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

Daniel P. Tokaji

What's the Matter with Kobach?

Daniel P. Tokaji

By "Kobach," I mean the Kobach v. EAC case in which the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument Monday – rather than its lead plaintiff, Kansas’ controversial Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who argued the position of his state and the State of Arizona. This post discusses what’s at issue in the case, where the district court went wrong, and what the Tenth Circuit should do.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in NC Case

U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied the motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs in a case challenging a new North Carolina voting law as violating the Voting Rights Act and the federal Constitution. Judge Schroeder also denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case is North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.

more info & analysis...