Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 15

Nina Perales, TX SBN: 24005046 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL 2 DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 110 Broadway, Suite 300 3 San Antonio, TX 78205 Ph: (210) 224-5476
4 Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., SBN: 005015
5 ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO, MILLER & ORTEGA
6 650 North Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85003
7 Ph: (602) 253-3554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9

10 MARIA M. GONZALEZ, JESUS M.

§ Case No.

GONZALEZ, BERNIE ABEYTIA,

§

11 LUCIANO VALENCIA, DEBBIE LOPEZ, §

SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION §

12 EDUCATION PROJECT, VALLE DEL §

SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CHICANOS §

13 POR LA CAUSA, INC. and ARIZONA §

HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM,

§

14

§

Plaintiffs,

§

15

§

VS.

§ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

16

§ AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

STATE OF ARIZONA, JAN BREWER, § [Civil Rights]

17 in her official capacity as Secretary of

§

State of the state of Arizona;

§

18 LeNORA JOHNSON, Apache County

§

Recorder, CHRISTINE RHODES, Cochise §

19 County, Recorder, CANDANCE OWENS, §

Coconino County Recorder, LINDA

§

20 HAUGHT ORTEGA, Gila County

§

Recorder, WENDY JOHN, Graham

§

21 County Recorder, BERTA MANUZ,

§

Greenlee County Recorder, SHELLY

§

22 BAKER, La Paz County Recorder,

§

HELEN PURCELL, Maricopa

§

23 County Recorder, JOAN McCall, Mohave §

County Recorder, LAURETTE JUSTMAN, §

24 Navajo County Recorder, F. ANN

§

RODRIGUEZ, Pima County Recorder, §

25 LAURA DEAN-LYTLE, Pinal County §

Recorder, SUZIE SAINZ, Santa Cruz

§

26 County Recorder, ANN WAYMAN-

§

TRUJILLO, Yavapai County Recorder, §

27 SUSAN HIGHTOWER MARLER, Yuma §

County Recorder, in their official

§

28 capacities as County Recorders of the State §

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 15

1 of Arizona; PENNY L. PEW, Apache

§

County Election Director, THOMAS

§

2 SCHELLING, Cochise County Election §

Director, PATTY HANSEN, Coconino §

3 County Election Director, DIXIE

§

MUNDY, Gila County Election Director, §

4 JUDY DICKERSON, Graham County

§

Election Director, YVONNE PEARSON, §

5 Greenlee County Election Director,

§

DONNA J. HALE, La Paz County Election §

6 Director, KAREN OSBORNE, Maricopa §

County Election Director, ALLEN

§

7 TEMPERT, Mohave County Election

§

Director, KELLY DASTRUP, Navajo

§

8 County Election Director, BRAD R.

§

NELSON, Pima County Election Director, §

9 GILBERTO HOYOS, Pinal County

§

Election, Director, MELINDA MEEK, §

10 Santa Cruz County Election Director,

§

LYNN A. CONSTABILE, Yavapai

§

11 County Election Director, PATTI

§

MADRILL, Yuma County

§

12 Election Director, in their official

§

capacities as County Election Directors §

13 of the State of Arizona.

§

§

14

Defendants.

§

15
16
1.
17
18
19
20
2. 21
22
23
24
25 3.
26
27

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action challenges the voter registration and identification prOVISIons of Proposition 200, an initiative measure adopted by Arizona voters on November 2, 2004, and it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to halt their implementation and enforcement. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the relief requested in this complaint. Unless enjoined by this Court, Arizona's voter registration and identification requirements will continue to impermissibly burden voting and voter registration across the state.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343a(3) & (4) and upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 for causes of action arising from 42 U.S.C. 1971 and 1973,42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4, and 42

28

2

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 15

1 2 3 4 5
6
7 4. 8 9
10 11 5. 12 13 14 15
16 6. 17 18 19 20 21 7. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

U.S.C. 2000d. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief is based upon 28 U.S.c. 2201 and 2202. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' constitutional and federal statutory claims is also based upon 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys fees is based on 42 U.S.C. 19731(e) and 1988. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
REQUEST FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL Plaintiffs request that their Section 5 enforcement claims be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1973c and the provisions of28 U.S.C. 2284.
PARTIES PlaintiffMARIA GONZALEZ is a resident ofYuma County, Arizona. Ms. Gonzalez is a u.S. citizen and qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Yuma County Recorder for failure to provide the documentary proofofU.S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. PlaintiffMARIA GONZALEZ is Latina. PlaintiffJESUS M. GONZALEZ is a resident ofYuma County, Arizona. Mr. Gonzalez is a u.S. citizen and qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Yuma County Recorder for failure to provide the documentary proof of u.S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff JESUS M. GONZALEZ is Latino. Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA is a resident and registered voter of Maricopa County, Arizona. Mr. ABEYTIA is a Vietnam veteran and the State Commander ofthe American GI Forum of Arizona, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assisting veterans. Although Mr. ABEYTIA is a qualified voter, he cannot vote in person at the polls because he lacks the identification required by Proposition 200. Mr. ABEYTIA would have to pay a fee in order to acquire the identification required by Proposition 200.
3

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 4 of 15

1 2 8. 3 4 5 6 7 9. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. 26 27 28

Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA is Latino. PlaintiffLUCIANO VALENCIA is a resident ofPima County, Arizona. Mr. Valencia
is a u.s. citizen and a qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter
registration by the Pima County Recorder because, after completing a federal mail voter registration application, he did not provide the additional proof of U.S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff LUCIANO VALENCIA is Latino. Plaintiff DEBBIE LOPEZ is a resident and registered voter of Maricopa County. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ formerly worked as the Arizona State Director ofa national non-profit whose mission was to empower Latino citizens in the political process and whose activities focused on voter registration and turnout. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ also volunteers to register voters and attempted to register voters in a communitybased voter registration drive in Maricopa County as recently as April 10, 2006. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ is Latina and a member ofPlaintiffARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM. PlaintiffSOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT (SVREP) is a non-profit and non-partisan organization committed to improving the participation of Latino and other minority communities across the United States in the democratic process, through voter registration, voter education and voter participation activities. Since its founding in 1974, SVREP has conducted more than 2,200 voter registration campaigns in 15 states, including Arizona. SVREP conducts its voter registration activities at community-based sites such as school campuses, malls and fairs. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons that SVREP can register to vote and impaired the ability of SVREP to conduct voter registration and turnout efforts, SVREP has been injured by Proposition 200. Plaintiff VALLE DEL SOL is a non-profit and non-partisan organization founded in 1960. Valle del Sol has grown to be one of Arizona's largest non-profit, community-
4

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 5 of 15

1

based organizations helping men, women, children, families, and the elderly each year

2

through social services and leadership development programs. The mission ofVALLE

3

DEL SOL is to inspire positive change by investing in human services, strengthening

4

self-sufficiency for families and building the next generation of Latino leaders. In

5

order to fulfill its organizational goals, VALLE DEL SOL has conducted voter

6

registration activities in the past and plans to conduct further voter registration

7

activities in the future. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons

8

that VALLE DEL SOL can register to vote and impaired the ability of VALLE DEL

9

SOL to conduct voter registration efforts, VALLE DEL SOL has been injured by

10

Proposition 200.

11 12. PlaintiffFRIENDLY HOUSE is a social service agency that provides comprehensive

12

family services to over 40,000 families, youth and children a year. Established in

13

1920, FRIENDLY HOUSE was part of a new national settlement house project of the

14

federal government to assist both new immigrants to the United States and the poor.

15

Founded by the Phoenix Americanization Committee, the goal was to teach English and

16

citizenship to foreign-born clients. Today, in addition to offering services focused on

17

youth education, employment and training, social services and adult education,

18

FRIENDLY HOUSE provides low cost, on-site immigration services, including

19

citizenship applications, to the immigrant community in greater Maricopa County and

20

also provides free outreach information through workshops and immigration

21

presentations to various community groups within the targeted areas. Among the

22

organizational goals of FRIENDLY HOUSE is to promote and ensure the ability of

23

immigrants to naturalize and to participate as U.S. citizens in civic life. FRIENDLY

24

HOUSE also fulfills its organizational mission by conducting community-based voter

25

registration. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons that

26

FRIENDLY HOUSE can register to vote and impaired the ability of FRIENDLY

27

28

5

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 6 of 15

1

HOUSE to conduct voter registration efforts, FRIENDLY HOUSE has been injured by

2

Proposition 200.

3 13. Plaintiff CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC. (CPLC) is a statewide community

4

development corporation (CDC), committed to building stronger, healthier

5

communities as a leading advocate, coalition builder and direct service provider.

6

CPLC promotes positive change and self-sufficiency to enhance the quality oflife for

7

the benefit of those it serves. In order to fulfill its organizational goals, CPLC

8

conducts voter registration drives. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number

9

ofpersons that CPLC can register to vote and impaired the ability ofCPLC to conduct

10

voter registration efforts, CPLC has been injured by Proposition 200.

11 14. Plaintiff ARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM (AHCF) is a membership

12

advocacy organization that collaborates with other organizations on civil and human

13

rights issues. The mission ofthe AHCF is to empower Hispanic communities: to work

14

towards active participation with policy-making bodies at all levels of the public and

15

private sectors; to become involved in local state and national issues impacting the

16

Hispanic community; to educate, promote and preserve Hispanic history, language,

17

cultures, customs, and contributions; to increase opportunities and improve the quality

18

oflife for Hispanics; to defend, preserve and protect rights ofHispanics under the law;

19

and to educate and ensure that the public and private sector provide equal access and

20

fair treatment for Hispanics. In order to fulfill its organizational goals, AHCF

21

conducts voter registration. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of

22

persons that AHCF can register to vote and impaired the ability of AHCF to conduct

23

voter registration and turnout efforts, AHCF has been injured by Proposition 200.

24 15. Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA is a state ofthe United States ofAmerica. Defendant

25

STATE OF ARIZONA is subject to the requirements of federal law, including the

26

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of

27

28

6

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 7 of 15

1
2 16. 3 4 5 6 17. 7 8 9 18. 10 11 12 13 19. 14 15 16 20. 17 18 19 20 21. 21 22 23 22. 24 25 26 27 28

1965. Defendant JAN BREWER is sued in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary ofState. Defendant BREWER is the chiefelection officer ofDefendant STATE OF ARIZONA. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementation of the provisions of Proposition 200 relating to voting. Defendant HELEN PURCELL is the Maricopa County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. PURCELL's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant KAREN OSBORNE is the Maricopa County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. OSBORNE is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant LeNORA JOHNSON is the Apache County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. JOHNSON's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant PENNY L. PEW is the Apache County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. PEW is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant CHRISTINE RHODES is the Cochise County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. RHODES's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant THOMAS SCHELLING is the Cochise County Director of Elections. He is sued in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. SCHELLING is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
7

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 8 of 15

1 23. 2 3 4 24. 5 6 7 8 25. 9 10 11 26. 12 13 14 15 27. 16 17 18 28. 19 20 21 22 29. 23
24
25 30. 26 27 28

Defendant CANDACE OWENS is the Coconino County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. OWENS's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant PATTY HANSEN is the Coconino County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. HANSEN is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant LINDA HAUGHT ORTEGA is the Gila County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. ORTEGA's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant DIXIE MUNDY is the Gila County Director ofElections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MUNDY is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant WENDY JOHN is the Graham County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. JOHN's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant ruDY DICKERSON is the Graham County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. DICKERSON is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant BERTA MANUZ is the Greenlee County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. MANUZ's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant YVONNE PEARSON is the Greenlee County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. Pearson is responsible
8

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 9 of 15

1
2 3 31. 4 5 6 32. 7 8 9 10 33. 11 12 13 34. 14 15 16 17 35. 18 19 20 36. 21 22 23 2437. 25 26 27 28

for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant SHELLY BAKER is the La paz County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. BAKER's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant DONNA HALE is the La Paz County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. HALE is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant JOAN McCALL is the Mohave County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. McCALL's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant ALLEN TEMPERT is the Mohave County Director ofElections. He is sued in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. TEMPERT is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant LAURETTE mSTMAN is the Navajo County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. mSTMAN's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county. Defendant KELLY DASTRUP is the Navajo County Director ofElections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. DASTRUP is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county. Defendant F. ANN RODRIGUEZ is the Pima County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. RODRIGUEZ's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the
9

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 10 of 15

1

county.

2 38. Defendant BRAD NELSON is the Pima County Director of Elections. He is sued in

3

his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. NELSON is responsible for

4

administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections

5

in the county.

6 39. Defendant LAURA DEAN-LYTLE is the Pinal County Recorder. She is sued in her

7

official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. DEAN-LYTLE's responsibilities

8

include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the

9

county.

10 40. Defendant GILBERTO HOYOS is the Pinal County Director ofElections. He is sued

11

in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. HOYOS is responsible for

12

administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections

13

in the county.

14 41. Defendant SUZIE SAINZ is the Santa Cruz County Recorder. She is sued in her official

15

capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. SAINZ's responsibilities include voter

16

registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.

17 42. Defendant MELINDA MEEK is the Santa Cruz County Director ofElections. She is

18

sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MEEK is responsible for

19

administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections

20

in the county.

21 43. Defendant ANN WAYMAN-TRUJILLO is the Yavapai County Recorder. She is sued

22

in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. WAYMAN-TRUJILLO's

23

responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of

24

elections in the county.

25 44. Defendant LYNN CONSTABILE is the Yavapai County Director ofElections. She is

26

sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. CONSTABILE is

27

28

10

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 11 of 15

1

responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and

2

county elections in the county.

3 45. Defendant SUSAN HIGHTOWER MARLER is the Yuma County Recorder. She is sued

4

in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. MARLER's responsibilities

5

include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the

6

county.

7 46. Defendant PATTI MADRILL is the Yuma County Director of Elections. She is sued

8

in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MADRILL is responsible for

9

administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections

10

in the county.

11 47. All Defendants are recipients of federal fmancial assistance to conduct voter

12

registration and elections. At all times, all Defendants herein were acting under color

13

oflaw.

14

STATEMENT OF FACTS

15 Proposition 200 Voting-Related Provisions

16 48. Proposition 200 is an initiative statute that was submitted to the voters of Arizona at

17

the November 2,2004 general election. Under the Arizona Constitution, Article IV,

18

Section 1, the people of Arizona have the power to enact initiative statutes. Initiative

19

statutes become law "when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and upon

20

proclamation of the Governor." ARIz. CONST. art. IV, §§ l. Proposition 200 was

21

approved by a majority ofthe votes cast on November 2, 2004 and the Governor issued

22

the required proclamation on December 13, 2004.

23 49. Proposition 200 amended a number of election statutes in order to impose new

24

restrictions on voter registration and voting.

25 Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

26 50. Section 3 of Proposition 200 amends Section 16-152 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

27

28

11

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 12 of 15

1

in order to require that the Arizona voter registration application fonn include, "A

2

STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF UNITED

3

STATES CITIZENSHIP WITH THE APPLICATION AND THAT THE REGISTRAR

4

SHALL REJECT THE APPLICATION IF NO EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP IS

5

ATTACHED."

6 51. Section 4 of Proposition 200 amends Section 16-166 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes

7

in order to add a new subsection F which provides in part that the "COUNTY

8

RECORDER SHALL REJECT ANY APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION THAT IS

9

NOT ACCOMPANIED BY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF UNITED STATES

10

CITIZENSHIP."

11 52. Proposition 200 further amends Section 16-166 to defme the six identification

12

documents that are satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship: 1) an Arizona driver's

13

license issued after October 1, 1996, or a license issued by another state that verifies

14

U:S. citizenship prior to issuing licenses; 2) a U.S. birth certificate; 3) a U.S. passport;

15

4) U.S. naturalization documents; 5) another immigration document that proves

16

citizenship; 6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number.

17 53. Section 16-166 (F) (4) as amended by Proposition 200 requires that any voter

18

registration applicant who relies upon a naturalization certificate to prove his or her

19

U.S. citizenship may not submit a photocopy of the certificate but must present the

20

certificate in person to the County Recorder. The voter registration applicant who is

21

a naturalized citizen and who only provides the number ofthe naturalization certificate

22

on the voter registration application will not be added to the voter rolls until the

23

County Recorder is able to verify that number with the U.S. Immigration and

24

Naturalization Service.

25 Voter Identification for Casting a Ballot at the Polls

26 54. Section 5 ofProposition 200 amends Section 16-579 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

27

28

12

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 13 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 55. 6 7 8 9
10 11
12 56. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 57. 23 24 25 26 27 28

to provide that before receiving a ballot, every qualified elector "SHALL PRESENT ONE FORM OF IDENTIFICATION THAT BEARS THE NAME, ADDRESS AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ELECTOR OR TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION THAT BEAR THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ELECTOR." The "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls," issued by Defendant BREWER on September 6, 2005, provides that acceptable forms of voter photo identification include: a valid Arizona driver license; valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or a valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification. These forms of identification are not acceptable for voting unless they bear the same address for the voter as that listed in the county voter rolls. The "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls" further provides that acceptable forms of voter non-photo identification includes: a utility bill of the elector that is dated within ninety days of the date ofthe election; bank or credit union statement that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election; valid Arizona Vehicle Registration; Indian census card; property tax statement of the elector's residence; tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; vehicle insurance card; Recorder's Certificate; or valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county recorder. These forms of identification are not acceptable for voting unless they bear the same address as that listed in the rolls for the voter. The "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls" provides that any voter at the polling place who does not present satisfactory proofofidentification will be provided a provisional ballot. In order for the provisional ballot to be counted, the voter must present satisfactory proof of identification to the County Recorder by 5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day after a general election that includes an election for a federal
13

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 14 of 15

1

office or 5:00 p.m. on the third business day after any other election.

2 Effect of the Voter Registration and Identification Requirements of Proposition 200

3 58. The official Arizona voter registration form, promulgated by Defendant BREWER in

4

March 2005, states that "A complete voter registration form must also contain proof

5

of citizenship or the form will be rejected." Defendants no longer make available or

6

distribute the federal mail voter registration application prescribed by the U.S.

7

Elections Assistance Commission. Defendants do not provide a postage-paid envelope

8

with the Arizona voter registration application.

9 59. On March 6, 2006, the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) wrote

10

to Defendant BREWER in response to her request that the EAC "apply Arizona state

11

policy (derived from Proposition 200) to the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form."

12

In its letter the EAC informed Defendant BREWER that "Arizona may not refuse to

13

register individuals to vote in a Federal election for failing to provide supplemental

14

proofof citizenship, ifthey have properly completed and timely submitted the Federal

15

Registration Form.

16 60. On March 13,2006, Defendant BREWER responded to the EAC charging that the

17

EAC' s opinion was "completely inconsistent, unlawful, and without merit." The letter

18

further stated that"After consulting with the Arizona Attorney General, I will instruct

19

Arizona's county recorders to continue to administer and enforce the requirement that

20

all voters provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote as specified in

21

A.R.S. § 16-166(F)."

22 61. On March 13, 2006, State Election Director Joseph Kanefield wrote to the State's

23

county recorders informing them of Defendant BREWER's "position that the proof

24

of citizenship requirement set forth in A.R.S. § 16-166(F) must continue to be

25

enforced for all newly registered voters and voters moving from one county to

26

another."

27

28

14

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 15 of 15

1 62. 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. 8 9 10 11 64. 12 13 14 15 16 65. 17 18 19 20 21 66. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On May 3, 2006, Plaintiff LUCIANO VALENCIA appeared in person at the Pima County Recorder's Office and presented the clerk with a completed federal mail voter registration form prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The clerk did not accept the federal mail voter registration form and informed Mr. Valencia that he could not be registered without documentary proof of citizenship because of the requirements of Proposition 200. Upon information and belief, all Defendant Arizona county recorders are complying with Defendant BREWER's directive to them that they reject properly-completed federal mail voter registration applications that are not accompanied by the documentary proof of citizenship required by Proposition 200. As a result of Proposition 200, naturalized citizens who seek to register to vote and use their naturalization document as proof of U.S. citizenship are forced to present their naturalization document in person at the office of the County Recorder. Naturalized citizens may not provide a photocopy ofthe naturalization document to the County Recorder. On August 18,2005, Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ properly completed voter registration applications and submitted their applications to the Yuma County Recorder. As required, Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ provided the number of their certificate of naturalization on the voter registration form. Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ subsequently received from the Yuma County Recorder a notice informing them that they did not provide satisfactory proof of citizenship and enclosing their original registration applications with an indication that they must provide personal immigration information not required by Proposition 200. To this day, Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ have not been added to the voter rolls in Yuma County.
15

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 12

1 67. 2 3 4 5 68.
6
7 8 69. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 70. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71. 26 27 28

Defendants STATE OF ARIZONA and BREWER did not state, in their submission to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting Section 5 preclearance of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200, that they would cease to use and accept the federal mail voter registration form for registering voters for federal elections in Arizona. As a result of the new proof of citizenship requirements imposed by Proposition 200, Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC and AHCF are impeded in their ability to conduct community-based voter registration. In order to successfully register voters in the community, Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC and AHCF must now carry with them a photocopy machine or computer scanner and printer in order to make copies of citizenship documents for all voter registration applicants who do not have a driver's license or state identification card issued after 1996. Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC and AHCF may no longer use the pre-paid federal mail voter registration applications in their voter registration campaigns. Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC and AHCF' s inability to bring photocopy equipment to malls, school campuses and community gatherings has injured them by severely limiting their ability to register voters. Latinos, among other ethnic groups, are less likely to possess the forms of identification required under Proposition 200 to register to vote and cast a ballot. As a result, significant numbers of Latinos attempting to register and tum out to vote are denied the right to vote. In addition, because Latinos comprise a large proportion of naturalized citizens in Arizona, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement imposed by Proposition 200 on naturalized citizens has a disparate negative effect on voter registration by Latinos. Plaintiffs have provided written notice on three separate occasions to Defendant BREWER informing her that Arizona is not in compliance with the National Voter
16

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 72. 6 7
8
9 10 73. 11 12 13 14 74. 15 16 17 18 75. 19 20 21 22 23 24 76. 25 26
27
28

RegistrationAct(NVRA). On November 30, 2004, PlaintiffFRIENDLY HOUSE filed a written complaint in the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Arizona naming Defendant BREWER and alleging that Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship requirement was pre-empted by the NVRA. On March 27, 2006, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant BREWER stating that the implementation of Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship requirement had placed Arizona in violation of the NVRA. Plaintiffs sent a second letter to Defendant BREWER on April 17, 2006 reiterating that Arizona was not in compliance with the NVRA. On April 20, 2006, Joseph Kanefield, Arizona State Election Director, wrote to the State's County Recorders informing them that the Arizona Secretary of State's office had received notices of intent to file suit and that "it is very likely that the county recorders will be named in these suits when they are filed." Early voting for the federal and state primary election in Arizona begins August 10, 2006. Defendants BREWER and STATE OF ARIZONA received Plaintiff s April 17, 2006 letter on April 18 , 2006 and it has been more than twenty days since their receipt of the letter. Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA seeks to cast his ballot at the polls in the next election. Although he is a registered an qualified voter in Maricopa County, Mr. Abeytia does not possess the identification documents required by Proposition 200 for voting at the polls. As a result of Proposition 200's new proof of identification requirements, Mr. Abeytia will be denied the opportunity to vote in person on Election Day unless he pays a fee for identification documents specified by Proposition 200. Organizational plaintiffs have also expended scarce and valuable organizational resources informing voters ofthe new voting identification requirements in an attempt to prevent Proposition 200 from blocking qualified voters from voting. The
17

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 12

1

organizational plaintiffs have been injured by the voter identification provisions of

2

Proposition 200 because their resources are drained by the effort to assist voters in

3

navigating the new identification requirements. Without the voter identification

4

provisions of Proposition 200, the organizational plaintiffs would be able to spend

5

their limited resources reaching more voters with their voter registration and turnout

6

efforts.

