Filed Date: May 9, 2006
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 9, 2006, a group of Latino voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the state of Arizona. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, MALDEF, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the ACLU Voting Rights Project, brought suit under the Voting Rights Act, the NVRA, the Civil Rights Act of 1957/1960, 42 U.S. §1983, and state law and asked for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that they were denied the right to vote by Arizona's Proposition 200 after they did not provide adequate documentary proof that they were U.S. citizens.
Plaintiffs' argument mainly focused on their claim that the NVRA preempted Proposition 200 because, under the NVRA, individuals need not present proof of citizenship at the time they register to vote using the federal form. On June 19, 2006, the District Court (Judge Roslyn Silver) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that it was unlikely that the plaintiffs would win on the merits (435 F.Supp.2d 997).
On August 2, 2006, Judge Silver granted a motion to consolidate the case with the case of Navajo Nation v. Brewer (3:06-cv-01575) (2006 WL 2246365). Navajo Nation dealt with similar issues, with the plaintiffs being Native Americans who were similarly denied the right to vote under Proposition 200. Earlier, on June 6, 2006, the case Inter Tribal Council of Arizona v. Brewer (3:06-cv-01362) had also been consolidated with this case.
On September 11, 2006, Judge Silver again denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by each of the three sets of plaintiffs (2006 WL 3627297). This time, the plaintiffs attempted to argue that the additional material required by Proposition 200 amounted to a poll tax and violated Equal Protection. Judge Silver was unmoved by this argument as well. This decisions was upheld by the Ninth Circuit (485 F.3d 1041).
After the 2006 election, the case moved beyond the preliminary injunction phase. Judge Silver granted summary judgment on behalf of the defendants, but that grant was overturned by the Ninth Circuit. Although the Ninth Circuit upheld that the law did not constitute a poll tax and did not violate the Voting Rights Act, it did hold that Congress' authority under the NVRA did supersede Arizona's authority under Proposition 200 and the plaintiffs should be successful in their challenge to the law (624 F.3d 1162). Therefore, Arizona's requirement that prospective voters show additional identification could not stand.
A request to rehear the case en banc was granted (649 F.3d 953), but the rehearing en banc produced the same holdings (677 F.3d 383). The Supreme Court granted certiorari (368 U.S. 962).
On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the Motor Voter Act preempted Arizona's identification requirements (570 U.S. 1). The Court upheld earlier decisions that the "Time, Place and Manner" clause of the Constitution also applied to registration for Congressional elections.
On July 22, 2013, the district court ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed final judgment. A month later, the parties indicated they were not able to come to an agreement. The court issued its final judgment on Sept. 11, 2013, declaring that Arizona had to accept and use the federal form, and that Arizona could not require applicants using the federal form to provide information beyond what the form required. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from implementing the law in question with respect to individuals applying to register to vote in elections for federal office using the federal form. The defendants were ordered to make the federal form "available through all reasonable channels."
The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,940,000 in attorney's fees.
The court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the injunction. As of May 2020, there were no new entries on the docket.
Summary Authors
Jonathan Forman (6/17/2013)
Virginia Weeks (3/11/2018)
Claire Shimberg (5/7/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4650349/parties/gonzalez-v-state-of-arizona/
Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)
Abbott, Greg (Texas)
Adegibile, Debo P. (New York)
Angle, Kenneth Andrew (Arizona)
Arnold, Michael (New York)
Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)
Blustein, Benjamin Jay (District of Columbia)
Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)
Egleson, Christopher M. (District of Columbia)
Espiritu, Nicholas David (California)
Ferguson-Bohnee, Patricia (Arizona)
Greenbaum, Jon M. (District of Columbia)
Hartman-Tellez, Karen J. (Arizona)
Kengle, Robert A. (District of Columbia)
Kohrman, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)
Millett, Patricia A. (District of Columbia)
Mincberg, Elliot M. (District of Columbia)
Ortega, Daniel R. Jr. (Arizona)
Posner, Mark A. (District of Columbia)
Ramos, Javier Garcia (Arizona)
Realmuto, Trina (District of Columbia)
Sandstrom, Karl J (District of Columbia)
Saxena, Monica Rakesh (District of Columbia)
Small, Michael C. (District of Columbia)
Van Der Hout, Marc (California)
Bailey, Barbara Anne (Arizona)
Baker, M. Miller (District of Columbia)
Brennan, Carrie Jane (Arizona)
Carlyon, Bradley William (Arizona)
Collins, Thomas Matthew (Arizona)
Kline, David J. (District of Columbia)
Martoncik, Kathleen Erin (Arizona)
Moore, Jason Stanley (Arizona)
Parra, Luis Fernando (Arizona)
Pratt, Sherease Rosalyn (District of Columbia)
Silverman, Peter Alex (Arizona)
Stevens, Elizabeth Jones (District of Columbia)
Angle, Kenneth Andrew (Arizona)
Bornstein, Lisa M. (District of Columbia)
Brasher, Andrew Lynn (Alabama)
Civin, Joshua I. (District of Columbia)
de Leeuw, Michael Birney (New York)
Fanarof, Justine K. (New York)
Haygood, Ryan Paul (New Jersey)
Henderson, Wade (District of Columbia)
McCarthy, Michael William (Arizona)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4650349/gonzalez-v-state-of-arizona/
Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 6:26 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Arizona
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 9, 2006
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Five Latinos denied the right to vote by Arizona's Proposition 200 after they did not provide adequate documentary proof that they were U.S. citizens, as well as five Latino advocacy groups. In consolidated cases, the Hopi Tribe, on behalf of tribe members denied the right to vote for the same reason, and the Navajo Nation, on behalf of tribe members denied the right to vote for the same reason.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights Act of 1957/1960, 52 U.S.C. § 10101 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1971)
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $1,940,000
Order Duration: 2012 - None
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Voting: