Case: Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs

2:20-cv-01143 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: June 10, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This lawsuit, initially tracked by being tracked by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project, was filed on June 10, 2020 by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee seeking a modification of Arizona's election procedures for unsigned mail-in ballots. On September 20, 2020, the district court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary and permanent injunction and the defendants appealed. However, on October 6…

This case was about the State of Arizona's policy concerning mail-in ballots without a signature. According to state law, mail-in ballots missing a signature must be corrected by the voter by 7 p.m. on voting day. This policy differed from the state's policy regarding mail-in ballots with a signature that does not match the voter's registration record. When a mail-in ballot signature does not match, the voter was afforded five days to correct the signature.

The plaintiffs in this case, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee argued that this five-day allowance should be extended to mail-in ballots with no signature. The defendants claimed that the difference between the two policies was reasonable, since election officials could mistakenly identify valid signatures as mismatched. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on June 10, 2020. They sued the Arizona Secretary of State and the county recorders of each of Arizona's counties. The plaintiffs argued that the state's policy regarding mail-in ballots with no signature violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs argued that the lack of a cure period for unsigned ballots imposes a severe burden on the right to vote without serving any legitimate state interest. Because of this, the plaintiffs claim, the burden on the plaintiffs' rights imposed by the policy is not outweighed by the state's interests and is thus unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also argued that the lack of a cure period for unsigned balance would deprive some voters of their liberty interest, which was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs claim that an extended cure period would safeguard against the deprivation of liberty rights without creating additional burdens on the state.

The plaintiffs requested declaratory judgment, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that would enjoin the defendants from requiring election officials to reject mail-in ballots with no signature until the fifth business day after the election. The case was assigned to Judge Douglas L. Rayes.

On the same day the plaintiffs' filed their complaint, they also moved for a preliminary injunction. On June 23, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to consolidate the hearing on their preliminary injunction motion with the final trial on the merits. This hearing was held on August 18, 2020.

On September 10, 2020, Judge Rayes granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. 485 F.Supp.3d 1073. On the plaintiffs' first claim that the defendants' policies violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause's protection of the right to vote, the court found that the burden on voters created by the state's policy, in the aggregate, would prevent or deter otherwise eligible citizens from voting. The court concluded that the defendants' policies failed to withstand even the most deferential level of scrutiny because the discrepancy between the policy for ballots with mismatched signatures and ballots with no signatures served no legitimate state interest, while burdening the rights of the plaintiffs.

The court also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their second claim that the state's policy violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the plaintiffs had a liberty interest in having their ballots counted and that this interest is affected by the policy. While the court found the risk that an individual's ballot would be rejected for a missing signature was relatively low, the state's interest in maintaining its election day deadline for curing unsigned signatures lacked justification.

The court directed the defendants to allow voters who are determined to have submitted a ballot without a signature to have the opportunity to correct the missing signature until 5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day after a primary, general, or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election. On September 10, the same day that the district court ruled for the plaintiffs, the defendants appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit and filed emergency motions for a stay of the district court's injunction pending the appeal. On October 6, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' emergency motions for a stay. 976 F.3d 1081.

The Ninth Circuit found that the defendants were likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal, since the burden that the state imposed was minimal on those seeking to exercise their right to vote. The court found that since all ballots must have a deadline, Arizona choosing to make the deadline Election Day itself to facilitate an orderly election was reasonable. The court also found Arizona's explanation of the differences between the policy for mismatched signatures and missing signatures to be reasonable.

	Document
2:20-cv-01143	Docket [PACER]	Sept. 18, 2020	Sept. 18, 2020 Docket
1 2:20-cv-01143	Complaint	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 Complaint
116 2:20-cv-01143	State's Notice of Appeal	Sept. 10, 2020	Sept. 10, 2020 Pleading / Motion / Brief
114 2:20-cv-01143	Order	Sept. 10, 2020	Sept. 10, 2020 Order/Opinion 485 F.Supp.3d 485
125 2:20-cv-01143	Order	Sept. 18, 2020	Sept. 18, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 2020
2:20-cv-01143 0:20-16759	Order U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Oct. 6, 2020	Oct. 6, 2020 Order/Opinion 976 F.3d 976