7 77. Upon information and belief, Defendant Arizona county recorders are implementing

8

the documentary proof of citizenship and identification requirements set out in

9

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200.

10

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

11

(Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

12 78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

13 79. Defendants' implementation of the documentary proof of citizenship requirements of

14

Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates the Supremacy Clause, Article VI,

15

paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

16 80. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of

17

Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order temporarily and permanently

18

enj oining their enforcement.

19

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20

(First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

21 8l. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

22

23 82. By preventing Plaintiffs from using federal mail voter registration application forms,

24

and forcing them to comply with Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship

25

in order to register voters, Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their free speech and

26

associational right to conduct voter registration.

27

28

18

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 4 of 12

1 83. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of

2

Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order enjoining their enforcement.

3

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

4

(Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

5 84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

6 85. By requiring that voters pay a fee in order to acquire specific identification documents

7

to prove either u.S. citizenship or identity, Proposition 200 imposes the substantive

8

equivalent of a poll tax on Arizona voters.

9 86. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

10

Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order temporarily and permanently

11

enjoining their enforcement.

12

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 (Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the u.S. States Constitution)

14 87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

15 88. By requiring that voters pay a fee in order to acquire specific identification documents

16

to prove either u.S. citizenship or identity, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200

17

impermissibly burden the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Equal

18

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

19 89. In addition, by placing greater burdens of registration on naturalized voters, Sections

20

3 and 4 of Proposition 200 impermissibly burden the fundamental right to vote in

21

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

22

States Constitution.

23 90. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

24

Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order temporarily and permanently

25

enjoining their enforcement.

26

27

28

19

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 5 of 12

1
2 3 91. 4 92. 5
6 7 8
9 93. 10
11
12 13 94. 14 15 16
17
18 95. 19 96. 20 21 22 23 24 97. 25 26 27 28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here. Proposition 200's requirement that the county recorder reject applications for registration that do not include satisfactory evidence of citizenship disparately affects Latino voters, unlawfully dilutes Latino voters' right to vote, and provides them with less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process. Proposition 200's requirement that voters possess certain forms of identification to cast a ballot disparately affects Latino voters, unlawfully dilutes Latino voters' right to vote, and provides them with less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 violate their rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and to an order temporarily and permanently enjoining their enforcement.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C. 1973c) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if setforth fully here. Defendants have failed to secure federal preclearance of their practice of rejecting mail voter registration forms prescribed by the U. S. Election Assistance Commission. As a result, this change in voting practices is legally unenforceable. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to use and accept the federal mail voter registration form. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and to an order temporarily and permanently enjoining their
20

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 6 of 12

1

enforcement.

2

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3

(Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965)

4 98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

S 99. Defendants have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C. 2000d,

6

et seq. by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of,

7

and subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination under Arizona election-related programs

8

or activities receiving federal fmancial assistance on the basis of their national origin.

9 100. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

10

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under Title VI of the Civil

11

Rights Act of 1964 and to an order temporarily and permanently enjoining their

12

enforcement.

13

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

(National Voter Registration Act of 1993)

15 101. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

16 102. Defendants' implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates Section

17

6 ofthe National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4, which

18

requires the State of Arizona to accept and use the mail voter registration application

19

form prescribed by the u.S. Election Assistance Commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

20

1973gg-7(a)(2) for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.

21 103. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

22

of Sections 3 and 4 ofProposition 200 violates their rights under the NVRA and to an

23

order temporarily and permanently enjoining their enforcement.

24

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25

(16-121.01, Arizona Revised Statutes)

26 104. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

27

28

21

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 7 of 12

1 105. The enforcement of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 by Defendants violates 16-

2

121.01 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which provides that a person is presumed to

3

be properly registered to vote on completion of a registration form that includes,

4

among other things, an affIrmation of U.S. citizenship and without the submission of

5

further documentary proof of citizenship.

6 106. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

7

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under A.R. S. Section 16-

8

121.01 and to an order temporarily and permanently enjoining their enforcement.

9

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10

(16-151 (B), Arizona Revised Statutes)

11 107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

12 108. Defendants' failure to make available the federal mail voter registration applications

13

now prescribed by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission violates Section 16-151

14

(B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which provides that "The secretary of state shall

15

make available for distribution through governmental and private entities the voter

16

registration forms that are prescribed by the federal election commission."

17 109. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

18

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under A.R.S. Section 16-

19

151 (B) and to an order temporarily and permanently enjoining their enforcement.

20

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

22 Issue a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and illegal

23 and of no force or effect;

24 Issue a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Defendants enjoining

25 them from implementing and enforcing sections 3 and 4 ofProposition 200 pending trial that;

26 1. 27

Declares that the Defendants have failed to implement the requirements of Section 6

28

22

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 8 of 12

1
2 3 2.
4 5
6 3. 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25
26 27 28

of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4 and have violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Enjoins the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with any of them, from failing to comply with the requirements of Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4; and Orders the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with any of them to:
a. Use and accept the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission as required by Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4;
b. Take all steps necessary, including the adoption of appropriate administrative policies or rules, to register those voter registration applicants who complete and submit the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission.
c. Immediately add to the voter registration rolls those voter registration applicants who previously submitted to any County Recorder a completed mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission and whose application was rejected for failure to provide additional proof of citizenship.
d. Publicize effectively the remedial plans and programs addressing these NVRA violations to ensure widespread dissemination to State of Arizona residents, among others, especially those who, at the time of the Court's order, may have been denied the opportunity to register to vote in Arizona for failure to provide proof of citizenship greater than that required by the federal mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission;
23

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 9 of 12

1

e. Provide the Court within 45 days from the date of the Court's order (1) a plan

2

or program designed to ensure that Defendants will use and accept the federal

3

mail voter registration application fonn prescribed by the Election Assistance

4

Commission as required by Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4, and

5

(2) a plan for the effective publicizing of the State's remedial plan or program;

6

f. Seek the preclearance ofthe State's remedial and publicity plans as required by

7

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.c. 1973c.

8 Plaintiffs further request that the Court:
9 Issue a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants enjoining them from implementing
10
and enforcing sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 pending trial that;
11

12 1. Declares that the Defendants have violated the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth

13

Amendments to the u.S. Constitution by impermissibly burdening the fundamental

14

right to vote; and that

15 2. Enjoins the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all persons acting

16

in concert with any of them, from requiring individuals to purchase identification

17

documents as a condition of registering to vote or voting;

18 Plaintiffs further request that the Court:
19

20

Award Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs incurred in this action under 42 U.S.C. §§

21 1988;

22

Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper; and

23

Maintain jurisdiction over this action.

24 Dated: May 9, 2006
25 26 27

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/" ------~ ---------------Nina Perales Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28
24

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 10 of 12

1

VERIFICAnON

2 1, Debbie Lopez, a citizen ofthe United States and resident of the State of Arizona, am a

3 plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and declare under :

4 penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoing facts' 5 are correct and true to the best ofmy knowledge and belief and that those factual matters ~

6 that are stated upon information and belief are believed by me to be true.

7 8

D.:::(]=?

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 11 of 12

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I here by certify that on this 9th day of May, 2006, I served a true and correct copy

of Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on counsel of record by sending said

3 copy via U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested to:

4 Peter Silverman Assistant Attorney General
5 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007
6 LeNora Johnson
7 Apache County Recorder PennyL. Pew
8 Director Apache County Elections
9 P. O. Box 425 St. Johns AZ 85936
10 Christine Rhodes
11 Cochise County Recorder Thomas Schelling
12 Elections Officer 1415 W. Melody Lane, Bldg. B
13 Bisbee AZ 85603
14 Candace D. Owens Coconino County Recorder
15 Patty Hansen Election Administrator
16 Coconino County Courthouse 110 E. Cherry Avenue
17 Flagstaff AZ 86001
18 Linda Haught Ortega Gila County Recorder
19 Dixie Mundy Director
20 1400 East Ash Street Globe AZ 85501
21 Wendy John
22 Graham County Recorder Judy Dickerson
23 Elections Officer 921 Thatcher Blvd.
24 Safford AZ 85546
25

Berta Manuz Greenlee County Recorder Yvonne Pearson Elections Director Greenlee City Courthouse 5th St. Webster Clifton AZ 85533
Shelly Baker La Paz County Recorder Donna J. Hale Clerk 1112 Joshua Avenue, Suite 201 Parker AZ 85344
Helen Purcell Maricopa County Recorder Karen Osborne Director 111 South 3rd Avenue, # 103 Phoenix AZ 85003
Joan McCall Mohave County Recorder Allen Tempert Director P. O. Box 70 Kingman AZ 86402
Laurette Justman Navajo County Recorder Kelly Dastrup Election Director P. O. Box 668 Holbrook AZ 86025
F. Ann Rodriguez Pima County Recorder Brad R. Nelson Election Director P. O. Box 3145 Tucson AZ 85702

26

27

28 26

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/06 Page 12 of 12

1 Laura Dean-Lytle Pinal County Recorder
2 Gilberto Hoyos, Director P. O. Box 848
3 Florence AZ 85232
4 Suzie Sainz Santa Cruz County Recorder
5 Melinda Meek Clerk
6 Santa Cruz County Courthouse P.O. Box 1150
7 Nogales AZ 85628
8 Ann Wayman-Trujillo Yavapai County Recorder
9 Lynn A. Constabile Director
10 1015 Fair Street Prescott AZ 86305
11
Susan Hightower Marler 12 Yuma County Recorder
Patty Madrill 13 Elections Director
410 S. Maiden Lane, Suite B 14 Yuma AZ 85364
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Nina Perales
27

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 27

1 Nina Perales, TX SBN: 24005046 Carlos Becerra, IL SBN: 6285722
2 Diego Bernal, TX SBN: 24048350 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL
3 DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 110 Broadway, Suite 300
4 San Antonio, TX 78205 Ph: (210) 224-5476
5 nperaleimaldef.org cbecerra maldef.org
6 dbernal maldef.org

7 Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., SBN: 005015 ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO,
8 MILLER & ORTEGA 650 North Third Avenue
9 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Ph: (602) 253-3554 .
10 danny@rrngmoinjurylaw.com

11 Attorneys for Gonzalez Plaintiffs
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15

16 MARIA M. GONZALEZ, JESUS M. GONZALEZ BERNIE ABEYTIA,
17 LUCIANO VALENCIt--; DEBBIE LOPEZ, GEORGIA MORRISOI'l FLORES,
18 NAEEM ABDUL-KAREEM, SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION
19 EDUCATION PROJECT,",VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSJ:<" CHICANOS
20 POR LA CAUSA, INC" ARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM
21 COMMON CAUS?l PROJECT VOTE, and ASSOCIATIOI'l
22 OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW
23
Plaintiffs,
24
VS. 25
26 STATE OF ARIZONA, JAN BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of
27 State of the state of Arizona; LeNORA JOHNSON Apache County
28 Recorder"CHRISTINE RHODES, Cochise County, Kecorder, CANDANCE OWENS, Coconino County Recorder, LINDA

Case No. CV-06-1268-PHX-ROS (Lead) Case No. CV-06-1362-PHX-ROS Case No. CV-06-l575-PHX-ROS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [Civil Rights]

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 27

1 HAUGHT ORTEGA, Gila County Recorder, WENDY JOHN, Graham
2 County Recorder, BERTA MANUZ Greenlee County Recorder, SHELLY
3 BAKER, La Paz County Recorder, HELEN PURCELL MaricoRa
4 County Recorder, JOAN McCall. J'I1ohave County Recorder, LAURETTE JuSTMAN,
5 Navajo County Recorder, F. ANN . RODRIGUEZ{rima Coun!)' Recorder,
6 LAURA DEA1~-LYTLE, Pmal County Recorder, SUZIE SAIN~;,Santa Cruz
7 County Recorder, ANN wAYMANTRUJILLO, Yavapai County Recorder,
8 SUSAN HIGHTOWER MARLER, Yuma County Recorder, in their official
9 capacities as County Recorders of the State ofArizona; PENNY L. PEW Apache
10 County Election Director THOMAS SCHELLING, Cochise County Election
11 Director", PATTY HANSEN! Coconino County le.lection Director D XIE
12 MUNDY, Gila County Eiection Director, JUDy DICKERSON, Graham County
13 Election Director, YVONNE PEARSON, Greenlee County Election Director,
14 DONNA J. HALE, La Paz County Election Director, KAREN OSBORNE Maricopa
15 County Election Director, ALLEN TEMPERTl-,Mohave County Election
16 Director, KtoLLY DASTRUP, Navajo County Election Director, BRAD R.
17 NELSO~ Pima County Election Director, GILBERlO HOYOS, Pinal County
18 Election, Director, MELINDA MEEK, Santa Cruz County Election Director,
19 LYNN A. CONSTABILE, Yavayai County Election Director, PATT
20 MADRILL, Yuma County Election Director, in their official
21 capacities as County Election Directors oIthe State of Arizona.
22
Defendants.
23

24

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

25 1. This action challenges the voter registration and identification provIsIOns of

26

Proposition 200, an initiative measure adopted by Arizona voters on November 2,

27

2004, and it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to halt their implementation and

28

enforcement.

2

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 27

1 2. 2 3 4
5 6 3.
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 4.
15 16 17 18
19 5.
20 21 22 23
24 6.
25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the relief requested in this complaint. Unless enjoined by this Court, Arizona's voter registration and identification requirements will continue to impermissibly burden voting and voter registration across the state.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.c. 1343a(3) & (4) and upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 for causes of action arising from 42 U.S.c. 1971 and 1973,42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4, and 42 U. S.c. 2000d. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory reliefis based upon 28 U.S.c. 2201 and 2202. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' constitutional and federal statutory claims is also based upon 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys fees is based on 42 U.S.c. 19731(e) and 1988. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 139l(b).
PARTIES PlaintiffMARlA GONZALEZ is a resident ofYuma County, Arizona. Ms. Gonzalez is a U.S. citizen and qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Yuma County Recorder for failure to provide the documentary proofofU. S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. PlaintiffMARlA GONZALEZ is Latina. Plaintiff JESUS M. GONZALEZ is a resident of Yuma County, Arizona. Mr. Gonzalez is a U.S. citizen and qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Yuma County Recorder for failure to provide the documentary proof ofU.S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff JESUS M. GONZALEZ is Latino. Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA is a resident and registered voter of Maricopa County, Arizona. Mr. ABEYTIA is a Vietnam veteran and the State Commander of the American GI Forum of Arizona, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assisting veterans. Although Mr. ABEYTIA is a qualified voter, he was denied the opportunity to vote in person at the polls because he lacked the identification required by
3

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 27

1 2 3 7. 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9.
18
19 20 21 10. 22 23 24 25 26 27
11. 28

Proposition 200. Mr. ABEYTIA would have to pay a fee in order to acquire the identification required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA is Latino. PlaintiffLUCIANO VALENCIA is a resident ofPirna County, Arizona. Mr. Valencia is a U.S. citizen and a qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Pima County Recorder because, after properly completing a federal mail voter registration application, he did not provide the additional documentary proof of U.S. citizenship required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff LUCIANO VALENCIA is Latino. Plaintiff DEBBIE LOPEZ is a resident and registered voter of Maricopa County. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ fonnerlyworked as the Arizona State Director ofa national non-profit whose mission was to empower Latino citizens in the political process and whose activities focused on voter registration and turnout. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ also volunteers to register voters and attempted to register voters in a communitybased voter registration drive in Maricopa County as recently as April 10, 2006. PlaintiffDEBBIE LOPEZ is Latina and a member ofPlaintiffARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM. Plaintiff NAEEM ABDUL-KAREEM is a U.S. citizen and a qualified voter registration applicant but was denied voter registration by the Maricopa County Recorder because, after completing an Arizona voter registration application, he did not provide additional proof of U.S. Citizenship as required by Proposition 200.
PlaintiffGEORGIA MORRISON FLORES is a resident and registered voter ofYuma County, Arizona. Although Ms. MORRISON FLORES is a qualified voter, she was denied the opportunity to vote in person at the polls in Novemger 2006 because she lacked the identification required by Proposition 200. Ms. MORRISON FLORES would have to pay a fee in order to acquire the identification required by Proposition 200. Plaintiff GEORGIA MORRISON FLORES is African American.
Plaintiff SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT

4

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 5 of 27

1

(SVREP) is a non-profit and non-partisan organization committed to improving the

2

participation ofLatino and other minority communities across the United States in the

3

democratic process, through voter registration, voter education and voter participation

4

activities. Since its founding in 1974, SVREP has conducted more than 2,200 voter

5

registration campaigns in 15 states, including Arizona. SVREP conducts its voter

6

registration activities at community-based sites such as school campuses, malls and

7

fairs. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons that SVREP can

8

register to vote and impaired the ability of SVREP to conduct voter registration and

9

turnout efforts, SVREP has been injured by Proposition 200.

10 12. Plaintiff VALLE DEL SOL is a non-profit and non-partisan organization founded in

11

1960. Valle del Sol has grown to be one of Arizona's largest non-profit, community-

12

based organizations helping men, women, children, families, and the elderly each year

13

through social services and leadership development programs. The mission of

14

VALLE DEL SOL is to inspire positive change by investing in human services,

15

strengthening self-sufficiency for families and building the next generation ofLatino

16

leaders. In order to fulfill its organizational goals, VALLE DEL SOL has conducted

17

voter registration activities in the past and plans to conduct further voter registration

18

activities in the future. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons

19

that VALLE DEL SOL can register to vote and impaired the ability ofVALLE DEL

20

SOL to conduct voter registration efforts, VALLE DEL SOL has been injured by

21

Proposition 200.

22 13. PlaintiffFRIENDLY HOUSE is a social service agency that provides comprehensive
23
family services to over 40,000 families, youth and children a year. Established in 24
1920, FRIENDLY HOUSE was part ofa new national settlement house project ofthe
25
federal government to assist both new immigrants to the United States and the poor. 26
Founded by the Phoenix Americanization Committee, the goal was to teach English
27 and citizenship to foreign-born clients. Today, in addition to offering services focused
28

5

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 6 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
15. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

on youth education, employment and training, social services and adult education, FRIENDLY HOUSE provides low cost, on-site immigration services, including citizenship applications, to the immigrant community in greater Maricopa County and also provides free outreach information through workshops and immigration presentations to various community groups within the targeted areas. Among the organizational goals ofFRIENDLY HOUSE is to promote and ensure the ability of immigrants to naturalize and to participate as U.S. citizens in civic life. FRIENDLY HOUSE also fulfills its organizational mission by conducting community-based voter registration. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of persons that FRIENDLY HOUSE can register to vote and impaired the ability of FRIENDLY HOUSE to conduct voter registration efforts, FRIENDLY HOUSE has been injured by Proposition 200.
Plaintiff CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC. (CPLC) is a statewide community development corporation (CDC), committed to building stronger, healthier communities as a leading advocate, coalition builder and direct service provider. CPLC promotes positive change and self-sufficiency to enhance the quality oflife for the benefit of those it serves. In order to fulfill its organizational goals, CPLC conducts voter registration drives. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number ofpersons that CPLC can register to vote and impaired the ability ofCPLC to conduct voter registration efforts, CPLC has been injured by Proposition 200.
Plaintiff ARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM (AHCF) is a membership advocacy organization that collaborates with other organizations on civil and human rights issues. The mission ofthe AHCF is to empower Hispanic communities: to work towards active participation with policy-making bodies at all levels ofthe public and private sectors; to become involved in local state and national issues impacting the Hispanic community; to educate, promote and preserve Hispanic history, language, cultures, customs, and contributions; to increase opportunities and improve the quality

6

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 7 of 27

1

of life for Hispanics; to defend, preserve and protect rights of Hispanics under the

2

law; and to educate and ensure that the public and private sector provide equal access

3

and fair treatment for Hispanics. In order to fulfill its organizational goals, AHCF

4

conducts voter registration. Because Proposition 200 has limited the number of

5

persons that AHCF can register to vote and impaired the ability of AHCF to conduct

6

voter registration and turnout efforts, AHCF has been injured by Proposition 200.

7 16. Plaintiff PROJECT VOTE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization incorporated in

8

Louisiana with an office in Phoenix. In Arizona Project Vote has helped increase

9

voter registration by registering voters in the community and collaborating with other

10

Arizona-based community groups since 1982. Project Vote also provides professional

11

training, management, evaluation, and technical services for voter engagement and

12

voter participation activities in low and moderate-income communities in Arizona.

13

As a result of Proposition 200, Project Vote has been forced to drastically cut-back

14

on its voter registration activities in Arizona and to divert substantial resources from

15

its speech and association activities to comply with the new registration and voting

16

requirements.

17
17. Plaintiff ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM

18 NOW (ACORN) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with offices in Mesa,

19 Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix. ACORN is the nation's largest community

20 organization oflow and moderate income families, working together for socialjustice

21 and stronger communities. ACORN organizes voter registration drives with the
22 assistance of Project Vote, targeting low and moderate-income families in Arizona.
23 As a result ofProposition 200, ACORN was forced to drastically cut back on its voter

24 registration activities in Arizona.

25

26 18. Plaintiff COMMON CAUSE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen lobby organization

devoted to electoral reform, ethics in government and to the protection and 27

28

preservation of the rights of all citizens to vote in national, state, and local elections,

7

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 8 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 19.
6 7 8 9
20.
10
11 12
13 21.
14 15 16
17 22. 18 19 20
21 23. 22 23 24 24.
25
26
27
28

including the education of voters about voting rights and procedures. In fulfillment of its organizational mission, COMMON CAUSE conducts voter education, among other activities. The membership of COMMON CAUSE includes voters registered in the State of Arizona.
Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA is a state of the United States of America. Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA is subject to the requirements of federal law, including the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Defendant JAN BREWER is sued in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State. Defendant BREWER is the chief election officer of Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementation ofthe provisions of Proposition 200 relating to voting.
Defendant HELEN PURCELL is the Maricopa County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. PURCELL's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant KAREN OSBORNE is the Maricopa County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director ofElections, Ms. OSBORNE is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant LeNORA JOHNSON is the Apache County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. JOHNSON's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant PENNY L. PEW is the Apache County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. PEW is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.

8

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 9 of 27

1 25. 2 3 4 5 26.
6 7 8 9
27.
10 11
12 l3 28.
14 15 16
17 29. 18 19 20

Defendant CHRISTINE RHODES is the Cochise County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. RHODES's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant THOMAS SCHELLING is the Cochise County Director ofElections. He is sued in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. SCHELLING is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant CANDACE OWENS is the Coconino County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. OWENS's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant PATTY HANSEN is the Coconino County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. HANSEN is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant LINDA HAUGHT ORTEGA is the Gila County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. ORTEGA's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.

21 30. Defendant DIXIE MUNDY is the Gila County Director of Elections. She is sued in

22

her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MUNDY is responsible for

23

administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections

24

in the county.

25 31. Defendant WENDY JOHN is the Graham County Recorder. She is sued in her

26

official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. JOHN's responsibilities include voter

27

registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.

28

9

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 10 of 27 10

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 11 of 27

1 2 3 4 40. 5 6 7
8
41. 9
10 11
12 42.
13 14 15 16 17 43. 18 19 20

her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. JUSTMAN's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant KELLY DASTRUP is the Navajo County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. DASTRUP is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant F. ANN RODRIGUEZ is the Pima County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. RODRIGUEZ's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant BRAD NELSON is the Pima County Director of Elections. He is sued in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. NELSON is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant LAURA DEAN-LYTLE is the Pinal County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. DEAN-LYTLE's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.

21 44. 22 23
24
25 45. 26 27 28

Defendant GILBERTO HOYOS is the Pinal County Director ofElections. He is sued in his official capacity. As Director of Elections, Mr. HOYOS is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant SUZIE SAINZ is the Santa Cruz County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. SAINZ's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.

11

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 12 of 27

I 46. 2 3 4 5 47. 6
7 8 9
48.
10
II 12 13 14 49.
15 16 17
18 50. 19 20 21

Defendant MELINDA MEEK is the Santa Cruz County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MEEK is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant ANN WAYMAN-TRUJILLO is the Yavapai County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. WAYMAN-TRUJILLO's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant LYNN CONSTABILE is the Yavapai County Director of Elections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. CONSTABILE is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.
Defendant SUSAN HIGHTOWER MARLER is the Yuma County Recorder. She is sued in her official capacity. As the County Recorder, Ms. MARLER's responsibilities include voter registration for the county as well as the conduct of elections in the county.
Defendant PATTI MADRILL is the Yuma County Director ofElections. She is sued in her official capacity. As Director of Elections, Ms. MADRILL is responsible for administering, preparing, conducting and tallying federal, state and county elections in the county.

22 51. All Defendants are recipients of federal fmancial assistance to conduct voter

23

registration and elections. At all times, all Defendants herein were acting under color

24

oflaw.

25

STATEMENT OF FACTS

26 Proposition 200 Voting-Related Provisions
27

28 52. Proposition 200 is an initiative statute that was submitted to the voters of Arizona at

12

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 13 of 27

1

the November 2,2004 general election. Under the Arizona Constitution, Article IV,

2

Section I, the people of Arizona have the power to enact initiative statutes. Initiative

3

statutes become law "when approved by a majority ofthe votes cast thereon and upon

4

proclamation of the Governor." ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, §§ 1. Proposition 200 was

5

approved by a majority of the votes cast on November 2, 2004 and the Governor

6

issued the required proclamation on December 13,2004.

7 53. Proposition 200 amended a number of election statutes in order to impose new

8

restrictions on voter registration and voting.

9
Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

10

11 54. Section 3 ofProposition 200 amends Section 16-152 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes

12

in order to require that the Arizona voter registration application form include, "A

13

STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF

14

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP WITH THE APPLICATION AND THAT THE

15

REGISTRAR SHALL REJECT THE APPLICATION IF NO EVIDENCE OF

16

CITIZENSHIP IS ATTACHED."

17 55. Section 4 ofProposition 200 amends Section 16-166 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes

18

in order to add a new subsection F which provides in part that the "COUNTY

19

RECORDER SHALL REJECT ANY APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION THAT

20

IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF UNITED

21

STATES CITIZENSHIP."

22 56. Proposition 200 further amends Section 16-166 to define the six identification

23

documents that are satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship: I) an Arizona driver's

24

license issued after October I, 1996, or a license issued by another state that verifies

25

U.S. citizenship prior to issuing licenses; 2) a U.S. birth certificate; 3) a U.S. passport;

26

4) U.S. naturalization documents; 5) another immigration document that proves

27

citizenship; 6) a Bureau ofIndian Affairs card number.

28

13

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 14 of 27

1 57. Section 16-166 (F) (4) as amended by Proposition 200 requires that any voter

2

registration applicant who relies upon a naturalization certificate to prove his or her

3

U.S. citizenship may not submit a photocopy of the certificate but must present the

4

certificate in person to the County Recorder. The voter registration applicant who is

5

a naturalized citizen and who only provides the number of the naturalization

6

certificate on the voter registration application will not be added to the voter rolls until

7

the County Recorder is able to verify that number with the U.S. Immigration and

8

Naturalization Service.

9 Voter Identification for Casting a Ballot at the Polls

10 58. Section 5 ofProposition 200 amends Section 16-579 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes
11 to provide that before receiving a ballot, every qualified elector "SHALL PRESENT
12 ONE FORM OF IDENTIFICATION THAT BEARS THE NAME, ADDRESS AND
13 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ELECTOR OR TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF
14
IDENTIFICATION THAT BEAR THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE 15
ELECTOR." 16
17 59. The "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls," issued by Defendant

18

BREWER on September 6, 2005, provides that acceptable forms of voter photo

19

identification include: a valid Arizona driver license; valid Arizona nonoperating

20

identification license; tribal emollment card or other form of tribal identification; or

21

a valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification. These

22

forms ofidentification are not acceptable for voting unless they bear the same address

23

for the voter as that listed in the county voter rolls.

24 60. The "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls" further provides that

25

acceptable forms ofvoter non-photo identification includes: a utility bill ofthe elector

26

that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election; bank or credit union

27

statement that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election; valid Arizona

28

Vehicle Registration; Indian census card; property tax statement of the elector's

14

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 15 of 27

1

residence; tribal emollment card or other form of tribal identification; vehicle

2

insurance card; Recorder's Certificate; or valid United States federal, state, or local

3

govermnent issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the

4

county recorder. These forms of identification are not acceptable for voting unless

5

they bear the same address as that listed in the rolls for the voter.

6 61. The "Procedure for Proof ofIdentification at the Polls" provides that any voter at the

7

polling place who does not present satisfactory proof of identification will be

8

provided a provisional ballot. In order for the provisional ballot to be counted, the

9

voter must present satisfactory proofofidentification to the County Recorder by 5:00

10

p.m. on the fifth business day after a general election that includes an election for a

11

federal office or 5:00 p.m. on the third business day after any other election.

12 Effect of the Voter Registration and Identification Requirements of Proposition 200
13

14 62. The official Arizona voter registration fonn, promulgated by Defendant BREWER

in March 2005, states that, "A complete voter registration form must also contain
15
proof of citizenship or the form will be rejected." Defendants no longer make
16

17

available or distribute the federal mail voter registration application prescribed by the

U.S. Elections Assistance Commission. Defendants do not provide a postage-paid
18

envelope with the Arizona voter registration application.
19

20 63. On March 6, 2006, the United States Election Assistance Cormnission (EAC) wrote

21

to Defendant BREWER in response to her request that the EAC "apply Arizona state

22

policy (derived from Proposition 200) to the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form."

23

In its letter the EAC informed Defendant BREWER that, "Arizona may not refuse to

24

register individuals to vote in a Federal election for failing to provide supplemental

25

proofofcitizenship, ifthey have properly completed and timely submitted the Federal

26

Registration Form."

27 64. On March 13, 2006, Defendant BREWER responded to the EAC charging that the 28

15

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 16 of 27

1 2 3
4 5
6 65. 7
8 9 10 11
66. 12 13
14 15 16 17
67.
18 19 20
21 68. 22 23 24

EAC's opinion was "completely inconsistent, unlawful, and without merit." The letter further stated that, "After consulting with the Arizona Attorney General, I will instruct Arizona's county recorders to continue to administer and enforce the requirement that all voters provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote as specified in A.R.S. § 16-166(F)."
On March 13, 2006, State Election Director Joseph Kanefield wrote to the State's county recorders informing them of Defendant BREWER's "position that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth in A.R.S. § 16-166(F) must continue to be enforced for all newly registered voters and voters moving from one county to another."
On May 3, 2006, Plaintiff LUCIANO VALENCIA appeared in person at the Pima County Recorder's Office and presented the clerk with a completed federal mail voter registration form prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The clerk did not accept the federal mail voter registration form and informed Mr. Valencia that he could not be registered without documentary proof of citizenship because of the requirements of Proposition 200.
PlaintiffNaeem Abdul-Kareem was also denied voter registration because he did not provide the additional proof of citizenship required by Proposition 200. He applied to vote through an Arizona ACORN and Project Vote voter registration drive
Upon information and belief, all Defendant Arizona county recorders are complying with Defendant BREWER's directive to them that they reject properly-completed federal mail voter registration applications that are not accompanied by the documentary proof of citizenship required by Proposition 200.

25 69. As a result of Proposition 200, naturalized citizens who seek to register to vote and

26

use their naturalization document as proof of U.S. citizenship are forced to present

27

their naturalization document in person at the office of the County Recorder.

28

16

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 17 of 27

1 2 3 70.
4 5 6 7 8
71.
9 10 11
12 13
72.
14 15 16 17
18 73. 19 20 21

Naturalized citizens may not provide a photocopy of the naturalization docwnent to the County Recorder.
On August 18, 2005, Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ properly completed voter registration applications and submitted their applications to the Ywna County Recorder. As required, Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ provided the number of their certificate of naturalization on the voter registration form.
Plaintiffs MARIA GONZALEZ and JESUS GONZALEZ subsequently received from the Ywna County Recorder a notice informing them that they did not provide satisfactory proof ofcitizenship and enclosing their original registration applications with an indication that they must provide personal immigration information not required by Proposition 200.
Defendants STATE OF ARIZONA and BREWER did not state, in their submission to the U.S. Department ofJustice requesting Section 5 preclearance of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200, that they would cease to use and accept the federal mail voter registration form for registering voters for federal elections in Arizona.
As a result ofthe new proof of citizenship requirements imposed by Proposition 200, Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC,AHCF, PROJECT VOTE AND ACORN are impeded in their ability to conduct communitybased voter registration.

22 74. In order to successfully register voters in the community, Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP,

23

VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC, AHCF, PROJECT VOTE AND

24

ACORN must now carry with them a photocopy machine or computer scanner and

25

printer in order to make copies of citizenship documents for all voter registration

26

applicants who do not have a driver's license or state identification card issued after

27

1996. Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRIENDLY HOUSE, CPLC,

28

17

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 18 of 27

1
2
3 4 5 6
7 75. 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
76.
15 16 17 18 19
20 21 77. 22
23
24 25 26 78. 27 28

AHCF~PROJECT VOTE AND ACORN may no longer use the pre-paid federal mail voter registration applications in their voter registration campaigns. Plaintiffs LOPEZ, SVREP, VALLE DEL SOL, FRlENDLY HOUSE, CPLC, AHCF,PROJECT VOTE AND ACORN's inability to bring photocopy equipment to malls, school campuses and community gatherings has injured them by severely limiting their ability to register voters.
Latinos, among other ethnic groups, are less likely to possess the fonns of identification required under Proposition 200 to register to vote and cast a ballot. As a result, significant numbers ofLatinos attempting to register and tum out to vote are denied the right to vote. In addition, because Latinos comprise a large proportion of naturalized citizens in Arizona, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement imposed by Proposition 200 on naturalized citizens has a disparate negative effect on voter registration by Latinos.
Plaintiffs have provided written notice on three separate occasions to Defendant BREWER infonning her that Arizona is not in compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). On November 30, 2004, PlaintiffFRIENDLY HOUSE filed a written complaint in the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Arizona naming Defendant BREWER and alleging that Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship requirement was pre-empted by the NVRA.
On March 27,2006, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant BREWER stating that the implementation of Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship requirement had placed Arizona in violation of the NVRA. Plaintiffs sent a second letter to Defendant BREWER on April 17, 2006 reiterating that Arizona was not in compliance with the NVRA.
On April 20, 2006, Joseph Kanefield, Arizona State Election Director, wrote to the State's County Recorders informing them that the Arizona Secretary of State's office had received notices of intent to file suit and that "it is very likely that the county

18

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 19 of 27

1
2 79.
3 4 5
6 so.
7
8 9
10
11 12
Sl.
13
14
15 16 17 18
19 S2. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

recorders will be named in these suits when they are filed."
Early voting for the federal and state primary election in Arizona begins August 10, 2006. Defendants BREWER and STATE OF ARlZONA received Plaintiffs April 17, 2006 letter on April IS, 2006 and it has been more than twenty days since their receipt of the letter.
Plaintiff BERNIE ABEYTIA seeks to cast his ballot their ballots at the polls in the next election. Although he is a registered an qualified voter in Maricopa County, Mr. Abeytia does not possess the identification documents required by Proposition 200 for voting at the polls. As a result of Proposition 200's new proof of identification requirements, Mr. Abeytia will be denied the opportunity to vote in person on Election Day unless he pays a fee for identification documents specified by Proposition 200.
Plaintiff GEORGIA MORRlSON FORRESTER sought to cast her ballot during the November 2006 election. Although she is a registered voter in Yuman County, Ms. Morrison Forrester did not possess the identification documents required by Proposition 200 for voting at the polls on election day. As a result of Proposition 200's new proof of identification requirements, Ms. Morrison Forrester was denied the opportunity to vote in person on Election Day.
Organizational plaintiffs have also expended scarce and valuable organizational resources informing voters ofthe new voting identification requirements in an attempt to prevent Proposition 200 from blocking qualified voters from voting. The organizational plaintiffs have been injured by the voter identification provisions of Proposition 200 because their resources are drained by the effort to assist voters in navigating the new identification requirements. Without the voter identification provisions of Proposition 200, the organizational plaintiffs would be able to spend their limited resources reaching more voters with their voter registration and turnout efforts.

19

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 20 of 27

1 83. 2
3 4 5 6
84.
7
8 85.
9 10
11 86. 12
13
14
15 16
17 87.
18
19 88. 20 21 22 23 89. 24
25 26
27 28

Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant Arizona county recorders are implementing the documentary proof of citizenship and identification requirements set out in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here. Defendants' implementation ofthe documentary proofofcitizenship requirements of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order pennanently enjoining their enforcement.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
By preventing Plaintiffs from using federal mail voter registration application fonns, and forcing them to comply with Proposition 200's documentary proof of citizenship in order to register voters, Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their free speech and associational right to conduct voter registration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order pennanently enjoining their enforcement.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

20

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 21 of 27

1 90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

2 91. By requiring that voters pay a fee in order to acquire specific identification documents

3

to prove either U.S. citizenship or identity, Proposition 200 imposes the substantive

4

equivalent of a poll tax on Arizona voters.

5
92. 6 7
8
9

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 (Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. States Constitution)

11 93.
12
94. 13
14
15 16
17 95.
18
19
20

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
By requiring that voters pay a fee in order to acquire specific identification documents to prove either U.S. citizenship or identity, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 impermissibly burden the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In addition, by placing greater burdens ofregistration on naturalized voters, Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 impermissibly burden the fundamental right to vote in violation ofthe Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

21 96. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

22

Proposition 200 are unconstitutional and to an order permanently enjoining their

23

enforcement.

24

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973)
26
97. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here. 27

28 98. Proposition 200's requirement that the county recorder reject applications for

21

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 22 of 27

1

registration that do not include satisfactory evidence ofcitizenship disparately affects

2

Latino voters, unlawfully dilutes Latino voters' right to vote, and provides them with

3

less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political

4

process.

5 99. Proposition 200's requirement that voters possess certain forms of identification to

6

cast a ballot disparately affects Latino voters, unlawfully dilutes Latino voters' right

7

to vote, and provides them with less opportunity than other members of the electorate

8

to participate in the political process.

9
100. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

10
Proposition 200 violate their rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and to 11
an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

12

13

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

(42 U.S.C. 1971 (a)(2)(A))

15 10 1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if setforth fully here.

16 102. Proposition 200 violates Subsection (a)(2)(a) of Section 1971 ofthe Civil Rights Act

17

which requires states use the same procedures in determining voter eligibility for all

18

individuals within the same county. Proposition 200 requires registrants who are new

19

to a county to provide proof of citizenship while exempting intra-county registrants

20

from this requirement.

21
103. Proposition 200 also violates Subsection (a)(2)(A) of Section 1971 of the Civil 22
Rights Act because it exempts residents with an Arizona driver or nonoperating
23
licenses issued after October 1, 1996 from providing evidence of citizenahip
24
prior to registering to vote. 25

26 104. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

27

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under 42 U.S.C. 1971

28

(a)(2)(A) and to an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

22

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 23 of 27

1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965)

3
105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
4

106. Defendants have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C. 2000d,
5

6

et seq. by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of,

and subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination under Arizona election-related programs
7

or activities receiving federal financial assistance on the basis oftheir national origin.
8

9 107. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

10

of Sections 3 and 4 ofProposition 200 violates their rights under Title VI ofthe Civil

11

Rights Act of 1964 and to an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

12

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13

(National Voter Registration Act of 1993)

14 108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
15

16 109. Defendants' implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates Section

17

6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.c. 1973gg-4,

18

which requires the State of Arizona to accept and use the mail voter registration

19

application form prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission pursuant to

20

42 U.S.C. I 973gg-7(a)(2) for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.

21 110. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

22

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under the NVRA and to

23

an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

24

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (16-121. 0 I, Arizona Revised Statutes)
26
Ill. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here. 27

28 112. The enforcement of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 by Defendants violates 16-

23

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 24 of 27

1

121.0 I of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which provides that a person is presumed to

2

be properly registered to vote on completion of a registration form that includes,

3

among other things, an affirmation ofU.S. citizenship and without the submission of

4

further documentary proof of citizenship.

5 113. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

6

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under A.R.S. Section 16-

7

121.01 and to an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

8
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9
(16-151 (B), Arizona Revised Statutes)
10

11 114. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully here.

12 115. Defendants' failure to make available the federal mail voter registration applications

13

now prescribed by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission violates Section 16-151

14

(B) ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes, which provides that "The secretary ofstate shall

15

make available for distribution through governmental and private entities the voter

16

registration forms that are prescribed by the federal election commission."

17 116. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants' implementation

18

of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under A.R.S. Section 16-

19

lSI (B) and to an order permanently enjoining their enforcement.

20

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21

22

(Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 42 U.S.c. 1973 FF)

23 117. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully

24

here.

25 118. Proposition 200 violates the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting

26

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 FF, which requires states to accept and use the federal post

27

card application for voter registration by uniformed services voters and overseas

28

voters.

24

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 25 of 27

1 119. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants'

2

implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200 violates their rights under

3

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and to an order

4

permanently enjoining their enforcement.

5

REOUEST FOR RELIEF

6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
7
Issue a declaration that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Proposition 200 are unconstitutional
8
and illegal and of no force or effect; 9

10

Enter an order enjoining Defendants, their agents and successors in office, from

11 implementing Sections 3, 4, and 5 or any subpart thereof of Proposition 200;

12

Enter an order enjoining the Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and

13 all persons acting in concert with any of them, from failing to comply with the

14 requirements of Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 U.S.c. 1973ff-5 and UOCAVA;

15

Enter an order requiring Defendants, their agents and successors in office to make

16 available, use and accept the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the

17 Election Assistance Commission as required by Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C.

18 1973gg-4;

19
Enter an order requiring Defendants, their agents and successors in office, to use
20
and accept the federal postcard application form prescribed by UOCAVA;
21

22

Enter an order requiring Defendants to take all steps necessary, including the

23 adoption of the appropriate administrative policies or rules, to make the voter registration

24 form prescribed by the Elections Assistance Commission available and to. register those

25 voter registration applicants who complete and submit the mail voter registration

26 application form prescribed by the Elections Assistance Commission;

27

Enter an order requiring Defendants to immediately add to the voter registration

28 rolls those voter registration applicants who previously submitted to any County Recorder

25

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 26 of 27

1 a completed voter registration application and whose application was rejected for failure

2 to provide documentary proof of citizenship as required by Sections 3 and 4 of

3 Proposition 200.

4

Enter an order requiring Defendants to publicize effectively the remedial plans and

5 programs ordered by the Court to ensure widespread dissemination to State of Arizona

6 residents, among others, especially those who, at the time of the Court's order, may have

7 been denied the opportunity to register to vote in Arizona for failure to provide proof of

8 citizenship as required by Sections 3 and 4 of Proposition 200;

9 Enter an order requiring Defendants to provide the Court within 45 days from the
10
date of the Court's order (l) a plan or program designed to ensure that Defendants, their
11
agents and successors in office, will make available, use and accept the federal mail voter
12
registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission as 13
required by Section 6 of the NVRA, 42 V.S.c. 1973 gg-4, as well as the federal postcard
14 application form prescribed by VOCAVA;
15
Award Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs incurred in this action under 42 V.S.c. §§
16
1988;
17

18

Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper; and

19

Maintainjurisdiction over this action.

20 Dated: August 17,2007
21
22
23 24

Respectfully submitted,

By:

slNina Perales

Nina Perales Daniel R. Ortega, Ir. Attorneys for Gonzalez Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

26

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 352 Filed 10/01/07 Page 27 of 27

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on the 171h day of August, 2007 I caused the foregoing

document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the CMJECF System

3 for filing and transmittal ofa Notice of Electronic Filing to CMJECF registrants.

