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...