Case: Gonzalez v. State of Arizona

2:06-cv-01268 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: May 9, 2006

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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…

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 (133 S.Ct. 476).

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4650349/parties/gonzalez-v-state-of-arizona/


Judge(s)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Berzon [DUPLICATE], Marsha Siegel (California)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Ikuta, Sandra Segal (California)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Silver [Moore-Silver], Roslyn O. (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Berzon [DUPLICATE], Marsha Siegel (California)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Ikuta, Sandra Segal (California)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Silver [Moore-Silver], Roslyn O. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)

Becerra, Carlos (Texas)

Bernal, Diego Manuel (Texas)

Blustein, Benjamin Jay (District of Columbia)

Bobroff, Dana Lee (Arizona)

Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)

Bono, Marisa (Texas)

Bradley, Neil T. (Georgia)

Clani, Brenna L (Arizona)

Cohen, Marvin S. (Arizona)

Dworkin, Judith M. (Arizona)

Egleson, Christopher M. (District of Columbia)

Espiritu, Nicholas David (California)

Ferguson-Bohnee, Patricia (Arizona)

Greenbaum, Jon M. (District of Columbia)

Greene, Sara S (Arizona)

Hartman-Tellez, Karen J. (Arizona)

Hudson, Thomas Lee (Arizona)

Kengle, Robert A. (District of Columbia)

Kohrman, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)

LaMar, Steven A. (Arizona)

McDonald, Laughlin (Georgia)

Millett, Patricia A. (District of Columbia)

Mincberg, Elliot M. (District of Columbia)

Ortega, Daniel R. Jr. (Arizona)

Perales, Nina (Texas)

Perez, Marisol Linda (Texas)

Posner, Mark A. (District of Columbia)

Ramos, Javier Garcia (Arizona)

Realmuto, Trina (District of Columbia)

Rosenbaum, David B. (Arizona)

Sandstrom, Karl J (District of Columbia)

Saxena, Monica Rakesh (District of Columbia)

Small, Michael C. (District of Columbia)

Sparks, Joe P (Arizona)

Tolchin, Stacy (California)

Urias, David (New Mexico)

Van Der Hout, Marc (California)

Vera, Luis R. Jr. (Texas)

Werlin, Beth (District of Columbia)

Zamora, R. Erandi (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bailey, Barbara Anne (Arizona)

Baker, M. Miller (District of Columbia)

Bickett, Paula (Arizona)

Brennan, Carrie Jane (Arizona)

Carlyon, Bradley William (Arizona)

Cole, David Robert (Arizona)

Collins, Thomas Matthew (Arizona)

Connor, M Colleen (Arizona)

Forney, Michele L. (Arizona)

Iyer, Melissa G. (Arizona)

Kline, David J. (District of Columbia)

Martoncik, Kathleen Erin (Arizona)

Moore, Jason Stanley (Arizona)

O'Grady, Mary Ruth (Arizona)

Parra, Luis Fernando (Arizona)

Payette, Lance B. (Arizona)

Pratt, Sherease Rosalyn (District of Columbia)

Rapier, Derek D (Arizona)

Ring, William P (Arizona)

Roll, Chris Myrl (Arizona)

Silverman, Peter Alex (Arizona)

Skolnik, Bruce L. (Arizona)

Stevens, Elizabeth Jones (District of Columbia)

Weber, Nicole (Arizona)

West, Tony (District of Columbia)

Wilcox, Jean E (Arizona)

Wilenchik, Dennis Ira (Arizona)

Other Attorney(s)

Abbott, Greg (Texas)

Adegibile, Debo P. (New York)

Angle, Kenneth Andrew (Arizona)

Arnold, Michael (New York)

Boddie, Elise C. (New York)

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)

Freeman, Steven M. (New York)

Gotkin, Jerome (New York)

Haygood, Ryan Paul (New Jersey)

Henderson, Wade (District of Columbia)

Jones, Lauren A. (New York)

McCarthy, Michael William (Arizona)

Montgomery, Dan W (Arizona)

Neiman, John C. Jr. (Alabama)

Olens, Samuel (Georgia)

Pendley, William Perry (Colorado)