4 COpy of the foregoing mailed with Notice
5 of Electronic Filing thIS 17th day of August, 2007 to:

6 The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver United States District Court
7 Sandra DayO'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624 401 West Washington Street, SPC 59
8 Phoenix, AZ 850()]-2158

9

lsi

Nina Perales

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 554 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

The Parties have submitted statements summarizing their position on the discovery issue in

18 dispute. First, no conflict exists between Gonzal ez Plaintiffs’ request and Article VII, § 1 of the

19 Arizona Constitution. The Arizona Constitution provides: “All elections by the people shall be by

20 ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall

21 be preserved.” Gonz alez Plaintiffs’ request doe s not jeopardize “secrecy in voting.” Gonzalez

22 Plaintiffs only request “copies of the outside oefnvelopes containing conditional provisional ballots

23 that were never counted.” Even assuming that the Arizona Constitution prevents Defendants from

24 producing the conditional provisional ballots, copiesof the outside of theenvelopes will not reveal

25 for whom the voter voted. Further, this information will be subject to the protective order already

26 in place. Second, if, as County De fendants submit, they do not have custody or control of the

27 uncounted provisional ballot envelopes, Gonzalez Pal intiffs may subpoena, as allowed by the rules,

28 the appropriate entity.

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 554 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2

1

2

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2008.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 1 of 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

Pending is State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First, Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth,

18 Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of Action of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

19 (Doc. 401.) For the reasons below, the motion will be granted.

20 I. Background

21

Maria M. Gonzalez, et al. (“Gonzalez Plaintiffs”) filed this action on May 9, 2006,

22 challenging the voting requirem ents enacted as part of Proposition 200. ( Doc. 1.) The

23 complaint asserted claims based on the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, Twenty-

24 Fourth Amendment, Equal Protection, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, § 5 of the Voting Rights

25 Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, A.R.S. § 16-

26 121.01, and A.R.S. § 16-151(B). On August 17, 2007, Gonzalez Plaintiffs moved for leave

27 to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 323.) Before ruling on this motion, on August 28,

28 2007, the Court granted summary judgment against Gonzalez Plaintiffs, leaving only their

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 7

1 Equal Protection, First Amendment, Title VI, and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act claims. (Doc.

2 330.)

3

On October 1, 2007, the Court granted Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file

4 an amended complaint. (Doc. 351.) The amended complaint includes all the claims in the

5 original complaint except the claim regarding § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (SeeDoc. 352.)

6 It also adds five new plaintiffs and incl udes two new claims based on the Uniform ed and

7 Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”) and the Civil Rights Act. The

8 organizational Gonzalez Plaintiffs1 and Plaintiff Debbie Lopez have alleged that, “[a] s a

9 result of the new proof of citizenship requirements imposed by Proposition 200,” they “are

10 impeded in their ability to conduct community-based voter registration.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 73.)

11 Specifically, they allege that, “to successfully register voters in the community,” they must

12 now carry a photocopy m achine or com puter scanner and printer to m ake copies of

13 citizenship documents, but their “inability to bring photocopy equipm ent to malls, school

14 campuses and community gatherings has injured them by severely limiting their ability to

15 register voters.” (Id. ¶ 74.) The com plaint also alleges that “Latinos, am ong other ethnic

16 groups, are less likely to possess the forms of identification required under Proposition 200

17 to register to vote and cast a ballot.” (Id. ¶ 75.)

18

On October 16, 2007, Defendants State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State

19 (“Defendants”) moved to dismiss the UOCAVA and Civil Right Act claim s for lack of

20 standing.2 They also m oved to dismiss the claims upon which the Court has previously

21 entered judgment under the law of the case doctrine. (See Doc. 401.)

22

23

24

1 The organizational Gonzalez Plaintiffs in the amended complaint include Southwest

25

Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, Arizona Hispanic Com munity Forum, Project Vote, Association of Com munity

26 Organizations for Reform Now, and Common Cause.

27

2 In the alternative, Defendants moved to dismiss these claims on the merits.

28

- 2 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 3 of 7

1 II. Motion to Dismiss Standard

2

“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250

3 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true

4 all material allegations in the complaint and construes them in a light most favorable to the

5 plaintiff. Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit , 279 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir.

6 2002). “While a com plaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dismiss does not need

7 detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement

8 to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

9 of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964–65

10 (2007) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations om itted). A com plaint must plead

11 "enough facts to state a claimto relief that is plausible on its face.”Id. at 1974. It is not sufficient

12 that a pleading leaves “open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some set of

13 undisclosed facts to support recovery.” Id.at 1968; see alsoCar Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor

14 Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984) (cited in Twom bly, 127 S. Ct. at 1969) (“a

15 complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material

16 elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory”).

17 III. Standing

18

Defendants claim that Gonzalez Pla intiffs lack standing to bring claim s under the

19 UOCAVA and the Civil Rights Act. The Court agrees. “Article III of the Constitution

20 requires a plaintiff attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts to demonstrate

21 that he has standing.” Loritz v. U.S. Court. of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 382 F.3d 990, 991

22 (9th Cir. 2004). “A plaintiff filing an action in federal court has the burden of alleging

23 specific facts sufficient to satisfy the standing elem ents.” Id. at 992 (em phasis added).

24 Article III standing has three elements: “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in

25 fact’ that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Second, there must be a causal

26 link between the injury and the conduct of which the plaintiff complains. Third, it must be

27 likely that a favorable decision will redress the plaintiff’s injury.” Skaff v. Meridien N. Am.

28

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 4 of 7

1 Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2007). “Since [these elements] are not mere

2 pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element

3 must be supported in the sam e way as any other m atter on which the plaintiff be ars the

4 burden of proof, i.e., with the ma nner and degree of evidence required at the successive

5 stages of the litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (internal

6 quotations and alterations omitted).

7

“At the pleading sta ge, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the

8 defendant’s conduct m ay suffice, for on a m otion to dism iss we pres ume that general

9 allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim .” Id. “To

10 survive a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dismiss, [a plaintiff] must allege facts in his Am ended

11 Complaint that, if proven, would confer standing upon him .” Sacks v. Office of Fore ign

12 Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 771 (9th Cir. 2006). For example, when a lawyer challenged

13 a Ninth Circuit Rule limiting the circumstances in which a party could rely on unpublished

14 opinions, the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal for lack of standing because the lawyer did “not

15 even assert that, as a result of the CircuitRules, he has abstained fromciting an unpublished

16 decision that he believed would serve as a helpful precedent.” Ida.t 821; see alsoLoritz, 382

17 F.3d at 992 (upholding dismissal for lack of standing when plaintiff challenged the Ninth

18 Circuit Rules concerning non-publication of dipsosition appeals because the plaintiff did “not

19 show that the outcome of his particular case could have been affected were he able to cite an

20 unpublished disposition”).

21

A. UOCAVA

22

Gonzalez Plaintiffs allege that “Proposition 200 violates the [ UOCAVA], which

23 requires states to accept and us e the federal post card application for voter registration by

24 uniformed services voters and overseas voters.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 118.) The UOCAVA allows

25 uniformed services voters and overseas voters to submit an official federal post card form

26 containing an absentee voter registration application and an absentee ballot application. See

27 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-1(a)(1)–(4). An “absent uniformed services voter” is

28

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 5 of 7

1

(A) a member of a uniformed service on active duty who, by reason of such

active duty, is absent from the place of residence where the m ember is

2

otherwise qualified to vote; (B) a m ember of the m erchant marine who, by

reason of service in the merchant marine, is absent fromthe place of residence

3

where the m ember is otherwise qualified to vote; and (C) a spouse or

dependent of a member referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) who, by reason

4

of the active duty or service of the m ember, is absent from the place of

residence where the spouse or dependent is otherwise qualified to vote.

5

Id. § 1973ff-6(1). An “overseas voter”is

6

(A) an absent uniform ed services voter who, by reason of active duty or

7

service is absent from the United States on the date of the election involved;

(B) a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in

8

the last place in which the person was dom iciled before leaving the United

States; or (C) a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such

9

residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was

domiciled before leaving the United States.

10

Id. § 1973ff-6(5). Thus, the UOCAVA “provides for registration and voting by United States

11

citizens who formerly resided in one of the staets and now live abroad or serve in the military

12

abroad, in elections for federal office.” Deborah F. Buckm an, Validity, Construction, and

13

Application of Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§

14

1973ff, et seq., 1 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 251 (2005).

15

However, Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ complaint only alleges that Proposition 200 impeded

16

their “community based voter registration.” Because the UOCAVA provides for registration

17

of those who no longer reside in the community, the Court cannot presume that the general

18

allegation that the organizational Plaintiffs engaged in “community based voter registration”

19

also encompasses registration of those out side the com munity. F urther, the am ended

20

complaint does not even assert that any of the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attepmted to use,

21

much less are eligible to use, the federal post card application to register to vote as absent

22

uniformed services voters or overseas voters. Thus, Gonzalez Plaintiffs lack standing to

23

assert claims under the UOCAVA because they have m ade no allegation that links their

24

alleged injury to the alleged violation of the UOCAVA.

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 6 of 7

1

B. Civil Rights Act

2

Gonzalez Plaintiffs also allege that Proposition 200 violates § 1971(a)(2)(A) of the

3 Civil Rights Act by requiring “registrants who are new to a county to provide proof of

4 citizenship while exem pting intra-county registrants from this requirem ent” and by

5 exempting “residents with an Arizona driver or nonoperating license[]issued after October

6 1, 1996 from providing evidence of citzen[s]hip prior to registering to vote.” (Am. Compl.

7 ¶¶ 102–03.) The Civil Rights Act provides:

8

No person acting under color of law shall . . . in determ ining whether any

9

individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different fromthe standards, practices, or

10

procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the saem county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State

11

officials to be qualified to vote.

12 42 U.S.C.A. § 1971(a)(2)(A). Essentially, Gonzalez Plaintiffs contend that Proposition 200

13 violates the Civil Rights Act by (1) treating individuals with a drivers license issued before

14 October 1, 1996 in a county differently than individuals with licenses issued after October

15 1, 1996 within the same county, and (2) treating individuals who recently move to a county

16 differently than registered voters who already reside in the same county. (Pls.’ Resp. at 4–6.)

17

Again, Gonzalez Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific facts that link the alleged injury

18 to the alleged violation of § 1971(a)(2)(A). The organizational Gonzalez Plaintiffs and

19 Plaintiff Debbie Lopez did not allege that they attempted to register voters who possessed

20 an Arizona licenses issued before October 1, 1996 but lacked other proof of citizenship.

21 Further, they did not allege that they attempted to register voters who previously registered

22 in one Arizona county and moved to another Arizona county but lacked proof of citizenship.

23 Similarly, none of the other individual Gonzalez Plaintiffs alleged tha t they were
24 unable to register because they possessed an Arizona license issued before October 1, 1996
25 but lacked other proof of citizenship. They also did not allege that they were registered in
26 one Arizona county but were unable to register after moving to another Arizona county. See
27

28

- 6 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 611 Filed 02/05/08 Page 7 of 7

1 Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 759 n.9 (1973) (finding that petitioners lacked standing

2 to raise claims that durational residency requirements of a voting law were unconstitutional

3 when they made “no claimthat they [were]recently arrived residents of the State or that they

4 [had] moved from one county to another nor even that they [had]changed their residence at

5 all within the period relevant”) Thus, Gonzalez Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing

6 for their Civil Right Act claims.

7 IV. Law of the Case Doctrine
8 The amended complaint asserts claims based upon the Supremacy Clause, the Twenty-
9 Fourth Amendment, National Voter Registration Act, A.R.S. § 16-121.01, and A.R.S. § 16-
10 151(B). The Court entered judgment on each of these claims in favor of Defendants. (Doc.
11 330.) “Under the law of the case doctrine, a court is generally precluded fromreconsidering
12 an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.” Ingle
13 v. Circuit City , 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs concede that they ca nnot
14 relitigate these claims. (Pls.’ Resp. at 14–15.) Thus, the Court will dismiss these claims.
15

16 Accordingly,
17 IT IS ORDERED State Defendants’ Motion to Dism iss the F irst, Third, Sixth,
18 Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of Action of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ First
19 Amended Complaint (Doc. 401) is GRANTED.
20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ Sixth and Eleventh Causes of
21 Action are DISMISSED without PREJUDICE.
22 IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDGonzalez Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth
23 Causes of Action are DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
24 DATED this 5th day of February, 2008.
25

26

27

28

- 7 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 661 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

Pending are the parties’ discovery dispute (Docs. 599–602) and the objections and

18 motions to quash filed by various county treasurers (Docs. 614, 619, 620, 631, 634, 637, 644,

19 646). After review of the briefs and the relevant law, the Court finds no conflict between the

20 Arizona statutes cited and Gonzales Plaintiffs’ discovery request. Further, the request will not

21 cause an undue burden.

22

The county treasurers will be required to produce copies of the outside of envelopes

23 containing conditional provisional ballots that were never counted. Further, the Court will

24 extend the discovery deadline for two weeks from the date of this Order for the limited purpose

25 of allowing production of these copies. The county treasurers and Gonzalez Plaintiffs shall work

26 in good faith to ensure that these documents are produced in the most efficient and least

27 burdensome manner. This production will be subject to the protective order already in place.

28

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 661 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED the county treasurers shall produce the requested copies of the outside

3 of envelopes containing conditional provisional ballots that were never counted within two

4 weeks of the date of this Order.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the discovery deadline is extended by two weeks from
6 the date of this Order for the limited purpose of allowing production of the subpoenaed
7 documents.
8

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Docs. 614, 631, 637, and 644 are DENIED.

10

DATED this 21st day of February, 2008.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Gonzalez Plaintiffs

17 for Lack of Standing.1 For the reasons stated herein, this motion will be granted in part and

18 denied in part.

19 I. Factual Background

20

A. Proposition 200

21

On November 2, 2004, Arizona voters approved a voter initiative called Proposition

22 200, which was officially proclaimed law by Governor Janet Napolitano on December 13,

23

24

1 Plaintiffs Maria Gonzalez, Jesus Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Georgia Morrison-

Flores, Debbie Lopez, NaeemAbdul-Kareem, and Luciano Valencia are collectively referred

25 to as “Gonzalez Plaintiffs.”

26

Gonzalez Plaintiffs have not objected to the dismissal of Naeem Abdul-Kareem and Luciano Valencia, so Abdul-Kareem and Valencia will be dism issed. See L. R. Civ. P.

27 7.2(i).

In addition, Defendants have withdrawn their challenge to the standing of Debbie 28 Lopez. (Doc. 780).

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 11

1 2004. (Doc. 352 ¶ 52). Relevant here, Proposition 200 requires voter registrants to provide

2 proof of U.S. citizenship before their application for registration may be accepted, and voters

3 seeking to cast their ballot in person on election day to provide proof of identification. (Id.

4 ¶¶ 54-55, 58).

5

1. Proof of Citizenship

6

Proposition 200, which am ended A.R.S. §§ 16-152, -166, requires individuals

7 wishing to register to vote to provi de proof of citizenship. (Id. ¶¶ 54-55). Six types of

8 documents provide the required proof: (1) an Arizona driver’s license issued after October

9 1, 1996, or a license issued by another state that verifies U.S. citizenship prior to issuing

10 licenses; (2) a U.S. birth certificate; (3) a U.S. passport; (4) U.S. naturalization documents;

11 (5) other documents established pursuant to the Im migration Reform and Control Ac t of

12 1986; or (6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card num ber, tribal treaty card num ber, or tribal

13 enrollment number. A.R.S. § 16-166.

14

2. Voter Identification

15

a. Voting In-Person on Election Day

16

Proposition 200 also amended A.R.S. § 16-579, requiring an elector voting in-person

17 on election day to present identification to the poll workers. (Doc. 352 ¶ 58). A voter may

18 obtain a regular ballot only by presenting either one form of identification with her

19 photograph, name, and address, or two form s of identification that be ar her name and

20 address. (A.R.S. § 16-579(A); Doc. 435, Ex. 4 at 113).

21

The Secretary of State has promulgated regulations setting forth the specific types of

22 identification that are acceptable. (Doc. 435, Ex. 4). Acceptable forms of identification with

23 a photograph, nam e, and address are: a driver license issued after October 1, 1996;

24 nonoperating identification license; tribal enrollm ent card or other form of tribal

25 identification; or some other federal, state, or local government issued identification. (Doc.

26 435, Ex. 4 at 113).

27

28

- 2 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 11

1

Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the nam e and

2 address of the elector are: utility bill; bank or credit union statem ent; vehicle registration;

3 Indian census card; property tax statem ent; tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal

4 identification; vehicle insurance card; recorder' s certificate; or federal, state, or local

5 government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county

6 recorder. (Id. at 113-14).

7

b. Voting Early

8

Proposition 200 did not change the requirements for voting early. Every registered

9 voter is eligible to vote by early ballot. A.R.S. § 16-541. Docum entation demonstrating

10 proof of identification is not required to obtain or submit an early ballot. A.R.S. §§ 16-542,

11 47. An early ballot may be mailed or dropped off at a polling place by 7:00 p.m. on election

12 day. A.R.S. § 16-548.

13

Counties also allow for in-person early voting at certain polling places. (Doc. 219 at

14 3). No identification is required of early voters that wish to vote in-person. (Id.)

15

B. Gonzalez Plaintiffs

16

In their Amended Complaint, filed October 1, 2007, the Gonzalez Plaintiffs allege that

17 Proposition 200 violates the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

18 Amendment, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a), and Title VI of the

19 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,et seq.2 (Doc. 352). They seek injunctive and

20 declaratory relief, but not damages. (Id.).

21

1. Maria Gonzalez

22

Maria Gonzalez was born in Mexico, and is Hispanic/Latina. (Doc. 487, Ex. 1 at 37).

23 On August 18, 2005, she became a naturalized citizen of the United States. (Ida.t 36). After

24 the naturalization ceremony, she applied to register to vote using the num ber from her

25

26

27

2 Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ other claims were dismissed on February 5, 2008. (Doc. 611).

28

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 4 of 11

1 certificate of naturalization, rather than her alien registration number, as proof of citizenship.

2 (Id.) Her application was denied for failure to provide proof of citizenship. (Id.)

3

Maria Gonzalez adm itted that she possesses the proof of citizenship require d by

4 Proposition 200, and currently is registered to vote in Arizona. (Doc. 435, Ex. 2).

5

2. Jesus Gonzalez

6

Jesus Gonzalez was born in Mexico, and is Hispanic/Latino. (Doc. 487, Ex. 1 at 27).

7 On August 18, 2005, Jesus Gonzalez became a naturalized citizen of the United States. (Id.

8 at 26). After the na turalization ceremony, he applied to register to vote using the num ber

9 from her certificate of naturalization, rather than his alien registration number, as proof of

10 citizenship. (Id.) His application was denied for failure to provide proof of citizenship. (I)d.

11

In October 2006, Jesus Gonzalez again attempted to register to vote using his Arizona

12 driver’s license. (Id.) He did not attempt to utilize his alien registration number. (See id.)

13 His application was denied because his Arizona driver’s license was issued to him before

14 October 1, 1996. (Id.)

15

Jesus Gonzalez adm its that he possesses the proof of citiz enship required by

16 Proposition 200, but is not currently registered to vote. (Doc. 435, Ex. 2).

17

3. Bernie Abeytia

18

Abeytia is a U.S. citizen, a Latino, and is registered to vote. (Doc. 352 ¶ 6). He

19 possesses an Arizona driver’s license issued after October 1, 1996, but his license lists his

20 post office box, not his street address. (Doc. 487, Ex. 1 at 41). This is because he wants to

21 protect his personal information from identity theft. (Id.) For the same reason, he uses a post

22 office box for his utility bills and bank statem ents. (Id.) Abeytia’s street address, not his

23 post office box, is the address on the voter rolls. (See id. at 42).

24

4. Georgia Morrison-Flores

25

Morrison-Flores is a U.S . citizen, an African-Am erican, and is registered to vote.

26 (Doc. 352 ¶ 10). She still has her voter registration card. (Doc. 487, Ex. 1 at 46; Doc. 696,

27 Ex. 24 at 77:11-23).

28

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 5 of 11

1

On November 7, 2006, Morrison-Flores attempted to vote at her polling place using

2 her license as proof of identification, but was not allowed to because the name on the voter

3 rolls did not match the name of her license. (Doc. 487, Ex. 1 at 46). Specifically, her license

4 at the time reflected the name “Georgia A. Morrison-Vasquez,” but the voter rolls reflected

5 the name “Georgia Ann Flores-Morrison.” (Id.)

6

In April 2007, Morrison-Flores updated her drivers’ license to read “Georgia Ann

7 Morrison-Flores,” but the voter rolls still reflect the name “Georgia Ann Flores-Morrison.”

8 (Doc. 617, Exs. 20, 21).

9

In December 2007, Morrison-Flores opened a bank account at SunBank, fromwhich

10 she receives monthly statements. (Doc. 696, Ex. Tab 24 at 22:3-25).

11

On February 8, 2008, she attem pted, but was unable, to vote in the Presidential

12 Preference Election. (Doc. 679, Ex. 1, Tab 2). Morrison-Flores asserts the reason was that

13 the name on her drivers’ license did not match the voter database printouts. (Doc. 679). The

14 State asserts that she was not allowed to vote because that election was restricted to voters

15 registered with a party preference, and Morri son-Flores did not designate a political party

16 preference when she registered to vote. (Doc. 696, Exs. 22, 23).

17

Morrison-Flores joined this lawsuit on October 1, 2007. (Doc. 352).

18 II. Standard of Review

19

Jurisdictional attacks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) can be either

20 facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004);

21 Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003); White v. Lee,

22 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). In a facial attack, “the challenger asse rts that the

23 allegations contained in a com plaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal

24 jurisdiction,” while, in a factual attack, “[he] disputes the truth of the allegations that, by

25 themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Meyer , 373 F.3d at 1039. The

26 State’s jurisdictional attack is factual because it does not assert a lack of standing solely on

27 the basis of the complaint and relies on extrinsic evidence. See id.

28

- 5 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 6 of 11

1

In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the Court “ is not confined by the facts

2 contained in the four corners of the complaint—it may consider facts and need not assume

3 the truthfulness of the complaint.” Americopters, LLC v. F.A.A., 441 F.3d 726, 732 n.4 (9th

4 Cir. 2006); see also Meyer, 373 F.3d at 1039; White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

5 2000). “Once the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by

6 presenting affidavits or evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the m otion

7 must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

8 subject matter jurisdiction.” Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch,. 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2

9 (9th Cir. 2003); see alsoWolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting the

10 same).

