Ninth Court of Appeals Upholds AZ Proposition 200

04.22.07

by Jonah Goldman

On April 20, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Lawyers' Committee and a broad coalition of Arizonans in our attempt to obtain immediate relief against Arizona’s strict voter ID law (commonly known as "Proposition 200") through a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals said that at this stage of the litigation certain factual issues remain unknown, and that the case should go back to the trial court for further development of the factual record before any ultimate decision on the merits. No trial date has been set.

In Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. ("ITCA") v. Brewer, Case No. 2006-CIV-01268-ROS), the Lawyers' Committee and several other legal organizations represent a broad coalition – including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Hopi Tribe, the League of Women Voters of Arizona ("LWVAZ"), the League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC"), People for the American Way Foundation ("PFAWF"), the Arizona Advocacy Network ("AzAN"), and State Representative Steve Gallardo – who have challenged Proposition 200’s voter ID provisions. Proposition 200 disenfranchises qualified and eligible voters by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of their citizenship status when registering to vote, and further requiring qualified and registered voters to present additional identification at the polling place on Election Day. Our complaint asserts that Proposition 200 creates a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote, and violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ("NVRA").

Following a hearing in August 2006, the trial court in Phoenix found that the plaintiffs had shown some likelihood of success on the merits of some of their claims, but declined to issue a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed an Emergency and Urgent Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. On October 5, 2006, a two-judge panel granted the emergency motion, and enjoined implementation of Proposition 200’s voting provisions pending the appeal. The State of Arizona and four counties then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an order on October 20 vacating the Ninth Circuit’s interim order on the basis of procedural irregularities and possible voter confusion in the November 2006 election. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 2988365, at *3 (U.S. Oct. 20, 2006). The Supreme Court, however, carefully noted that "we express no opinion here on the correct disposition" of the appeals "after full briefing and argument," and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. Id.

In its recent April 20th decision, the Ninth Circuit decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief on the limited record before it. However, the Ninth Circuit noted that this litigation remains pending, and that the trial court will make a final determination regarding any appropriate permanent injunction against Proposition 200 after hearing additional evidence at trial.