Pruitt, E. Scott (Oklahoma)

Ross, Deuel (New York)

Schmidt, Derek (Kansas)

Schuette, Bill (Michigan)

Spector, Joel M (Colorado)

Stoxen, Thomas M (Arizona)

Strange, Luther J (Alabama)

Wu, Victorien (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Horne, Thomas C. (Arizona)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Navajo Nation et al v. Brewer et al

Aug. 20, 2008 Docket

Docket

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al v. Jan Brewer, Sec. of State

Aug. 20, 2008 Docket

Docket [PACER]

March 31, 2014 Docket
1

Complaint

May 9, 2006 Complaint
1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC. V. BREWER

May 24, 2006 Complaint
68

Order and Opinion

435 F.Supp.2d 997, 2006 WL 1707956

June 19, 2006 Order/Opinion
142

Opinion and Order

2006 WL 2246365

Aug. 2, 2006 Order/Opinion

Order

2006 WL 3627297

Sept. 11, 2006 Order/Opinion

Order (Vacating and Remanding Court of Appeals Order)

Purcell v. Gonzalez

Supreme Court of the United States

549 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 5

Oct. 20, 2006 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez v. Arizona

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

485 F.3d 1041

April 20, 2007 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Gonzalez v. Arizona

Brennan Center for Justice

On November 29. 2006, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gonzalez v. Arizona challenging Proposition 200’s provisions that require applic… Nov. 29, 2006 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/gonzalez-v-arizona

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4650349/gonzalez-v-state-of-arizona/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 2:34 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Complaint

May 9, 2006 PACER
2

Notice (Other)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

May 9, 2006 PACER
3

Application

1 Text of Proposed Order for Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary R

View on PACER

May 9, 2006 PACER
4

Notice re Notice of Motion to Transfer and Consolidate by Steve M Gallardo, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, Hopi Tribe, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Network, People For the American Way Foundation (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Consolidate)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

May 30, 2006
5

Memorandum

1 Part 2 to Memorandum of Points & Authoritiez in Support of Plaintiffs Applicati

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A Part 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A - Part 2

View on PACER

4 Exhibit A - PART 3

View on PACER

5 Exhibit A - PART 4

View on PACER

6 Exhibit A - PART 5

View on PACER

7 Exhibit A - PART 6

View on PACER

8 Exhibit A - PART 7

View on PACER

9 Exhibit A - PART 8

View on PACER

10 Exhibit A - PART 9

View on PACER

11 Exhibit B

View on PACER

12 Exhibit C

View on PACER

May 9, 2006 PACER
6

Application

May 9, 2006 PACER
7

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

May 9, 2006 PACER
8

Notice (Other)

1 Exhibit A - Part 8-a

View on PACER

May 11, 2006 PACER
9

Summons Issued

May 11, 2006 PACER
10

Order Reassigning Case

May 11, 2006 PACER
16

Status Conference

May 12, 2006 PACER
11

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

May 15, 2006 PACER
12

Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

May 15, 2006 PACER
13

Motion for TRO

1 Affidavit Certification of Nina Perales in Support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Applic

View on PACER

2 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 16, 2006 PACER
26

Status Conference

May 17, 2006 PACER
14

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

May 18, 2006 PACER
15

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

May 18, 2006 PACER
17

Notice of Appearance

May 22, 2006 PACER
18

Notice of Appearance

May 22, 2006 PACER
19

Notice of Appearance

May 22, 2006 PACER
20

Motion to Consolidate Cases

May 24, 2006 PACER
21

Joinder

1 Exhibit Index, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit C - G

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit H-M

View on PACER

May 24, 2006 PACER
22

Notice of Appearance

May 24, 2006 PACER
23

Notice (Other)

