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

Flagging Online Falsehoods

Edward B. Foley

A remedy for foreign disinformation attacks

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

How states can fix the Electoral College and prevent future Trumps

An op-ed written by Professor Edward Foley about repairing the Electoral College was published in USA Today.

“The imperative is to prevent another president who wins the White House without really winning the support of the electorates in the states that determine the outcome,” Foley writes. “The Founding Fathers would see that as a subversion of the Electoral College system. So should we.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Ohio ADA Case Alleging Discrimination Against Blind Voters

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court dismissing a lawsuit alleging that Ohio\'s absentee voter system discriminates against blind voters. According to the panel, the district court accepted Ohio Secretary of State John Husted\'s \"fundamental alteration\" defense without any evidentiary support. The case, Hindel v. Husted, was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

more info & analysis...