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-18365612 filed by Democratic National Committee, Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC. (Danneman, Alexis) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MCO) Modified on 6/11/2020, to correct docket text. (MCO). (Entered: 06/10/2020) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 RECAP
2	MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) for Temporary Restraining Order by Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC, Democratic National Committee. (Danneman, Alexis) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alexis E Danneman in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020) 1 Declaration of Alexis E Danneman in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Prel View on PACER 2 Exhibit View on RECAP 3 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
3	Corporate Disclosure Statement by Arizona Democratic Party. (Danneman, Alexis) (MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
4	Corporate Disclosure Statement by Democratic National Committee. (Danneman, Alexis) (MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
5	Corporate Disclosure Statement by DSCC. (Danneman, Alexis) (MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
6	SUMMONS Submitted by Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC, Democratic National Committee. (Danneman, Alexis) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons)(MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
7	Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-18365612. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-1143-PHX-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MCO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
8	Summons Issued as to Sadie Jo Bingham, Kristi Blair, Adrian Fontes, Richard Garcia, Patty Hansen, Katie Hobbs, Leslie Hoffman, Wendy John, Sharie Milheiro, Robyn Stallworth Pouquette, F Ann Rodriguez, Virginia Ross, Suzanne Sainz, Michael Sample, David Stevens, Edison Wauneka. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons)(MCO). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
9	VACATED by Doc. 10 ORDER: Plaintiffs shall serve Defendants with the summons, complaint, preliminary injunction motion, and copy of this order as soon as practicable, but by no later than 6/16/2020. By no later than 6/22/2020, the parties shall confer regarding a proposed briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/23/2020 at 03:00 PM before Judge Douglas L Rayes. The parties will be provided with call-in instruction via a separate email. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/10/2020. (MMO) Modified on 6/10/2020 (MMO). (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
10	ORDER: IT IS ORDERED vacating the Court's 9 Order issued in error. A revised Order shall be issued. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/10/2020. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
11	ORDER: Plaintiffs shall serve Defendants with the summons, complaint, injunction motion, and copy of this order as soon as practicable, but by no later than 6/16/2020. By no later than 6/2/2020, the parties shall confer regarding: (see Order for details). Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/23/2020 at 03:00 PM before Judge Douglas L Rayes. The parties will be provided with call-in instruction via a separate email. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/10/2020. (MMO) (Entered: 06/10/2020)	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 RECAP
	Order	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 PACER
12	NOTICE of Appearance by William J Kerekes on behalf of Robyn Stallworth Pouquette. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 06/16/2020)	June 16, 2020	June 16, 2020 PACER
13	* NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Stanley Moore on behalf of Michael Sample. (Moore, Jason) * Document not in compliance with Local Rule; attorney noticed on 6/18/2020 (LAD). (Entered: 06/17/2020)	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
	Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
14	NOTICE of Appearance by Rose Marie Winkeler on behalf of Patty Hansen. (Winkeler, Rose) (Entered: 06/17/2020)	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
	Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Kevin J Hamilton on behalf of Plaintiffs Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC, Democratic National Committee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
15	NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Eugene LaRue on behalf of Adrian Fontes. (LaRue, Joseph) (Entered: 06/17/2020)	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
16	MOTION to Intervene by State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Makar Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 06/17/2020) 1 Affidavit Makar Declaration View on RECAP 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order View on PACER	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 RECAP
18	NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 13 Notice of Appearance/Association of Counsel filed by Michael Sample. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. Please note for future filings. No further action is required. It is not necessary to refile. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LAD) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 17, 2020	June 17, 2020 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas M Stoxen on behalf of Leslie Hoffman. (Stoxen, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
	Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
19	* NOTICE of Appearance by Craig Charles Cameron on behalf of Virginia Ross. (Cameron, Craig) * Document not in compliance with Local Rule; attorney noticed on 6/19/2020 (LAD). (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
20	ORDER: The Court has reviewed the State of Arizona's motion to intervene. The motion indicates that only Plaintiffs object to the request. It is ordered that Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion by no later than noon on 6/19/2020. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/18/2020. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance by Roopali H Desai on behalf of Katie Hobbs. (Desai, Roopali) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
22	NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Blane Haws on behalf of Kristi Blair. (Haws, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
	Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for William B Stafford on behalf of Plaintiffs Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC, Democratic National Committee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
23	NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly Janiece Hunley on behalf of Suzanne Sainz. (Hunley, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/18/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
24	NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 19 Notice of Appearance/Association of Counsel filed by Virginia Ross. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. Please note for future filings. No further action is required. It is not necessary to refile. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LAD) (Entered: 06/19/2020)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency (Text Only)	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
	~Util - Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings AND Order	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 PACER
25	RESPONSE to Motion re: 16 MOTION to Intervene Plaintiffs' Response to the State's Motion to Intervene filed by Arizona Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee. (Danneman, Alexis) (Entered: 06/19/2020)	June 19, 2020	June 19, 2020 RECAP
26	RESPONSE to Motion re: 16 MOTION to Intervene filed by Katie Hobbs. (Desai, Roopali) (Entered: 06/19/2020)	June 19, 2020	June 19, 2020 RECAP
27	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S Jurkowitz on behalf of F Ann Rodriguez. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/19/2020)	June 19, 2020	June 19, 2020 PACER
28	ORDER granting 16 Motion to Intervene. The State shall participate in the parties' conferral regarding case management deadlines, as well as the 6/23/2020 conference call to discuss the same. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/19/2020. (MMO) (Entered: 06/19/2020)	June 19, 2020	June 19, 2020 RECAP
	Notice of Deficiency (Text Only)	June 19, 2020	June 19, 2020 PACER
29	NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph D Young on behalf of Edison Wauneka. (Young, Joseph) (Entered: 06/22/2020)	June 22, 2020	June 22, 2020 PACER
	Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion	June 22, 2020	June 22, 2020 PACER
	Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Sarah Langberg Schirack on behalf of Plaintiffs Arizona Democratic Party, DSCC, Democratic National Committee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)	June 22, 2020	June 22, 2020 PACER
30	NOTICE of Appearance by Jefferson R Dalton on behalf of Sadie Jo Bingham. (Dalton, Jefferson) (Entered: 06/22/2020)	June 22, 2020	June 22, 2020 PACER

Case: Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs

2:20-cv-01143 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details