May 24, 2006 PACER
24

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

May 25, 2006 PACER
25

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

May 25, 2006 PACER
27

Response in Opposition to Motion

1 Exhibit One

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Two

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Three, Pt. One

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Three, Pt. Two

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Three, Pt. Three

View on PACER

6 Exhibit Three, Pt. Four

View on PACER

7 Exhibit Three, Pt. Five

View on PACER

8 Exhibit Three, Pt. Six

View on PACER

9 Exhibit Three, Pt. Seven

View on PACER

10 Exhibit Three, Pt. Eight

View on PACER

11 Exhibit Three, Pt. Nine

View on PACER

12 Exhibit Three, Pt. Ten

View on PACER

13 Exhibit Three, Pt. Eleven

View on PACER

14 Exhibit Four

View on PACER

May 31, 2006 PACER
28

Order

June 1, 2006 PACER
29

Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint

June 1, 2006 PACER
30

Order

June 5, 2006 PACER
31

Reply to Response to Motion

June 5, 2006 PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

June 5, 2006 PACER
33

Consolidation Order - LEAD CASE ONLY!

June 6, 2006 PACER
34

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
35

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
36

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
37

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
38

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
39

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
40

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
41

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
42

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
43

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
44

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
45

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
46

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
47

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
48

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
49

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 7, 2006 PACER
50

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 7, 2006 PACER
51

Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 7, 2006 PACER
64

Status Conference

June 9, 2006 PACER
52

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 12, 2006 PACER
53

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 12, 2006 PACER
54

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 12, 2006 PACER
55

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 12, 2006 PACER
56

Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 13, 2006 PACER
57

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
58

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
59

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
60

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
61

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
62

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 13, 2006 PACER
63

Answer to Complaint

June 13, 2006 PACER
65

Notice of Appearance

June 16, 2006 PACER
66

Answer to Complaint

June 19, 2006 PACER
67

Answer to Complaint

June 19, 2006 PACER
68

ORDER denying 13 Motion for TRO; Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for 7/19/06 and 7/20/06 at 9:00am; pla's shall submit briefing on the preliminary injuction issues by 6/30/06; dft's shall file their response by 7/7/06 and pla's reply by 7/14/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/19/06. (SBU)

June 19, 2006 RECAP
69

Answer to Complaint

June 19, 2006 PACER
70

Transcript Request

June 20, 2006 PACER
72

Motion to Intervene

June 20, 2006 PACER
79

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 20, 2006 PACER
73

Memorandum

June 20, 2006 PACER
74

Corporate Disclosure Statement

June 20, 2006 PACER
75

Answer to Complaint

June 20, 2006 PACER
76

Answer to Complaint

June 20, 2006 PACER
77

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 20, 2006 PACER
71

Transcript Request

June 21, 2006 PACER
78

Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 23, 2006 PACER
80

Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 23, 2006 PACER
81

ORDER pending before the Court is a 72 MOTION to Intervene by Yes on Proposition 200. If either plas or dfts wish to respond to this motion, the response is due 7/28/06. The reply by proposed intervenors is due 7/30/06 Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/23/06. (KMG, )

June 23, 2006 RECAP
82

Motion for Extension of Time

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

June 26, 2006 PACER
83

Notice of Deposition

June 26, 2006 PACER
84

Notice (Other)

June 26, 2006 PACER
85

Order

June 27, 2006 PACER
86

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 27, 2006 PACER
87

Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer

June 27, 2006 PACER
88

Response to Motion

June 28, 2006 PACER
89

Order

June 28, 2006 PACER
90

Transcript

June 28, 2006 PACER
91

Transcript Request

June 29, 2006 PACER
98

Telephone Conference

June 29, 2006 PACER
92

Motion to Consolidate Cases

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 30, 2006 PACER
93

Transcript Request

June 30, 2006 PACER
94

Notice (Other)

June 30, 2006 PACER
95

Notice of Filer of Deficiency

July 5, 2006 PACER
96

Motion for Reconsideration

July 5, 2006 PACER
97

Stipulation

July 5, 2006 PACER
99

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

July 6, 2006 PACER
100

Notice (Other)

July 10, 2006 PACER

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

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):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

MALDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Arizona, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

National Voter Registration Act ("Motor Voter law"), 52 U.S.C. § 20501 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg)

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Civil Rights Act of 1957/1960, 52 U.S.C. § 10101 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1971)

State law

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)

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Confession of Judgment

Amount Defendant Pays: $1,940,000

Order Duration: 2012 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Voting

Voting access

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

Voting:

Voter ID

Voter qualifications

Voter registration rules

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic