OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Share

Last Updated: May 21, 2012 at 4:15 PM

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

Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments

Owen Wolfe

A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.

This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.

more commentary...

In the News

Steven M. Davidoff

New Share Class Gives Google Founders Tighter Control

Professor Steven Davidoff, writing as the Deal Professor for The New York Times DealBook, wrote a column about Google's new share class. The tech company created a nonvoting share class in order to give its founders tighter control of the company. They did this, they said, in order to "focus on the long term."

Davidoff said this could create a pattern: "In the meantime, one thing is certain. The clear trend in technology companies is to deny shareholders this choice and a real vote. In other words, expect more Google followers."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Niehaus and Blessing File Notice of Dismissal in Ohio Supreme Court

In accordance with Judge Marbley's order issued orally late yesterday in the NEOCH v. Husted case, Ohio legislators Thomas Niehaus and Louis Blessing have filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of their mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...