11 III. Justiciability Doctrines: Standing and Mootness

12

The State challenges the Court’s jurisdiction over the Gonzalez Plaintiffs on the

13 grounds of standing and mootness. Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power

14 of the federal courts to the resolution of “cases” or “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,

15 cl. 1; DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006). The Suprem e Court has

16 interpreted this limitation on federal jurisdiction to require that “an actual controversy must

17 be extant at all stages of review.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43,

18 67 (1997) (internal quotations om itted); see also Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc. , 398

19 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2005). The standing doctrine determ ines whether an actual

20 controversy exists at the time the complaint is filed, and the m ootness doctrine addresses

21 whether that controversy continues throughout the course of the litigation. Arizonans for

22 Official English, 520 U.S. at 68 n.22.

23

To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an “injury in fact” that is (a)

24 concrete and particularized and (b) actual orimminent; (2) a causal connection between the

25 injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by

26 a favorable decision by the Court. Cuno, 547 U.S. at 342, 344; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61;

27

28

- 6 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 7 of 11

1 Skaff, 506 F.3d at 837. The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Williasmv. Boeing Co.,

2 517 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2008).

3

Once satisfied that a plaintiff had Article III standing to bring an action, the Court

4 must determine whether the plaintiff has a continuing interest in the outcome of the litigation

5 or whether the case is moot. In deciding whether a case is m oot, the question is “whether

6 changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any

7 occasion for meaningful relief.” Center For Biological Diversity v. Loh,n511 F.3d 960, 963

8 (9th Cir. 2007). “The [defendant] carries the burden of establishing mootness.” Id.

9 IV. Standing

10

Only the injury-in-fact requirement of standing is at issue. Defendants do not contest

11 causation and redressibility, and it seem s clear that if Proposition 200' s identification

12 requirements qualify as a cognizable injury-in-fact then Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ injury is fairly

13 traceable to the enactment of Proposition 200 and could be redressed if the Court granted

14 Gonzales Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin its enforcement.

15

A. Abeytia and Morrison-Flores Have Established an Injury-in-Fact.

16

Defendants assert that Abeytia and Morrison-Flores have not satisfied the “injury in

17 fact” element of standing because, at the tim e they joined the suit: (1) they could vote by

18 early ballot without providing any formof identification; (2) they could vote in-person with

19 a provisional ballot; and (3) they could have updated the voter rolls to match their forms of

20 identification required by Proposition 200.

21

Arguably, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote in-person on e lection

22 day, or to vote by regular, as opposed to provisional, ballot. SeeACLU v. Santillanes, 506

23 F. Supp. 2d 598, 619 (D.N.M. 2007); Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F. Supp. 2d

24 775, 813 (S.D. Ind. 2006).

25

Arizona law, however, gives voters the option of voting in person by regular ballot.

26 See A.R.S. § 16-411. And the denial of a statutory benefit that a plaintiff would be entitled

27 to but for the governm ent’s violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection is a

28

- 7 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 8 of 11

1 cognizable injury-in-fact. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena , 515 U.S. 200, 211-12

2 (1995); Santillanes, 506 F. Supp. 2d at 620; cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 14 (1975)

3 (“[The legislature] may create a statutory right or entitlem ent the alleged deprivation of

4 which can confer standing to sue even where the plaintiff would have suffered no judicially

5 cognizable injury in the absence of statute.”).

6

The injury alleged by Abeytia and Morrison-Flores is not that they cannot vote, but

7 that they are being treated less favorably than other similarly situated voters. Persons voting

8 in-person on election day are subject to Proposition 200s' identification requirements, while

9 voters voting early do not have to show any identification.3 In addition, persons voting in-

10 person who possess Proposition 200's identification requirements may cast regular ballots,

11 while those without the required identification can only cast provisional ballots.

12

The Supreme Court has made clear that:

13

When the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members

of one group to obtain a be nefit than it is for m embers of another group, a

14

member of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege

that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order to establish

15

standing. The “injury in fact” in an equal protection case of this variety is the

denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the

16

ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.

17 Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508

18 U.S. 656, 666 (1993); see also Adarand, 515 U.S. at 211.

19

Thus, the fact that Abeytia and Morrison-Flores could vote early or by provisional

20 ballot does not defeat their standing to bring an equal-protection claim. See Santillanes, 506

21 F. Supp. 2d at 623; Ind. Dem ocratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F. Supp. 2d 775, 814 (S.D. Ind.

22 2006), aff’d sub nom Crawford v. Marion County Elec. Bd., 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007),

23

24 3 Indeed, it is possible that, at the same polling station on election day, while a voter
25 is being required to provide proof of identification in order to cast her ballot, another voter
26 could be dropping off his early ballot without having to provide any identification. See A.R.S. § 16-548 (An early ballot may be dropped off at a polling place on election day until
27 7:00 p.m.).

28

- 8 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 9 of 11

1 cert. granted 128 S. Ct. 33 (2007). But seeCommon Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 504 F. Supp.

2 2d 1333, 1374 (N.D. Ga. 2007).

3

Nor does Abeytia and Morrison-Flores’s ability to update the voter rolls toamtch their

4 forms of identification required by Proposition 200 defeat their standing. It is beyond

5 peradventure that updating the voter rolls would require som e time and expense. See

6 Crawford v. Marion County Elec. Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610, 1620 (2008) (recognizing that voter

7 identification laws impose some burden on voters, such as when a voter does “not resemble

8 the photo in the identification because he recentlygrew a beard”). The fact that the cost and

9 inconvenience may be slight does not affect standing, which requires only a m inimal

10 showing of injury. See Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elec., 383 U.S. 663 (1966) ($1.50 poll tax).

11

Therefore, Abeytia and Morrison-Flores have standing. Arizona law gives registered

12 voters the option of voting in-person on elec tion day by regular ballo t. And “once the

13 franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn that are inconsistent with the

14 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Harper, 383 U.S. at 665.

15

B. Jesus and Maria Gonzalez Have Established an Injury-in-Fact.

16

Defendants assert that Jesus and Maria Gonzalez have not satisfied the “injury in fact”

17 element of standing because they possess the docum ents required to register to vote. As

18 discussed above, the fact that they could register does not defeat their standing to bring an

19 equal-protection claim. The injury alleged is not that they cannot register, but that they are

20 being treated less favorably than other sim ilarly situated voters. For example, native-born

21 U.S. citizens can provide copies of their proof of citizenship, but a naturalized citizen must

22 present the original to the county recorder in-person. A.R.S. § 16-166. Therefore, Jesus and

23 Maria Gonzalez have standing.

24 V. Mootness

25

Defendants assert that Maria and Jesus Gonzalez’s claims are moot. The Court agrees

26 that Maria Gonzalez’s claims are moot. Because Maria Gonzalez’s claims are based solely

27 on Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement for registering to vote, (seeDoc. 352 ¶¶ 4, 70,

28

- 9 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 10 of 11

1 71), and she has registered to vote, she can no longer obtain any relief from her claims.4

2 Therefore, Maria Gonzalez’s claims are moot and shall be dismissed. See Foster v. Carson,

3 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If there is no longer a possibility that [a partcya]n obtain

4 relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”).

5

The Court disagrees, however, that Jesus Gonzalez’s claims are moot. A.R.S. § 16-

6 166(F)(4) states that a registrant can provide “the number of the certificate of naturalization”

7 as proof of citizenship. As the State recognizes, Jesus Gonzalez provided that number when

8 he attempted to register to vote. (SeeDoc. 539 at 4 (“[Jesus Gonzalez]provided the number

9 of his certificate of naturalization on his application.”)). Nonetheless, his application was

10 denied because he did not provide his alien registration number, which is a different number

11 listed on the certificate of naturalization.

12

Defendants assert that Jesus Gonzalez’ c hallenge to Proposition 200' s proof of

13 citizenship requirement is moot because the new voter registration forms make clear that the

14 alien registration num ber is required. “A defendant’s voluntary cessation of allegedly

15 unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.

16 Laidlaw Envtl. Svcs., 528 U.S. 167, 173 (2000). The burden of dem onstrating mootness

17 based upon voluntary cessation is “form idable”: Defendants m ust demonstrate that

18 subsequent events make it “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

19 reasonably be expected to occur.” Id. at 189, 190 (internal quotations omitted).

20

Defendants have not met that burden here. Although the new form specifies “alien

21 registration number,” (Doc. 520, Ex. 15), the governing statute still requires “the number of

22 the certificate of naturalization,” A.R.S. § 16-166(F)(4). Thus, it cannot be held that it is

23 absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to

24 occur.

25

26 4 Maria Gonzalez has not asserted that her claim s fall into the exception to the
27 mootness doctrine of wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review.

28

- 10 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 883 Filed 06/27/08 Page 11 of 11

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Gonzalez Plaintiffs (Doc. 434) is

3 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Maria Gonzalez, Naeem Abdul-Kareem, and

5 Luciano Valencia are DISMISSED.

6

7

DATED this 27th day of June, 2008.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 49

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV-06-1268-PHX-ROS ) consolidated with: ) No. CV-06-1362-PCT-JAT ) No. CV-06-1575-PHX-EHC ) ) ORDER; FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) ) ) ) )

16

This case comprises two actions: (1) Gonzalez v. State of Arizona , CV 06-1268-

17 PHX-ROS (filed May 9, 2006) (“Gonzalez”); and (2) Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. v.

18 Brewer, No. CV 06-1362-PCT-JAT (filed May 26, 2006) (“ITCA”).1

19

Plaintiffs seek to perm anently enjoin enforcem ent of the Arizona Taxpayer and

20 Citizen Protection Act, also known as “Proposition 200.” Enacted pursuant to a voter

21 initiative in the 2004 general election, Proposition 200 requires proof of citizenship to

22 register to vote and proof of identification to vote in person on election day. A.R.S. §§ 16-

23 166(F), 579(A).

24

25

26

27

1 The third consolidated action, Navajo Nation v. Brewer, CV 06-1575-PHX-EHC

(filed June 20, 2006), was dismissed by stipulation of the parties on May 27, 2008. (Doc. 28 775).

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 49

1

Collectively, Plaintiffs assert that these requirem ents violate the Equal Protection

2 Clause, First Amendment, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a), and Title

3 VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.2 (Doc. 352; ITCA, Doc. 1).

4

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ request for relief will be denied.

5

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6

In May and August 2006, Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunction, seeking

7 to enjoin the enforcement of Proposition 200. (Docs. 7, 146, 149). On September 11, 2006,

8 the motions were denied. (Doc. 183).

9

Plaintiffs appealed the denial, (Docs. 184, 189), and requested an emergency

10 injunction pending appeal, see Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 6 (2006). On October 5, the

11 Ninth Circuit granted the request for an em ergency injunction pending appeal. Id. The

12 Supreme Court vacated the emergency injunction on October 20, 2006. Id. at 8.

13

On April 20, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s order denying preliminary

14 injunctive relief. Gonzalez v. Arizona , 485 F.3d 1041, 1052 (2007). The parties then

15 underwent significant discovery and motions practice extending over a year and a half. The

16 Court endeavored to give Plaintiffs access to all data in Defendants’ possession toamke their

17 case.

18

Beginning July 9, 2008, the Court held a six-day bench trial to determine whether a

19 permanent injunction should issue. Post-trial briefing was completed on July 30, 2008.

20

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

21 I. Proposition 200

22

On November 2, 2004, Arizona voters approved a voter initiative called Proposition

23 200, which was officially proclaimed law by Governor Janet Napolitano on December 13,

24

25

26 2 ITCA and Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ other claims were dismissed on August 28, 2007 and
27 February 5, 2008, respectively. (Docs. 330, 611).

28

- 2 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 3 of 49

1 2004.3 (Trial Tr. 648). It was then submitted to the Department of Justice for preclearance

2 under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 4 Id. Upon approval by the Justic e Department,

3 Proposition 200 became effective January 25, 2005. Id.

4

A. Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote

5

Before Proposition 200, a person seeking to register to vote did not need to provide

6 proof of citizenship. (Ex. 6). Rather, the person signed a statement, under penalty of law,

7 that the applicant is a U.S. citizen. Id.

8

Proposition 200, which amended A.R.S. §§ 16-152, 166, requires individuals wishing

9 to register to vote to provide proof of citizen ship. An applicant is still required to affirm,

10 under penalty of law, that the applicant is aU.S. citizen. A.R.S. § 16-152(14). Section 16-

11 166, as amended, states:

12

The county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not

accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Satisfactory

13

evidence of citizenship shall include any of the following:

1. The number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification

14

license issued after October 1, 1996 by the departm ent of transportation or the

equivalent governmental agency of anothe r state within the United States if the

15

agency indicates on the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification

license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship.

16

2. A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifie s

citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.

17

3. A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States

passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or presentation

18

to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States passport.

4. A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States

19

naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the

number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be

20

21 3 The Arizona Constitution authorizes voter initiatives, which then becoemlaw “when
22 approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and upon proclam ation of the governor.” 23 Ariz. Const. art. IV § 1.

24

4 Arizona is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973c. Therefore, Arizona is required to preclear any new voting “standard, practice, or 25 procedure” with either the United States Attorney General or the District Court for the

26 District of Columbia to ensure its new standard, practice, or procedure does “not have the purpose [or] effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” I;d.

27 see also Purcell, 549 U.S. at 6.

28

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 4 of 49

1

included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization

is verified with the United States immigration and naturalization service by the county

2

recorder.

5. Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the

3

[I]mmigration [R]eform and [C]ontrol [A]ct of 1986.

6. The applicant’s bureau of Indian affairs card num ber, tribal treaty card

4

number or tribal enrollment number.

5 A.R.S. § 16-166(F).

6

Without this proof, a person may not register to vote. Id.This includes applicants that

7 use the federal voter registration form or postcard but do not include proof of citizenship.

8 (Trial Tr. 701). The re is no provision that permits waiver of the proof of citizenship

9 requirement.

10

If an applicant does not provide proof of citizenship, the applicant is mailed a letter

11 explaining why the application was rejected and instructing the applicant to subm it a new

12 registration form with proper proof of citizenship. (Rodriguez Dep. 77-78, Jan. 22, 2008;

13 Altaha Dep. 12, Jan. 14, 2008; Wayman-Trujillo Dep. 50, 51, Jan. 9, 2008; Rodriguez Dep.

14 23, Aug. 2, 2006; Justman Dep. 15-16, Aug. 1, 2006). Counties are required to provide a

15 blank voter registration form with this letter. (Ex.4, at 54).

16

Under the procedures implemented immediately after Proposition 200, an applicant

17 relying on naturalization documents to provide proof of citizenship was required to provide

18 a “certificate of naturalization num ber.” (Trial Tr. 654; see also Ex. 147). It was soon

19 learned, however, that this number could not be used to verify the person’s citizenship using

20 the federal immigration online database, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements

21 Program (“SAVE”). (Trial Tr. 654; Ex. 305). Rather, the database used the alien registration

22 number, or “A-number.” (Trial Tr. 654; Ratliff Dep. 32, Apr. 22, 2008). Consequently, the

23 election procedures were amended to instruct an applicant to provide the alien registration

24 number, which is also listed on a certificate of naturalization.5 (Trial Tr. 654; Ex. 1357).

25

26

5 Before approximately 1975, certificates of naturalization did not have A-numbers

printed on them . (Quinn Dep. 54, Apr. 22, 2008; see also

Ex. 961 (certificate of

27 naturalization from 1960 that does not have A-number)).

28

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 5 of 49

1 This change was precleared by the Justice Departm ent on December 6, 2007. (Kanefield

2 Dep. 8, Jan. 1, 2008).

3

B. Elector Identification to Cast a Ballot

4

i. Voting In Person on Election Day

5

Before Proposition 200, a person seeking to vote in person on election day did not

6 need to provide proof of identification. (Ex. 5). Rather, the person stated his or her nam e

7 and residence, and, if the name was found on the voter rolls, the person signed the signature

8 roster and was given a ballot. Id.

9

After Proposition 200, which amended A.R.S. § 16-579, an elector voting in person

10 on election day m ust now present proof of identification. A voter m ay obtain a regular

11 ballot6 only by presenting either one form of identification with a photograph, nam e, and

12 address, or two forms of identification that bear the name and address. A.R.S. § 16-579(A).

13

The specific types of identification are set forth in the Election Procedures Manual,

14 which has the force and effect of law. A.R.S. § 16-452(C). The current version, approved

15 in October 2007 (the “Manual”), was drafted by Secre tary of State Jan Brewer and then

16 submitted to Governor Janet Napolitano and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard for

17 review and approval. See generally Ex. 4; A.R.S. § 16-452(A)-(B). It was then precleared

18 by the Department of Justice.

19

Acceptable forms of identification with a photograph, nam e, and address are: (1) a

20 valid Arizona driver license; (2) Ariz ona nonoperating identification license; (3) tribal

21 enrollment card or other form of tribal ide ntification; or (4) other federal, state, or local

22 government issued identification. (Ex. 4, at 128).

23

24

25

26

27

6 The different types of ballots are discussed infra, Part C.

28

- 5 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 6 of 49

1

Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the nam e and

2 address of the elector are: (1) utility bill dated within 90 days of the date of the election7; (2)

3 bank or credit union statem ent dated within 90 days of the date of the election; (3) valid

4 Arizona vehicle registration; (4) property tax statement of the elector’s residence; (5) vehicle

5 insurance card; (6) recorder’s certificate; or (7) federal, state, or local governm ent issued

6 identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county recorder. Id.

7

In addition to these forms of identification, an elector who identifies himself or herself

8 as a m ember of a federally recognized Am erican Indian tribe m ay present tribal

9 identification, including: (1) a tribal identification or enrollm ent card issued under the

10 authority of a federally re cognized Indian tribe, nation, com munity, or band, a tribal

11 subdivision or the Bureau of Indian Affairs; (2) a Certificate of Indian Blood issued to a

12 tribal member under the authority of a tribe or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; (3) a voter

13 registration card for triba l elections issued under the authority of a tribe; (4) a hom e site

14 assignment lease, permit or allotment issued under the authority of a tribe, tribal subdivision,

15 or the Bureau of Indian Affairs; or (5) a grazing permit or allotment issued to a tribal member

16 under the authority of a tribe, tribal subdivision, or the Bureau of Indian Affair8s.(Docs. 775

17 & 776; Trial Tr. 680-81).

18

In addition, several counties have added “official election mail” sent by the county to

19 individual voters to the list of acceptable non-photo identification. (See Trial Tr. 748;

20 Osborne Dep. 60-61, Jul. 31, 2006 (Maricopa County); Da strup Dep. 10, Aug. 1, 2006

21 (Navajo County); Hoyos Dep. 27-28, Jan. 16, 2008 (Pinal County); Hansen Dep. 55, Aug.

22

23 7 “A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular
24 phone, or cable television.” (Ex. 4, at 128).

25

8 These forms of tribal identification were part of the terms of settlement in Navajo

26 Nation v. Brewer, CV 06-1575. They were precleared by the Department of Justice on May 22, 2008, (Doc. 774), and are curre ntly an addendum to the Manual, (Trial Tr. 681). The

27 next version of the Manual will include this addendum. Id.

28

- 6 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 7 of 49

1 1, 2006 (Coconino County); Pew Dep. 21-22, Aug. 1, 2006 (Apache County); Rodriguez

2 Dep. 145-46, Aug. 2, 2006 (Pim a County); Wayman-Trujillo Dep. 107-08, Jan. 9, 2008

3 (Yavapai County). But see Stallworth Dep. 32-33, Jan. 18, 2008 (Yuma County)). The

4 counties are not required, however, to provide election m ail, and their ability to do so is

5 subject to budgetary constraints. (S ee Osborne Dep. 83-84, 86, Jan. 14, 2008; Waym an-

6 Trujillo Dep. 108-09, Jan. 9, 2008).

7

ii. Voting Early

8

Proposition 200 did not change the requirements for voting early. Every registered

9 voter is eligible to vote by early ballot. A.R.S . § 16-541. Proof of identification is not

10 required to obtain or submit an early ballot. A.R.S. §§ 16-542, -547. An early ballot m ay

11 be mailed or dropped off at a polling place by 7:00 p.m. on election day. A.R.S. § 16-548.

12

All counties also allow for in person early voting at certain polling places. No

13 identification is required of early voters who wish to vote in person. (Trial Tr. at 689).

14

All early ballots, whether cast by m ail or in person, are subject to signature

15 verification, which the State and counties believe is sufficient to prevent voter fraud. (Trial

16 Tr. 746; Rodriguez Dep. 151-52, Jan. 22, 2008; Hoyos Dep. 43-44, Jan. 16, 2008;

17 Wayman-Trujillo Dep. 113, Jan. 8, 2008; Owens Dep. 111-12, Aug. 30, 2006; Dastrup Dep.

18 28, Aug. 1, 2006; Justman Dep. 35, Aug. 1, 2006; Hansen Dep. 70, Aug. 1, 2006; Pew Dep.

19 19, Aug. 1, 2006; Osborne Dep. 75, July 31, 2006).

20

C. Types of Ballots

21

There are three types of ballots provided for in person voting on election day: regular,

22 provisional, and conditional provisional. (Ex. 4, at 129). The type of ballot issued depends

23 upon what form of proof of identification is provided by the voter. Id.

24

i. Regular Ballot

25

If the voter’s proof of identification m atches the information on the voter rolls, the

26 voter is issued a regular ballot. Id.

27

28

- 7 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 8 of 49

1

ii. Provisional Ballot

2

“If the name and address on the identification do not reasonably appear to be the saem

3 as the name and address on the signature roster or the photo does not reasonably appear to

4 be the elector, then the elector shall not be issued a regular ballot, but shall be issued a

5 provisional ballot.” Id.; see also id. at 136. For example, if a person changes her name after

6 marriage, but has not yet updated either the voter rolls or her identification, she will be issued

7 a provisional ballot. (Trial Tr. at 708-09). In addition, if a voter presents one formof tribal

8 identification, the voter is issued a provisional ballot. (Ex. 4, at 135).

9

If a voter casts a provisional ballot, the voter is not required to take additional steps.

10 The county verifies that the voter’s signature on the provisional ballot matches that on the

11 voter rolls, and, as long as the voter did not already vote for that election, the voter’s ballot

12 is counted. (Ex. 4, at 164-65, 167-69).

13

iii. Conditional Provisional Ballot

14

If the voter presents only one formof non-photo identification or does not present any

15 form of identification, the voter is issued a conditional provisional ballot. Id. at 129, 135.

16

If the voter casts the conditional provisional ballot, the voter m ust present proof of

17 identification at certain desi gnated locations within three-to -five days after the election,

18 depending on the type of election. Id. at 135.

19

D. Availability and Cost of Proof of Citizenship

20

i. Arizona Driver License and Non-Operating Identification Card

21

A new Arizona driver license costs: $25.00 if the driver is between the ages 16 and

22 39; $20.00 if the driver is between the ages of 40 and 44; $15.00 if the driver is between the

23 ages 45-49; and $10.00 if the driver is age 50 or older. (Ex. 676). A replacem ent or

24 duplicate license costs $4.00. Id.

25

An Arizona non-operating identification card costs $12.00. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.,

26 Motor Vehicle Div. (“MVD”), Frequently Asked Questions (“MVD FAQ”) (last visited Aug.

27 3, 2008), http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/scripts/faqs.asp?section=dl#5. For persons age 65

28

- 8 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 9 of 49

1 or older, or anyone receiving federal Supplem ental Security Income disability payments,

2 there is no fee. A.R.S. § 28-3165(J); MVD FAQ.

3

Approximately 90% of voting-age Arizona citizens possess an Arizona drive r’s

4 license. (Trial Tr. 706). There was no evidence regarding what portion of the rem aining

5 10% had other forms of photo identification, including Arizona non-operating identification

6 cards.

7

In order to obtain a new Arizona driver’s license or non-operating card, an applicant

8 must present identific ation consisting of either: (1) two docum ents, one of which has a

9 photograph, or (2) three documents with no photograph. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., MVD,

10 Identification Requirements (last visited Aug. 4, 2008),

11 http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInf

12 oKey=1410. In either case, one of the documents must be considered a “primary” document.

13 Id. (listing acceptable primary and secondary documents).

14

ii. Birth Certificate

15

In Arizona, a replacem ent birth certificate and a delayed birth registration costs

16 $10.00. (Ex. 672, 675). To obtain a delayed birth certificate for a child who is 1-14 years

17 of age, the following docum entation must be provided: (1) a n affidavit by someone with

18 personal knowledge of when and where the child was born; (2) a document by an unrelated

19 person that was established before the child was five years old stating the child’s name, date

20 of birth, place of birth, and the date the document was created; and (3) an independent factual

21 document that establishes the mother’s presence in Arizona at the time of the child’s birth

22 stating the mother’s name, street address and date the document was created. (Ex. 672).

23

To obtain a delayed birth certificate for a child who is 15 years of age or older, the

24 following documentation must be provided: (1 ) an affidavit by som eone with personal

25 knowledge of when and where the child wa s born; (2) a document by an unrelated person

26 that was established before the child was ten years old stating the child’s name, date of birth,

27 place of birth, and the date the document was created; (3) an independent factual document

28

- 9 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 10 of 49

1 that was established at least five years prior to the application date stating the child’s name,

2 date of birth, place of birth, and the date the docum ent was established; and (4) an

3 independent factual document that establishes the mother’s presence in Arizona at the time

4 of the child’s birth stating the mother’s name, street address and date the docum ent was

5 created. Id. In other states, the cost and means of obtaining a birth certificate varies. (See

6 Ex. 673).

7

iii. Passport

8

The cost for obtaining a passport book or card is $100 and $45, respectively. Dep’t

9 of State, Passport Fees (last visited Aug. 3, 2008),

10 http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/fees/fees_837.html.

11

iv. Certificate of Naturalization

12

A replacement certificate of naturalization costs $380. Dep’t of Homeland Security,

13 U.S. Citizenship and Im migration Services, Instructions for N-565, Application for

14 Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (last visited Aug. 3, 2008),

15 http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/N-565instr.pdf.

16

v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Card, Tribal Treaty Card, or Tribal

Enrollment Card

17

Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal treaty cards are not in use in Arizona. (Trial Tr.

18

474-75).

19

All tribes in Ariz ona, except the Havasupai Tribe and Navajo Nation, 9 issue tribal

20

enrollment cards. (Id. at 483, 486; Ex. 1325). Cards issued by the Hopi Tribe, Yavapai-

21

Apache Nation, and Tonto Apache Tribe do not include enrollment numbers. (Ex. 1325).

22

Tribal enrollment cards are free for most tribes. For the Hopi Tribe, the first card is

23

free, and an additional card is $15. Id. For the Yavapai-Apache Nation, a card costs $5.00.

24

25

9 Navajo Nation is not a member of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., and was

26 represented by separate counsel in this litigation. SeNe avajo Nation v. Brewer, CV 06-1575. It did not challenge Proposition 200's proof of citizenship requirement. (See Trial Tr. 483-

27 84).

28

- 10 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 11 of 49

1 Id. And for the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the first card is free, and an additional card is

2 $12.00. Id.

3

E. Verification of Proof of Citizenship

4

Photocopies of birth certificates, photocopies of U.S. Passports, tribal identification

5 numbers, and naturalization certificates presented in person or via photocopy are accepted

6 on their face without subsequent verification. (Ex. 4 at 48; Trial Tr. 700-01; Rodriguez Dep.

7 86-87, Jan. 22, 2008; Dean-Lytle Dep. 50, Jan. 16, 2008; Osborne Dep. 38-39, 50, Jan. 14,

8 2008; Wayman-Trujillo Dep. 63-65, Jan. 9, 2008; Rodriguez Dep. 68, 87, Jan. 22, 2008;

9 Dean-Lytle Dep. 50, Jan. 16, 2008; Osborne Dep. 50, Jan. 14, 2008; Kanefield 19-21, Jan.

10 11, 2008; Marin Dep. 45-47, 113, Jan. 18, 2008).

11

A-numbers are verified using USCIS’s online system called the System atic Alien

12 Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE). (Ex. 4 at 47; Trial Tr. 735).

13

Driver’s licenses and non-ope rating identification cards are verified using the

14 Secretary of State’s online voter registration system , VRAZ,10 which collects voter

15 registration information from thecounties and compares the information about the registrants

16 and existing voters against the MVD database. (Exs. 38, 165, 167, 307.)

17

VRAZ flags applicants whose Arizona driver’s licenses were issued before October

18 1, 1996 or are coded “Type F.” (Exs. 126, 153, 175). One thousand three hundred applicants

19 were unable to register online due to attempts to use a license issued before October 1, 1996

20 or a Type F license. (Kanefield Dep. 30-31, Jan. 11, 2008). It is unclear how many of these

21 applicants were subsequently able to register.

22

Since 1996, before issuing an Arizona license, the MVD has verified lawful presence,

23 and, since 2000, it has issued Type F licenses to non-citizens who establish lawful presence.

24 (Yanofsky Dep. 14, 34, Jan. 10, 2008). Thus, even though MVD is not charge d with

25

26

10 VRAZ also checks voter registration inform ation against the Social Security

Administration database, as well as Arizona death records and records of felony convictions.

27 (Exs. 38, 165, 167, 307).

28

- 11 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 12 of 49

1 monitoring citizenship, and even though some older licenses belonging to non-citizens may

2 not be coded Type F, there is a reasonable reltaionship between the type of license issued and

3 a person’s citizenship status.

4

Because a license does not reflect whether it is Type F on its face, a recently

5 naturalized citizen who uses a Type F license to register to vote ma y have to provide

6 additional proof of identification. (Ex. 175). In such circusmtances, a naturalized citizen has

7 the option of obtaining an update d license by presenting a naturalization certificate to the

8 MVD and pay a fee of $4, or registering to vote without incurring additional cost using a

9 naturalization certificate. (Yanofsky Dep. at 65-66; Gage Dep. 90, Jan. 10, 2008).

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 13 of 49

1

F. Impact of Proposition 200

2

i. Proof of Citizenship Requirement11

3

Between January 2005 and Se ptember 2007, the num ber of applicants in 14 of

4 Arizona’s 15 counties12 unable (initially) to register to vote because of Proposition 200 was

5 31,550.13 (Ex. 883, Table 1; Trial Tr. 246).

6

Of these applicants, P laintiffs’ expert, Dr. Louis Lanier, estim ated that 5,258, or

7 16.7%, were Latino, which was 2.8% higher than their representation in total num ber of

8 registration applicants. (Ex. 883, Table 2). To arrive at this estimate, Dr. Lanier used a list

9 of Latino surnames compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau known as the “Passel-Word List.”

10 (Trial Tr. 242). This list divides surnames into five categories based on the probability that

11 they represent a Latino person. Id. Dr. Lanier assumed names listed as “heavily Hispanic”

12 and “generally Hispanic” were surnames for Latino persons for purposes of his analysis. Id.

13 Defendants’ expert, Dr. Jeffrey Zax, did not assert that use of the Passel-Word List was an

14 inappropriate means of predicting whether a person is Latino. (Trial Tr. 800).

15

16

17

11 ITCA Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Ronald Sissons, testified in his deposition that 2% of Arizona’s non-registered, voting eligible population did not have proof of citizenship.

18 (Sissons Dep. 9, 10, Aug. 11, 2006). His de position testimony was admitted at trial by

stipulation of the Parties. (Doc. 1014).

19

Dr. Sissons testified to the same at the preliminary injunction hearing. (Prelim. Inj.

20 H’rg Tr. 138-39, Aug. 30, 2006). The Court, however, did not then find this testim ony reliable, and the Court does not find it reliable here. (See Doc. 219 at 9 (“The Court has

21 reservations regarding the reliability of [Dr. Sisson’s] statistics.”); id.at 10 (“[T]he Court was

22

not presented with sufficiently reliable information regarding the number of voters that do not have adequate forms of identification.”)).

23 12 This number does not include rejected voter registration form s from Santa Cruz
24 County, which did not produce any forms, and did not include a portion of the rejected forms
25 from Yuma County. (Trial Tr. 246-47).

26

13 This number is exclusive of duplicate forms, forms with missing information, forms

with “no” in the U.S. citizenship field, and forms with a registration date prior to January 1,

27 2005. (Trial. Tr. 242). The total inclusive of these forms is about 38,000. Id.

28

- 13 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 14 of 49

1

Most rejected applicants listed their birthplace in the United States: 86.6% of Latinos,

2 and 92.9% of non-Latinos. (Ex. 885, Table 3).

3

By comparing the names on rejected voter registration forms to the voter rolls, Dr.

4 Lanier determined if an applicant, initially unsuccessful, was ultimately able to register to

5 vote through a later successful application. (Trial Tr. 244). Of the 31,550 applicants initially

6 unable to register to voter, approximately 11,000, or 30%, were subsequently able to register

7 to vote. (Trial Tr. 329). Of the approximately 20,000 applicants unable to register to vote,

8 4,013, or about 20%, were Latino. (Ex. 884, Table 2; Trial Tr. 835-36).

9

Assuming that everyone prevented from registering by Proposition 200 was allowed

10 to register, i.e., Proposition 200 had not gone into effect, Dr. Lanier predicted that 13.8% of

11 the electorate would have been Latino. (Ex. 883,Table 4). Using Dr. Lanier’s data, Dr. Zax

12 calculated the percentage of the electorate that was Latino with Proposition 200 in effect as

13 13.7%—a difference of 0.1%. (Trial Tr. 799). Using the same data and incorporating Dr.

14 Engstrom’s turnout date, Dr. Zax also calculated what the Latino voter turnout would have

15 been in the 2006 general election for Secretary of State with and without Proposition 200.

16 Id. at 831. The difference in the Latino voter turnout was 0.06%. Id.

17

Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Rodolfo Espino examined the effects of Proposition 200 on the

18 flow of voter registrations in Arizona and itsindividual counties. He examined the 941 days

19 before and after the implementation of Proposition 200. (Trial. Tr. 377). Both Latinos and

20 non-Latinos experienced a drop in their registration rates following the im plementation of

21 Proposition 200 when compared to the period before Proposition 200. (Trial Tr. 391). This

22 drop is not unexpected because the period before Proposition 200 included the 2004

23 Presidential election, which was accompanied by a drastic increase in the number of voter

24 registrations. (Ex. 879, Chart 114).

25

26

14 Although Dr. Lanier, no longer relied upon the expert report in which this chart is

included in reaching his conclusions in this case, (Trial Tr. 271), the Court finds reliable the

27 portion of Chart 1 that reflects actual voter registrations, as opposed to predicted voter

28

- 14 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 15 of 49

1

Statewide, the percent drop in number of individuals registered to vote per week was

2 36.67% for Latinos and 35.75% for non-Latinos, a difference of 0.92%. (Trial Tr. 411; Def.

3 Imp. Ex. 2, Table 3). On a county-by-county basis, the percent drop for Latinos was greater

4 than that of non-Latinos in seven of Arizona’s fifteen counties, spe cifically Apache, Gila,

5 Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma. (Def. Imp. Ex. 2, Table 4; Trial Tr. 432-

6 33). Examining the percent change in weekly registration rates before and after Proposition

7 200 based upon the regression slope, the decline in the rate of Latinos becoming registered

8 to vote was worse than non-Latinos in five of fifteen counties, specifically Apache, Greenlee,

9 Pima, and Santa Cruz. (Trial Tr. 421-23; Ex. 877, Table 1).

10

ii. Proof of Identification

11

In the 2006 primary, 2006 general, and the 2008 Presidential preference elections,

12 3,135,951 ballots were cast. (Trial Tr. 683-84). Of these, 4,194 ballots, or 0.13%, were

13 uncounted due to lack of proof of identification. (Trial Tr. 318). Of the uncounted ballots,

14 461, or 11%, were Latino. Id. As of Septem ber 2007, Latino re presented 12.3% of

15 registered voters. (Ex. 886).

16

Regarding the 2006 general election for Governor specifically, Dr. Lanier estimated

17 that Latinos comprised between 2.6% and 4.2% of the voters who turned out that day, but

18 Latinos cast 10.3% of ballots that went uncounted because of insufficient identification. (Ex.

19 886).

20

Regarding the 2008 presidential preference election, in a non-scientific study,

21 Maricopa County reported, of 897 conditional provisional ballots, 739 went uncounted. (Ex.

22 954). Of the 739 uncounted ballots, 129, or 17%, were Latino. IdM. aricopa County further

23 noted that 12% of its registered voters were Latino. Id.

24 VI. Evidence of Voter Fraud in Arizona

25

26

27 registrations. 28

- 15 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 16 of 49

1

In 2005, Maricopa County R ecorder Helen Purcell referred 159 m atters to the

2 Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thom as based on evidence that non-citizens had

3 registered to vote. (Osborne Dep. Ex. 3 at 4, July 31, 2006). In August 2005, Thom as

4 announced that ten non-citizens had been charged in felony criminal complaints for falsely

5 filing voter registration forms claiming they were in fact United States citizens, four of which

6 had voted in an election. Id.

7

Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne also testified to voter registration

8 organizations, which are paid on a per-registration-form basis, submitting “garbage” voter

9 registration forms and misleading non-citizen residents into registering to vote. (Osborne

10 Dep. 16-28, 18-30, 70, Jan. 14, 2008).

11

In Pima and Maricopa counties, 208 individuals had their voter registrations cancelled

12 after they swore under oath to the Jury Com missioner that they were not citizens, 56 of

13 whom are alleged to have voted in a election. (Exs. 1108, 1351).

14

Pima County has also referred several instances of non-citizens either attempting to

15 register to vote or cast votes to the Pima County Attorney. (Ex. 1108 at 2-3 & ex. A).

16

Yuma County Voter Registration Coordinator Krysty Marin testified that a wom an

17 who was not a citizen and who registered to vote right before the 2004 election. (Marin Dep.

18 98-99, 101-04, Jan. 18, 2008). Yuma County was able to identify her as a non-citizen

19 because her license subsequently showed up as Type F. Id. at 98. Fortunately, she did not

20 vote and has since cancelled her voter registration. Id. at 102. After talking with this

21 woman, Marin believes she was a victimof an unscrupulous voter registration organization.

22 Id. at 99, 103.

23

In addition, Defendants have introduced court records for nine persons prosecuted for

24 illegal voting and presentment of false instrument for filing. Ex. 1349a-g,y-z. According to

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 17 of 49

1 the charging papers, five of the nine were alleged to be non-citizens that had in fact voted.15

2 Ex. 1349a,c,d,e,f,g. Of the five, four pleaded guilty. Id.

3 V. Plaintiffs

4

A. Gonzalez

5

i. Individual Plaintiffs

6

There are four individual plaintiffs: Jesus Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Georgia

7 Morrison-Flores, and Debra Lopez.16 Abeytia did not testify at trial.

8

a. Jesus Gonzalez

9

Jesus Gonzalez was born in Mexico and is Latino. (Trial Tr. 221-22). He became a

10 naturalized citizen on August 18, 2005. (Id.; Ex. 711). After the naturalization ceremony,

11 he applied to register to vote using the number from his certificate of naturalization, rather

12 than his alien registration number, as proof of citizenship, which is what the voter registration

13 form at the time required. (Trial Tr. 222-23; Ex. 712).

14

His application was denied for failure to provide proof of citizenship. (Ex. 712). 17

15 The letter of denial specified that satisfactory evidence of citizenship included the A-nubmer

16 on the naturalization certificate. Id.Jesus Gonzalez’s naturalization certificate bears a series

17 of numbers beginning with an “A.” (Ex. 711). In addition, attached to the letter was Jesus

18 Gonzalez’s voter registration application with hsi certificate of naturalization number crossed

19 out, and a notation “A#” written above.

20

21

22

15 The act of registering to vote by a non-citizen is a class six felony. A.R.S. §§ 16-

23 182, 39-161. If that person also votes, the offense is a class five felony. A.R.S. § 16-1016.

24

16 Naeem Abdul-Kareem, Luciano Valencia, and Maria Gonzalez were dismissed on

25 June 27, 2008. (Doc. 883).

26

17 Although the trial exhibit was in English, and Jesus Gonzalez cannot read English,

he testified that the letter arrived in Spanish (for an exam ple, see Ex. 697) and in English.

27 (Trial Tr. 230).

28

- 17 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 18 of 49

1

In October 2006, Jesus Gonzalez tried to re gister again online at EZ Voter

2 Registration, https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/, using his Arizona driver’s license.

3 (Trial Tr. 220, 225, 235). His application was denied because his Arizona driver’s license

4 was issued to him before October 1, 1996. Id. at 225.

5

Jesus Gonzalez has a U.S. passport, issued November 8, 2006, which he purchased

6 for $112.95. (Exs. 709-10). He purchased the passport to travel to and fromMexico, rather

7 than to register to vote. (Trial Tr. 232).

8

There is no dispute that Jesus Gonzalez possess the docum entation required to

9 establish proof of citizenship to register vote—he has a naturalization certificate with an A-

10 number and a U.S. passport.

11

b. Georgia Morrison-Flores

12

Morrison-Flores was born in Yum a, Arizona. (Morrison-Flores Dep. 12, Jan. 17,

13 2008). She got married on July 5, 2003. Id. Prior to her marriage, her name was “Georgia

14 Morrison-Vasquez.” Id. at 14. She registered to vote in 2004 under the name “Georgia

15 Flores-Morrison.” Id.at 34, 36-38, 41-42. It appears that she accidentally filled out the form

16 incorrectly: it should read “Georgia Morrison-Flores.” Id. at 41-42; see also Doc. 617, Ex.

17 21. There is no evidence that she has tried to correct her name on the voter rolls.

18

Morrison-Flores receives monthly bank statements from SunBank. Id.at 22-23. She

19 also still has the voter registration card that she received from the Yuma County elections

20 department after registering to vote in 2004. Id. at 41, 77. She also has received sample

21 ballots from Yuma County. Id. at 65.

22

On November 7, 2006, she attempted to vote at her polling place using her license

23 as proof of identification, but was not allowed to because the name on her license at the time

24 was “Georgia Morrison-Vasquez,” which did not match the name on the voter rolls, “Georgia

25 Flores-Morrison.” Id. at 43-44. She was not offered a provisional ballot. Id. at 45-46.

26

27

28

- 18 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 19 of 49

1

In April 2007, she went to an office of the MVD and updated her nam e in the ir

2 records to reflect her married name. Id. at 48-49. Morrison-Flores’ current drivers’ license

3 reads “Georgia Morrison-Flores.” Id. at 51.

4

Morrison-Flores can correct the name on the voter rolls for free. Once she does this,

5 she has the proof of identification required in order to vote in person on election day.

6

c. Debra Lopez

7

Lopez is a consultant, creating grass-root stra tegies for non-profit political and

8 corporate clients. (Trial Tr. 605). For example, she worked for the Latino Vote Project and

9 the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. Id. at 619. She has been registering

10 voters since she was 18 years old, as part of her employment and on a volunteer basis, and

11 does so every chance that she gets. Id. at 606. She volunteers at festivals and fiestas, and

12 conducts impromptu registration using registration form s she keeps in her car. Id. She

13 focuses on registering Latino voters. Id. at 607. She herself is registered to vote, and she

14 possesses sufficient voter identification to vote in person on election day. Id. at 617, 618.

15

Prior to Proposition 200, Lopez said she could register every person that wanted to

16 register. Id. at 610, 621. After Proposition 200, it is more difficult for her because people

17 she encounters sometimes do not carry the necessary documentation on their persons. Id.at

18 612. In addition, if the docum ents have to be photocopied, such as a birth certificate or

19 passport, she has to bring a photocopy machine and rent a generator to run it. Otherwise, she

20 tries to obtain copies on the person’s behalf, or to explain to the person how to obtain

21 photocopies. Id. at 612-13, 623. Her personal expenditures re lated to Proposition 200

22 involved time, gas, and photocopies. Id. at 622-23.

23

She did not identify any particular individuals who cannot register due to Proposition

24 200.

25

ii. Organizational Plaintiffs

26

The Gonzalez organizational plaintiffs include: Chicanos Por La Causa, Valle Del Sol,

27 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Arizona Hispanic Community

28

- 19 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 20 of 49

1 Forum, Friendly House, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and

2 Common Cause. Only Chicanos Por La Causa and Valle Del Sol testified at trial.

3

a. Chicanos Por La Causa (“CPLC”)

4

Vice President of Human Resources Salvador Martinez testified on CPLC’s behalf.

5 (Trial Tr. 551-52). CPLC is a statewide, community-based organization. Id. Its mission is

6 to advocate on behalf of those individuals that are disenfranchised and to provide services

7 for those unable to provide for themselves. Id. at 552. As part of that mission, it conducts

8 voter registration, outreach, and education. Id. at 552-53.

9

Martinez testified that Proposition 200 is “som ewhat burdensome” on CPLC. He

10 stated that it has made voter registration more expensive because CPLC has to makes copies

11 of registrants’ documents, and more manpower is required. Id. at 554-55. In addition,

12 Martinez testified that CPLC had to create and copy for distribution several docum ents

13 because of Proposition 200 in order to educate CPLC’s personnel and constituents about the

14 new law’s requirements. Id. at 557-58; Exs. 538, 563, 566, 569, 570. Only one of these

15 documents, though, mentions Proposition 200's requirements. (Ex. 538).

16

Martinez testified that CPLC incurred $7,000 rela ted to copying, et cetera, and

17 unspecified labor costs because of Proposition 200. (Trial Tr. 566). No documentation was

18 provided supporting these costs, nor was there evidence that these costs were due to

19 Proposition 200, as opposed to its general voting expenditures.

20

When registering voters, Martinez encountered only two people who wished to

21 register, but did not have the requisite proof of citizenship on their person. (Trial Tr. 559-

22 60). He did not testify that they did not have proof of citizenship, merely that they did not

23 have it with them. He instructed the first person to go home and return with the documents.

24 Id. at 560. The person did not return, and Martinez does not know if he ever registered to

25 vote. Id. at 561. Martinez drove the second person home to obtain the documents because

26 that person did not have transportation. Id. at 560. Martinez testified that one of the se

27 persons was Latino, but did not testify whether either was a member of CPLC. Id. at 573.

28

- 20 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 21 of 49

1

b. Valle Del Sol (“Valle”)

2

President and Chief Executive Officer Luz Sarmina testified on behalf of Valle. (Trial

3 Tr. 490-91). Valle is a nonprofit community based organization, which focuses its services

4 on the Latino community. Id. at 490. Its mission is to inspire positive change through its

5 behavioral health services, fam ily support services, and Latino leadership developm ent

6 program. Id. at 490-91, 498. Although Valle seeks to prom ote civic engagement through

7 voter registration, voter registration is not one of its core businesses. Id. at 492-93.

8

Sarmina testified that Proposition 200 has had “not a huge impact but an impact” on

9 Valle. Id. at 498, 500. She stated that voter registration is more expensive post Proposition

10 200 because of the copying and additional staff time dedicated to training voter registrars and

11 registrants. Id. at 498, 500, 514; see also Exs. 541-45. She also testified that, when trying

12 to register voters, Valle has encountered people that did not have the necessary proof of

13 citizenship on their person. (Trial Tr. 500). In such instances, Valle advised the person to

14 get the documents and bring them back for photocopying, or, if the pe rson did not have

15 documentation, Valle worked with the person to try to get documentation. Id. at 501-02. In

16 its interrogatory answers, Valle states thatit has incurred $11,047 in costs due to Proposition

17 200, (Ex. 1304), but did not provide any supporting documentation at trial.

18

Sarmina did not testify that a member of Valle did not or does not now possess proof

19 of citizenship.

20

B. ITCA

21

i. Individual Plaintiff: Representative Steve Gallardo

22

Representative Steve Gallardo has been a m ember of the Arizona House of

23 Representatives since 2002. (Trial Tr. 175). He is the m inority whip for the House

24 Democrats, and is Latino. Id. at 175, 190. The district that he represents, District 13,

25 comprises parts of the Cities of Glendale, Phoenix, Tolleson, and Avondale, and the

26 community of Cashion. Id. at 175-76. The voting age population in his district is majority

27

28

- 21 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 22 of 49

1 Latino. Id. at 176. Representative Gallardo is running for reelection this year for another

2 two year term, and has qualified for the primary ballot. Id.

3

Representative Gallardo has also been an at-large member of the Phoenix Union High

4 School Governing Board since 2004. Tr. 176-77. The high school district he repre sents

5 covers the City of Phoenix, which contains over a million people, and is majority Latino. Id.

6 at 177. Again, he is running for reelection this year for another four year ter.mId. at 177-78.

7

Representative Gallardo was reelected to his House seat in 2006—after the

8 implementation of Proposition 200. Id. at 189. Also he testified that, as a candidate, if he

9 wants his constituents to vote for him, he needs to notify themabout the acceptable forms of

10 identification. Id. at 186. He is not aware, however, of any specific person who has be en

11 unable to register to vote or that wouldvote for him but cannot because of Proposition 200.

12 Id. at 180, 198, 201.

13

ii. Organizational Plaintiffs

14

The ITCA organizational plaintiffs include : Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,

15 Arizona Advocacy Network, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Hopi Tribe, and League

16 of United Latin Am erican Citizens. The Hopi Tribe and the League of United Latin

17 American Citizens did not testify.

18

a. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (“ITC”)

19

Executive Director John Lewis testified on behalf of ITC. (Trial Tr. 443-44). ITC

20 comprises the highest elected tribal officials of 20 of the 22 tribes located in Arizona, not

21 including the Navajo Nation. Id. at 444, 447; Ex. 1190. Its purpose is to work collectively

22 on common issues that face themas tribal governments. Id. at 444. As part of that purpose,

23 ITC seeks to promote American Indian voting rights and provides voter education programs

24 for tribe members. Id. at 444-45, 470-71.

25

He testified tribal members were less likely to possess birth certificates, especially

26 members over the age of 40, and driver’s licenses due to lack of access to health care and

27 economic conditions. (Trial Tr. 457-60, 472-74).

28

- 22 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 23 of 49

1

Lewis said, however, that neither he nor ITC was aware of any tribal me mber who

2 lacks satisfactory evidence of citizenship to register to vote. Id.at 486-87, 489; see alsoEx.

3 1311.

4

b. Arizona Advocacy Network (“AzAN”)

5

Executive Director Linda Brown te stified on AzAN’s behalf. (Trial Tr. 581).

6 AzAN’s mission is to promote social, economic, and environmental justice by increasing

7 civic participation. Id. To advance its m ission, AzAN conducts voter registration. Id. at

8 582.

9

AzAN is affilia ted with a national group called USAction Education Fund

10 (“USAction”), one of the nation’s leading organizations in nonpartisan voter registration.

11 Id. at 584. AzAN has a contract with USAction to register a certain number of voters; their

12 current goal is 5,000 voters for the 2008 Presidential election. Ida.t 584, 585. AzAN is paid

13 by USAction based on the number of confirmed registrations. Id. at 584.

14

AzAN spent $19, 025 in polling place monitoring over the four elections held in 2006.

15 (Trial Tr. 588; Ex. 1223). Brown personally monitored some polling places during two

16 elections, during which she offered voters a “voter bill of rights” drafted by AzAN,

17 describing, among other things, the proof of identification options. (Trial Tr. 588). AzAN

18 spent $2,298 in printing costs for the voter bill of rights. (Ex. 1223).

19

Brown said that, because of Proposition 200, it takes m ore people m ore time to

20 register each voter as compared to a state without identification requirem ents. Id. at 586.

21 For example, in AzAN’s 2008 projected voter registration budget, the cost per voter

22 registered is estimated as between $9.28 and $12.21 in Arizona, as opposed to a typical state

23 where it is between $7.08 and $7.81 per voter registered, which is a total cost difference of

24 $11,000-22,000. (Ex. 1223). This reflects Brown’s belief that, in Ariz ona, AzAN can

25 register 6-10 persons in a four-hour shift in Arizona, as opposed to 15-20 per shift in other

26 states. (Trial Tr. 586). As part of its e fforts, AzAN also seeks to help recruit 120 poll

27

28

- 23 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 24 of 49

1 workers for the counties and conduct supplem ental training focusing on Proposition 200's

2 requirements. Id. at 602.

3

AzAN also has projected that it will spend $40,440 on election protection efforts for

4 the 2008 general election. Id. Brown projected that all of this cost is a ttributable to

5 Proposition 200. (Trial Tr. 601). This testim ony is not partic ularly reliable, however,

6 because AzAN conducted election related efforts before Proposition 200.

7

While conducting registration since Proposition 200' s implementation, Brown

8 encountered four people that were unable to rgeister because they lacked proof of citizenship

9 on their person. Id. at 583-84. She did not testify whether these people were members of

10 AzAN.

11

c. League of Women Voters of Arizona (the “League”)

12

President Bonnie Saunders, Ph.D., testified on behalf of the League. (Prelim. Inj.

13 H’rg Tr. 116, Aug. 30, 2006). One of the League’s prim ary goals is to prom ote voter

14 participation. Id. Prior to Proposition 200, it conducted voter registration drives at parents’

15 night in local schools and other venues. Id. at 118-21. After Proposition 200, it did not

16 register voters, but merely passed out voter registration forms. Id. at 122-23. The League

17 decided it would not take re sponsibility for peoples’ driver s license numbers or making

18 photocopies of other identification documents. Id. Saunders did not testify as to whether any

19 member of the League did not possess proof of citizenship.

20 V. Defendants

21

Defendants comprise the State of Arizona, the Arizona Secreatry of State, Jan Brewer,

22 in her official capacity (collectively, the “State”), the County Recorder and County Director

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 24 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 25 of 49

1 of Elections of every county in Ariz ona in their official capacities 18 (collectively, the

2 “Counties”). (Doc. 352; ITCA, Doc. 1).

3 VI. Lay Testimony by Non-Parties

4

A. Maria Gonzalez

5

Maria Gonzalez is a former Gonzalez plaintiff; she was dismissed for lack of standing

6 on June 27, 2008. (Doc. 883). She was born in Mexico, and she becaema naturalized citizen

7 on August 18, 2005. (Trial Tr. 207; Ex. 715). After the naturalization cereomny, she applied

8 to register to vote using the number from her certificate of naturalization, rather than her A-

9 number, as proof of citizenship, which was required by the voter registration form at the

10 time, now amended to allow the A-number. (Trial Tr. 207; Ex. 711).

11

Her application was denied for failure to por vide proof of citizenship. (Ex. 697). But

12 the letter she received in Spanish and English specified satisfactory evidence of citizenship

13 included the “A-num ber” on the naturalization certificate. Id. M aria Gonzalez’s

14 naturalization certificate bears a series of num bers beginning with an “A.” (Ex. 715). In

15 addition, attached to the letter was Maria Gonzalez’s voter registration application with her

16 certificate of naturalization number crossed out, and a notation “A#” written above.” (Ex.

17 697).

18

19

18 The specific persons are: Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell and Maricopa

County Elections Director Karen Osborne; Apache County Recorder LeNora Johnson and 20 Apache County Elections Director Penny L. Pew; Cochise County Re corder Christine

21 Rhodes and Cochise County Elections Director Thom as Schelling; Gila County Re corder Linda Haught Ortega and Gila County Elections Director Dixie Mundy; Graham County

22 Recorder Wendy John and Graham County Elections Director Judy Dickerson; Greenlee

23

County Recorder Berta Manuz and Greenlee County Elections Director Yvonne Pearson; La Paz County Recorder Shelly Baker and La Paz County Elections Director Donna Hale;

24 Mohave County Recorder Joan McCall and Mohave County Elections Director Allen

Tempert; Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodrgiuez and Pima County Elections Director Brad 25 R. Nelson; Santa Cruz County Recorder Suzie Sainz and Santa Cruz County Ele ctions

26 Director Melinda Meek; Yavapai County Recorder Ana Waym an-Trujillo and Yavapai County Elections Director Lynn A. Constabile; and Yum a County Recorde r Susan
27 Hightower Marler and Yuma County Elections Director Patti Madrill.

28

- 25 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 26 of 49

1

In October 2006, Maria Gonzalez attempted to register again at EZ Voter Registration,

2 https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/, using her Arizona driver’s license issued in 2005,

3 and was successful. (Trial Tr. 214, 219-20). T hus, she is registered to vote in the 2008

4 Presidential election.

5

B. Agnes Laughter

6

Agnes Laughter is a form er Navajo Nation plaintiff, which case was dism issed by

7 stipulation on May 27, 2008. (Doc. 775). She wsaborn Jane Begay in Chilchinbeto, located

8 on the Navajo Nation reservation in Ariz ona. (Laughter Dep. 9, Oct. 19, 2006). She was

9 born at home in a hogan, and is 74 years old. Id. She is now registered to vote, id.at 14-15,

10 and has a certificate of Indian blood and a bank statement as voter identification. (Doc. 435,

11 Ex. 9). Therefore, Laughter can vote in person on election day.

12

C. Shirley Preiss

13

Shirley Preiss, who, by stipulation, is not Latina, was born Shirley Meshew on August

14 17, 1910 in Clinton, Kentucky. (Trial Tr. 82; 89-90). She was born at home rather than a

15 hospital, and was not issued a birth certificate. Id. at 83. She did not te stify that she is

16 American Indian.

17

Preiss moved to Arizona about three years ago. Id.at 84. She is cared for by her son

18 and has made efforts to register to vote in Arizona, but has been unsuccessful because she

19 does not possess the proof of citizenship required by Proposition 200. Id. at 87. She has

20 tried to obtain a delayed birth certificate from Kentucky, but has also been unsuccessful in

21 this pursuit. Id. at 83. She does not have an Arizona driver or nonoperating license, nor a

22 passport. Id. at 87, 88.

23

D. Donna Fulton

24

In late 2007, Fulton moved from Safford, Arizona in GrahamCounty, where she was

25 a registered voter, to Eloy, Arizona in Pinal County. (Ex. 968). She did not testify whether

26 she is either Latina or Native Am erican. In Decem ber 2007, she com pleted a new voter

27 registration form and mailed it to the Pinal County Recorder’s Office. Id.

28

- 26 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 27 of 49

1

On February 5, 2008, Fulton attempted to vote in the Presidential preference primary

2 election, but the poll worker could not find he r name on the Pinal County voter roll. Id.

3 After showing proof of identific ation with her current address, Fulton cast a conditional

4 provisional ballot. Id. She reports that the poll worker did not instruct her to return to the

5 County Recorder’s Office to provide her identification again. Id.

6

Approximately one month after the election, Fulton received a letter in the amil stating

7 that her ballot was not counted because she failed to provide proof of citizenship. Id.

8

Assuming the veracity of Fulton’s testim ony, County Defendants state that Fulton

9 should have been issued a provisional ballot, rather than a conditional provisional ballot, and

10 her ballot was improperly not counted. (Doc. 1031, at 4).

11

E. Brenda Rogers

12

Rogers lives on the Gila River Reservation, and is registered to vote in Pinal County.

13 (Ex. 967). She did not testify whether she is either Latina or Native Am erican. Rogers’

14 driver’s license does not reflect her current address. Id. Although her home does not have

15 a street address, her registered voter address is Gila River Dist 4B, Sacaton, Arizona 85247.

16 Id. Rogers receives mail at P.O. Box 13493, Chandler, Arizona 85248, which is also on her

17 voter record.

18

On February 5, 2008, Rogers says she attempted to vote in the Presidential preference

19 primary election. Id. She showed her voter registration card and driver’s license. Id. The

20 poll workers found her on the voter rolls but said that she had to vote a conditional

21 provisional ballot because the address on her driver’s license did not m atch her registered

22 voter address. Id. Rogers cast a conditional provision ballot. Id.

23

Assuming the veracity of Rogers’s testimony, County Defendants state that Rogers

24 should have been issued a provisional ballot, rather than a conditional provisional ballot, and

25 her ballot was improperly not counted. (Doc. 1031, at 4).

26

27

28

- 27 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 28 of 49

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

To secure a permanent injunction, “[a]plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) []it has suffered

3 an irreparable injury; (2) [] remedies available at law, such as m onetary damages, are

4 inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) []considering the balance of hardships between

5 the plaintiff and defendant, a rem edy in equity is wa rranted; and (4) [] the public interest

6 would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C,.126

7 S.Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006). This burden m ust be demonstrated by a preponderance of the

8 evidence. Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998).

9

LEVEL OF SCRUTINY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

10 I. Constitutional Challenges to Election Laws Generally

11

“It is beyond cavil that ‘voting is of the m ost fundamental significance under our

12 constitutional structure.’” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428, 433 (1992) (quoting Ill. Bd.

13 of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party , 440 U. S. 173, 184 (1979)). Nonetheless, “‘as a

14 practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and

15 honest and if som e sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accom pany the dem ocratic

16 processes.’” Id. (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974)); see also U.S. Const.

17 Art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (“The times, places and m anner of holding elections for Senators and

18 Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof . . . .”). “This

19 [regulatory] power is not absolute, but is subject to the lim itation that [ it] may not be

20 exercised in a way that violates . . . specific provisions of the Constitution.’” Wash. State

21 Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 1992 (2008) (quoting Williams v.

22 Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 29 (1968)).

23

Because of these competing interests, the Supreme Court has adopted a sliding-scale

24 balancing approach for analyzing election laws. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd.,

25 128 S. Ct. 1610, 1615-16 (2008); id.at 1624-25 (Scalia, J., concurring); id.at 1628 (Souter,

26 J., dissenting); Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 1191

27 (2008). Election regulations that impose a severe burden on constitutional rights are subject

28

- 28 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 29 of 49

1 to strict scrutiny. Wash. State Grange, 128 S. Ct. at 1191. “If a statute imposes only modest

2 burdens, however, then ‘the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to

3 justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions’ on election procedures.” Id. (quoting

4 Anderson v. Celebrezze , 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983)). That said, if the sta te’s interest is

5 unrelated to voter qualifications, the regulation likely will be struck down no m atter how

6 slight its burden. See Crawford, 128 S. Ct. at 1615-16; Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383

7 U.S. 663 (1966).

8

Finally, in applying this approach, the Court is reminded, “since the right to exercise

9 the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political

10 rights, any alleged infringem ent of the right of citizens to vote m ust be carefully and

11 meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964).

12 II. Facial Versus As Applied Constitutional Challenges

13

Whereas a facial challenge seeks to invalidate a statute in all of its applications, an as

14 applied challenge argues that the law is unc onstitutional as applied to the plaintiff even

15 though the law may be capable of valid application to others. SeeFoti v. City of Menlo Park,

16 146 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing the difference between facial and as applied

17 challenges).

18

Although the standard to be applied to a facial challenge is a subject of debate aomng

19 the Justices of the Suprem e Court, they do agree “a facial challenge m ust fail where the

20 statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” Crawford, 128 S. Ct. at 1623 (quoting Washington

21 State Grange, 128 S. Ct. at 1190).

22

ANALYSIS

23 I. Equal Protection: Undue Burden on the Fundamental Right to Vote

24

Plaintiffs, except the Hopi Tribe and ITC, assert Proposition 20s0p' roof of citizenship

25 and identification provisions impose an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to

26 vote. The Hopi Tribe and ITC only challenge the proof of citizenship provision. ITCA

27

28

- 29 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 30 of 49

1 Plaintiffs’ claims are facial and as-applied challenges, while Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ claims are

2 as-applied challenges only.

3

A. Strict Scrutiny is Not Appropriate.

4

Strict scrutiny of Proposition 200 is not warranted because Plaintiffs have failed to

5 demonstrate that the character and magnitude of the asserted injury excessively burdens the

6 right to vote.

7

i. The Burden on Naturalized Citizens Is Not Excessive.

8

Gonzalez Plaintiffs assert that naturalized citizens suffer an excessive burden under

9 Proposition 200 because they have to “register twice or appear in person at the Recorder’s

10 Office to register to vote.” (Doc. 1033, at 6). To the extent that som e applicants had to

11 register twice immediately following Proposition 200s' implementation when they used their

12 naturalization certificate number to provide proofof citizenship, current and future applicants

13 do not.

14

Proposition 200 allows applicants to use “the num ber of the certificate of

15 naturalization” to register. A.R.S. § 16-166(F)(4). There are two numbers on a certificate

16 of naturalization, however: (1) a number with the heading “No.”; and (2) a number with the

17 heading “INS Registration No.,” which begins with the letter A. No system exists, on the

18 federal or state level, to verify the form er. There is a federal system in place, SAVE, that

19 verifies the latter. Given the clear requirement of Proposition 200 to verify “the num ber”

20 with USCIS, id. , election officials reasonably interpreted Proposition 200 to require an

21 applicant to provide the A-num ber. See A.R.S. § 1-221(B) (“Statutes shall be liberally

22 construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”); Berger v. City of Seattle, 512 F.3d

23 582, 597 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We give due consideration to the government’s interpretation and

24 past application of its rule.”).

25

Prior to realizing that the number with the heading “No.” is not verifiable, the voter

26 registration forms revised immediately following Proposition 200's implementation asked for

27 the certificate of naturalization num ber. As a result, som e applicants, such as Maria and

28

- 30 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 31 of 49

1 Jesus Gonzalez, who correctly filed out their voter registration formby providing the number

2 beginning with “No.” were denied registration, and they had to try to register a second time.

3

The registration form, however, has now beenrevised to clearly require the A-number,

4 which is verifiable. Thus, although som e applicants unfortunately had to register twice

5 immediately following Proposition 200's implementation, current and future applicants will

6 not suffer the same impediment in the upcoming 2008 election. See City of Los Angeles v.

7 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983) (noting that a prospective injunction requires the threat of

8 future harm). Again, a “[plaintiff] must show a very significant possibility of future harm

9 because he seeks injunctive relief.” Mortensen v. County of Sacram ento, 368 F.3d 1082,

10 1086 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

11

Moreover, if a newly naturalized citizen uses a Type F license to register to vote and

12 is required to provide additional proof of citizenship, the applicant merely has to file a new

13 form to register using his or her A-num ber. While inconvenient, this is hardly a severe

14 burden. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “the inconvenience of making a trip to

15 the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], ga thering the required docum ents, and posing for a

16 photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burde n on the right to vote, or even

17 represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” SeeCrawford, 128 S. Ct.

18 at 1621.

19

Further, a naturalized citizen does not have to appear in person a t the Recorder’s

20 Office to register to vote. An applicant may provide a license number, a photocopy of a U.S.

21 passport, or an A-number to register without appearing in person.

22

In addition, if the applicant elects to forgo these options and to instead use the

23 certificate of naturalization form to register to vote, several counties accept photocopies of

24 naturalization certificates. (See Dean-Lytle Dep. 53, Jan. 16, 2008 (Pinal County); Marin

25 Dep. 112, Jan. 18, 2008 (Yum a County); Osborne Dep. 38-39, Jul. 1, 2006 (Maricopa

26 County); Hansen Dep. 27, Aug. 1, 2006 (Coconino County); Rodriguez Dep. 63, Aug. 2,

27 2006 (Pima County)). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, accepting a photocopy of a

28

- 31 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 32 of 49

1 naturalization certificate is not forbidden by the Manual. (SeeEx. 4, at 48). The Secretary

2 of State’s representative, Joseph Kanefield,19 specifically testified that a county recorder is

3 not violating the Manual by accepting photocopies. (Trial Tr. 756). Accordingly, it is the

4 applicant’s choice to travel to the county recorder to present a naturalization certificate.

5

Naturalized citizens do not suffer an excessive burden due to Proposition 200.

6

ii. The Burden on Arizona Citizens as a Whole Is Not Excessive.

7

Of the approxim ately 20,000 voters ultim ately unable to register to vote due to

8 Proposition 200's proof of citizenship requirement, Plaintiffs have not presented any reliable

9 evidence as to the number of these applicants or voting eligible persons generally who lack

10 sufficient proof of identification or are unable to attain it. See Crawford, 128 S. Ct. 1620

11 (“The burdens that are relevant to the issuebefore us are those imposed on persons who are

12 eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that com plies with the

13 requirements of [the voter identification statute.”). Indeed, they have only produced one

14 person, Shirley Preiss, who is unable to re gister to vote due to Proposition 200' s proof of

15 citizenship requirement. Nor have they dem onstrated that the persons rejected are in fact

16 eligible to register to vote.

17

Regarding Proposition 200's proof of identification requirement, Plaintiffs have not

18 produced a single person who lacks proof of identification. In addition, individuals who lack

19 proof of identification may vote early without providing identification, even on the day of

20 the election itself.

21

Of the over 3 m illion ballots cast in the 2006 prim ary, 2006 general, and the 2008

22 Presidential preference elections, only 4,194 ballots, or 0.13%, were uncounted due to lack

23 of proof of identification. County Defendants have admitted, two of these ballots, Fulton and

24

25

19 Joseph Kanefield is the Director of the Election Services Division of the Secretary

26 of State’s office. (Trial Tr. 644). His testimony both at trial and deposition demonstrates the significant efforts the Secretary of State’s office has taken to liberally construe questions

27 raised regarding the right of an elector to vote in favor of allowing the elector to vote.

28

- 32 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 33 of 49

1 Rogers, went uncounted by mistake, but Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that the

2 remaining 4,192 persons were in fact eligible to vote.20

3

Very recently, in Crawford , the Suprem e Court found that Indiana’s voter

4 identification law did not deserve strict scrutiny. 128 S. Ct. at 1623. Plaintiffs seek to

5 distinguish Crawford on the grounds that the plurality stated: “The fact that m ost voters

6 already possess a valid driver’s license, or som e other form of acceptable identification,

7 would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay

8 a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo iden tification,” essentially a poll tax. Id. at 1620-21.

9 Harper involved a poll tax unrelated to voter qualifications and is distinguishable. 383 U.S.

10 at 666. Proposition 200's r equirements go directly to voter qualifications: whether a

11 registrant is a U.S. citizen, and whether an in person voter is who he or she says he or she is.

12 Moreover, as the dissent in Crawfordnoted, the “free” identification provided by Indiana is

13 a hollow prom ise, as obtaining the docum ents necessary to get the “free” identification

14 require the payment of a fee. See 128 S. Ct. at 1631. The Court is bound by the Ninth

15 Circuit’s holding on appeal of this case th at Proposition 200 is not a poll tax even though

16 some Arizonans m ay be required to spend m oney to obtain necessary docum ents.21

17 Gonzalez, 485 F.3d at 1048.

18

Proposition 200's burden on Arizona citizens as a whole is not excessive.

19

*

*

*

20

21

20 Although that Defendants admit that mistakes occurred and can occur in applying

Proposition 200 at the polls, especially when it wsanew, they endeavor to “make it very clear 22 to poll workers that under no circumstances is someone ever to be turned away fromthe polls

23 without voting.” (Trial Tr. 728). In addition, if it was brought to their attention that a poll worker misunderstood or was misapplying Proposition 200's requirements, they quickly tried

24 to remedy the problem. Id.; Ex. 409.

25

21 The Court is also bound by its prior holding that Proposition 200 does not constitute

26 a poll tax. See Ingle v. Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue previously

27 decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.”); Docs. 611 & 330.

28

- 33 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 34 of 49

1

Because neither the burden on naturalized citizens nor Arizonans generally is

2 excessive, Plaintiffs’ challenges are not subject to strict scrutiny. See id. at 1623.

3

B. Defendants’ Interests in P revention of Voter F raud and Maintaining Voter

Confidence in the Electoral System Are Important.

4

Defendants have asserted two interests to justify Proposition 200's burden on voters

5

and potential voters: (1) prevention of voter fraud; and (2) maintaining voter confidence.

6

a. Voter Fraud

7

Although an evidentiary showing of fraud is not re quired to find a governm ent’s

8

interest in preventing voter fraud to be important, id. at 1617 (deterring in person voter fraud

9

an important state interest despite no evidence of fraud occurring in Indiana), the Defendants

10

demonstrated instances of voter fraud in Arizona. See supra , Section V. In addition, in

11

Crawford, the Supreme Court detailed examples of voter fraud in other states, supporting

12

Defendants’ assertion that voter fraud is a legitimate and real concern. 128 S. Ct. at 1619.

13

14

As the Supreme Court explained:

15

There is no question about the legitim acy or importance of the Sta te’s interest in

16

counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly

administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for

17

carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most

effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of

18

doing so is perfectly clear.

19 Id.; see also Purcell, 549 U.S. at 7 (“A state indisputably has a com pelling interest in

20 preserving the integrity of its election process.”).

21

Defendants’ interest in preventing voter fraud is an important governmental interest

22 in Arizona.

23

b. Voter Confidence

24

Defendants also assert that they have aninterest in protecting voter confidence in the

25 electoral system. “While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing

26 voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent

27 significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.” Id. at

28

- 34 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 35 of 49

1 1620; see also Purcell, 549 U.S. at 7 (“Confidence in the integrity of our electoral process

2 is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.”).

3

Defendants’ interest in prote cting voter confidence is an im portant governmental

4 interest in Arizona.

5

C. Defendants’ Important Interests Outweigh the Modest Burden on the Right to

Vote Imposed by Proposition 200.

6

Because Plaintiffs have not dem onstrated that Proposition 200 is excessively

7

burdensome, “the State’s important regulatory interests are []sufficient to justify reasonable,

8

nondiscriminatory restrictions’ on election procedures.” Wash. State Grange, 128 S. Ct. at

9

1191 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Crawford, 128 S. Ct. at 1623.

10

Proposition 200 enhances the accuracy of Arizona’s voter rolls and ensures that the

11

rights of lawful voters are not debased by unlawfully cast ballots. See Commission on

12

Federal Election Reform, Report, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections 18 (Sept. 2005)

13

(“The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or

14

detect fraud or confirmthe identity of voters.”). As such, Plaintiffs’ challenge must fail. See

15

Crawford, 128 S. Ct. at 1623; id. at 1627 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).

16

II. Equal Protection: Discrimination Against Naturalized Citizens

17

Gonzalez Plaintiffs contend Proposition 200' s proof of citizenship requirem ent

18

violates the Equal Protection Clause by discrim inating against naturalized citizens. To

19

establish an equal protection claim for discrim ination, “a plaintiff m ust show that the

20

defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon

21

membership in a protected class.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir.

22

2001). To show intentional discrim ination, “a plaintiff m ust establish that ‘the

23

decision-maker . . . selected or reaffirm ed a particular course of action at least in part

24

‘because of,’ not m erely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”

25

Rosenbaum v. City and County of Sa n Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2007)

26

(quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 610 (1985)); see alsoThornton v. Ctiy of St.

27

28

- 35 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 36 of 49

1 Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Mere indifference to the effects of a decision

2 on a particular class does not give rise to an equal protection claim.”).

3

Gonzalez Plaintiffs offer only three facts to show discrim inatory intent.22 First,

4 Proposition 200's “findings and declaration” state:

5

This state finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship to this state and

that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide

6

public benefits without verifying im migration status. This state further finds that

illegal immigrants have been given a safe haven in this state with the aid of

7

identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, and that this

conduct contradicts fe deral immigration policy, underm ines the security of our

8

borders and demeans the value of citizenship. Therefore, the people of this state

declare that the public interest of this state requires all public agencies within this

9

state to cooperate with federal im migration authorities to discourage illegal

immigration.

10

Ex. 1. Second, Proposition 200 allows photocopies of an applicant’s birth certificate and

11

passport, but not certificate of naturalization. Id. And third, Proposition 200 states, “if only

12

the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included

13

in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate is verified . . . .” Id.

14

However, these facts do not establish intentional discrimination by a preponderance

15

of the evidence. Proposition 200's findings and declaration does not dem onstrate that the

16

voters in Arizona approved Proposition 200 because of its adverse effects upon naturalized

17

citizens. Rather, the findings and declaration shows a concern with illegal immigrants, not

18

with naturalized citizens. Moreover, unlike a finding or de claration in a bill vetted by

19

Congress, Arizona voters did not have any input into its specific language, which weakens

20

its evidentiary value as to the electorate’s intent. Cf. Arlington Cent. School Dist. Bd. of

21

Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 312-13 (2006) (Souter, J., dissenting) (arguing that when

22

members of the House and Senate m et in conference to work out diffe rences and then

23

24 22 Although the adm itted exhibits showed that, as anticipated problem s, surfaced
25 regarding Proposition 200' s implementation, the response by the State and County
26 Defendants was consistent and im mediate. There is no evidence of a purposeful misapplication of Proposition 200' s requirements or and intent to discrim inate in its
27 application.

28

- 36 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 37 of 49

1 produced a joint conference report that was subsequently adopted by the Senate and House,

2 it is probative of Congress’s intent).

3

The second fact also fails to establish that Arizona voters approved Proposition 200

4 because of its adverse effects upon naturalized citizens. An applicant need only present the

5 certificate of naturalization in person if the applicant chooses not to write down the A-

6 number on the voter registration form. In fact, federal law criminalizes the photocopying of

7 certificates of naturalization without lawful authority. 18 U.S.C. § 1426(h).23

8

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the third fact evidences discriminatory intent because

9 “only naturalized citizens are subject to third-party verification.” (Doc. 1029, at 4). This is

10 not strictly true because natu ralized citizens can use their driver’s license or passport to

11 register to vote, and, if they present their naturalization certificate in person, verification is

12 not required.24

13

Importantly, the Help America Vote Act already requires Arizona driver’s licenses

14 to be verified, so there was no need to so spe cify in the text of Proposition 200. See 42

15 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(5). And, indeed, when an applicant provides a license number, the

16

17

18

23 18 U.S.C. § 1426 (h) provides:

Whoever, without lawful authority, prints, photographs, makes or executes any print

19

or impression in the likeness of a certifi cate of arrival, decl aration of intention to

become a citizen, or certificate of naturalization or citizenship, or any part thereof -

20

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was

21

committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism(as defined in section 2331 of

this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime

22

(as defined in section 929(a) of this title)),10 years (in the case of the first or second

23

such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international

terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense),

24

or both.

25

24 For example, the counties often, if not always, attend naturalization cerem onies.

26 If a naturalized citizen seeks to register after the cerem ony and presents his or her naturalization certificate as proof of citizenship, the document is accepted on its face, and no

27 further verification with USCIS is required.

28

- 37 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 38 of 49

1 application is not included on the voter rolls until the license is verified using Arizona’s

2 online system. (Trial Tr. 655-56).

3

Of course, alien registration num bers have to be verified with a third party—the

4 federal government is the only entity that possesses such information. In contrast, county

5 recorders can verify Arizona driver’s licenses using their own system, which has not been

6 proven to be unreliable.

7

Moreover, applicants who wish to use their certificate of naturalization have m ore

8 options than applicants who use birth certificates or passports. Applicants who rely on a

9 birth certificate or passport as proof of citizenship do not have the option ofemrely providing

10 a number, but must incur the cost of photocopying the birth certificate. However, persons

11 with a certificate of naturalization are allowed to prove citizenship by either: (1) presenting

12 the actual certificate of naturalization, or (2) subm itting the number on the naturalization

13 certificate, subject to verification.

14

The purpose of Proposition 200 – preventing voter fraud and enhancing vote r

15 confidence – would be frustrated if naturalization numbers submitted without documentary

16 proof were not subject to verification.

17

Thus, regardless of the standard of scrutiny, because Gonzalez Plaintiffs have failed

18 to establish intentional discrimination, they have not proved that Proposition 200's proof of

19 citizenship requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause by discrim inating against

20 naturalized citizens.

21 III. First Amendment

22

Gonzalez Plaintiffs assert that Proposition 200's proof of citizenship requirement, as

23 applied, curtails their speech and associational rights in violation of the First Amendment by

24 making it harder and more expensive to register people to vote.

25

There is no question that voter registration efforts are protected by the First

26 Amendment. See Bernbeck v. Moore , 126 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir. 1997); Monterey

27 County Democratic Cent. Comm. v. U.S. Postal Service , 812 F.2d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir.

28

- 38 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 39 of 49

1 1986); Project Vote v. Blackwell , 455 F. Supp. 2d 694, 706 (N.D. Ohio 2006). As the

2 Supreme Court explained in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission:

3

Common sense dictates . . . that a [group]’s efforts to register voters sympathetic to

that [group] directly assist the [group]’s candidates for federal office. . . . It is equally

4

clear that federal candidates reap substantial rewards from any efforts that increase

the number of like-minded registered voters who actually go to the polls.

5

540 U.S. 93, 167-68 (2003) (citations omitted).

6

Proposition 200, however, does not regulate voter registration organizations, and

7

Plaintiffs are still able to dissem inate their views to the public without restriction.

8

Accordingly, Proposition 200 does not “necessarily reduce[] the quantity of expression.”

9

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976); see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 422-23 (1988).

10

Importantly, none of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs testified that Proposition 200 is a severe

11

burden on their F irst Amendment rights. (S ee Trial Tr. 554-55 (Proposition 200 is

12

“somewhat burdensome on CPLC”); id. at 514 (Proposition 200 has “not [had] a huge

13

impact” on Valle)).

14

Because Proposition 200 imposes only a modest burden on Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ First

15

Amendment rights, Defendants’ important regulatory interests, discussed supra, Part I(B),

16

are sufficient to justify the asserted burden.

17

IV. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

18

Gonzalez and ITCA Plaintiffs allege Proposition 200 violates Section 2 of the Voting

19

Rights Act (“VRA”) by abridging Latino voters’ right to vote. In addition, ITCA Plaintiffs

20

allege that it also abridges the rights of American Indians.

21

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides in relevant part:

22

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or

23

procedure shall be im posed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a

manner which results in a denial or abridge ment of the right of any citizen of the

24

United States to vote on account of race or cloor, or in contravention of the guarantees

set forth in se ction 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this

25

section.

26

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the

totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to noimnation

27

or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation

28

- 39 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 40 of 49

1

by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its

members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in

2

the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. . . .

3 42 U.S.C. § 1973.

4

Thus, to establish a Section 2 claim, a plaintiff must show that its members have less

5 opportunity to: (1) participate in the political process; and (2) elect representatives of their

6 choice. Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 396 (1991).

7

The challenged voting practice need only result in discrimination on account of race.

8 Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Southwest Voter

9 Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff need

10 not demonstrate discriminatory intent. Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1014 (“Congress am ended

11 Section 2 of the VRA in 1982 to relieve plaintiffs of the burden of proving discriminatory

12 intent.”); Smith v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 594 (9th Cir.

13 1997) (“Section 2 requires proof only of a discrim inatory result, not of discrim inatory

14 intent.”).

15

In analyzing whether Section 2 has been violated, the Court may consider:

16

(1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political

subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register,

17

to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;

(2) the e xtent to which voting in the elections of the state or political

18

subdivision is racially polarized;

(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually

19

large election districts, m ajority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or

other voting prac tices or procedures that m ay enhance the opportunity for

20

discrimination against the minority group;

(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority

21

group have been denied access to that process;

(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political

22

subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment

and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;

23

(6) whether political cam paigns have been characterized by overt or subtle

racial appeals;

24

(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to

public office in the jurisdiction;

25

(8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected

officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group;

26

(9) whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s use of

such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is

27

tenuous.

28

- 40 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 41 of 49

1 Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1015 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28-29 (1982), reprinted in 1982

2 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 206-07) (the “Senate Factors”); see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-37.

3

This list is not exclusive, nor do “any particular number of factors [need to]be proved,

4 or [] a majority of them point one way or the other.” Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1015 (quoting

5 S. Rep. No. 97-417 at 29). Rather, “courts m ust consider how the c hallenged practice

6 ‘interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities

7 enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.’” Id. (quoting

8 Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986)). “[A] voting practice or procedure violates

9 the VRA when a plaintiff is able to show, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the

10 challenged voting practice results in discrim ination on account of race.” Id. at 1017

11 (emphasis in original omitted).

12

A. Latino Voters

13

i. Statistical Evidence of Disparate Impact

14

Taking all of the expert testimony into consideration, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated

15 that Proposition 200 had a statistically significant impact. It is true that the percent of Latino

16 voter registration applicants rejected was 2.8% higher than their representation in total

17 number of registration applicants, 19.8% of those ultimately unable to register to vote were

18 Latino, and the percent of Latino votes that go uncounted is higher than their representation

19 in the number of voters casting ballots.

20

Despite this seem ing disparity, even if everyone prevented from registering by

21 Proposition 200 was allowed to register, the pe rcentage of the elect orate that was Latino

22 would only increase by 0.1%, and the difference in Latino turnout in the 2006 general

23 election for Secretary of State would have been even less, 0.06%. Further, although the drop

24 in Latino registration rates was 0.92% m ore than the drop in non-Latino registration rates

25 following Proposition 200, this could have been driven, at least in part, by the lower Latino

26 population growth in 2005-2006.

27

28

- 41 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 42 of 49

1

Dr. Zax credibly testified that these diffe rences were not nearly large enough to be

2 statistically significant. (Trial Tr. 800-03). This is especially true in light of the fact that the

3 Passel-Word List, while a good estimate, is merely an estimator of Latino descent. Id.at 801.

4 Thus, when one considers the uncertainty as to the actual num ber of Latinos, m inute

5 differences of less than one-tenth of one percent are subsumed by the uncertainty associated

6 with the original identification of who is and is not Latino. Id.

7

Thus, examining the facts as a whole, Proposition 200 does not have a statistically

8 significant disparate impact on Latino voters.

9

ii. Senate Factors

10

Factors not considered because no evidence was presented at trial are: use of voting

11 practices for discrim ination; candidate slating process; racial appeals during political

12 campaigns; lack of responsiveness; and tenuousness of the voting practice.

13

a. History of Discrimination

14

Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Arturo Rosales, testified to the history of discrimination against

15 Latinos in Arizona frombefore statehood to the 1970's, and as to one court case in the 1990s.'

16 (Trial Tr. 264). Defendants do not contest th ese facts. Dr. Rosales concluded that

17 discrimination against Latinos in Arizona has historically hindered the ir ability to fully

18 participate in the political process. (Trial Tr. 363). The Court agrees.

19

From the beginning of Arizona’s territorial history, Mexicans were excluded fromthe

20 political process and discriminated against. (Trial Tr. 353-55). While still a U.S. territory,

21 Arizona legislators adopted constitutional codes that restricted electoral eligibility

22 requirements that allowed only white m ales and white Mexican males, a vast minority, to

23 vote. Id. at 354.

24

Just prior to 1910, Arizona voters passed a literacy law that explicitly ta rgeted

25 Mexicans and disqualified non-English speakers fromvoting in state elections. Ida.t 353-54.

26 As late as 1960' s, these literacy requirem ents were a precondition to voter registration in

27 Arizona. Id.

28

- 42 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 43 of 49

1

After Arizona attained statehood in 1912, there was an anti-im migrant campaign

2 characterized by increasingly racist rhetoric and a series of proposals restricting Mexica n

3 immigrants’ political rights and the right to work in Arizona. Id. at 359-60. The new

4 Arizona constitution restricted non-citizens fromworking on public projects. Id.at 361-62.

5 And, in 1914, the legislature enacted the “eighty percent law,” which stated that eighty

6 percent of the em ployees in businesses that had five or m ore employees had to be

7 “native-born citizens of the United S tates.” Id. Em ployment discrimination continued

8 throughout various sectors of the Arizona economy. Id. at 360-61. As recently as the 1990s'

9 in Tempe, Mexican-Americans brought a successful federal lawsuit in which they alleged

10 systematic racial discrimination in employment practices against the City of Tempe. Id.

11

Latinos have also suffered a history of se gregation. After World War II, Phoenix

12 segregated Mexican American veterans in separate housing units. Id. at 362. Segregation

13 of Latinos also occurred in schools, housing, theaters, swim ming pools, parks, and

14 restaurants. Id. Even after Mexican parents began to challenge school segregation

15 successfully in court, school districts failed to comply with integration rulings. Id.at 357-58.

16 Dr. Rosales credibly testified that segregation persists due to a lack of funding for English

17 Language Learner programs. Id. at 358-59.

18

b. Current Demographic and Socioeconomic Statistics

19

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jorge Chapa, testified to current dem

ographic and

20 socioeconomic statistics in Arizona. In 2006, Arizona’s total population was 6,166,318, and

21 its citizen voting ag e population (“CVAP”) was 3,973,912. (Ex. 862, Tables 1, 3).

22 Approximately one-third of Arizona’s total population was Latino, and 17% of Arizona’s

23 CVAP was Latino. Id. at Tables 1, 9e.

24

Between 2000 and 2006, Arizona’s CVAP grew by 17.3%. Ida. t Table 9e. Between

25 2000 and 2004, the Latino CVAP grew at a rate of 16.7%, and white, non-Latino CVAP at

26 4.55%. (Trial Tr. 55-65). Between 2005 and 2006, the Latino CVAP grew at a rate of

27 4.62%, and non-Latinos at 5.82%. Id.

28

- 43 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 44 of 49

1

As of 2006, Latinos had lower levels of education when c ompared to white

2 non-Latinos. (Ex. 862, Tables 6a, 6b; Trial Tr. 41-42). The average personal income of

3 Latinos was also lower than white , non-Latinos. (Ex. 862, at Table 7 (Latino: $25,433;

4 White, non-Latino: $37,843)).

5

In addition, as of 2004, the Latino voter registration rate is 56%, copmared to 76% for

6 white, non-Latinos. Id. at Table 8a. The percent of Latino citizens who voted is also lower

7 compared to white, non-Latinos, 47% and 70%, respectively. Id. Dr. Chapa testified that

8 there is a widely held belief that lower socioeconomic status is associated with lower rates

9 of political participation. (Trial Tr. 43-44).

10

There are socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and white, non-Latinos, which

11 hinders Latinos’ ability to participate effectively in the political process.

12

c. Racially Polarized Voting

13

Dr. Engstrom analyzed ten racially contested (Latino versus non-Latino) elections

14 held in Arizona since 2002 to determine whether voting is racially polarized. (Trial Tr. 99).

15 “Elections between white and minority candidates are the most probative in determining the

16 existence of legally significant white bloc voting.” Old Person v. Cooney , 230 F.3d 1113,

17 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 80-82 (relying exclusively on

18 interracial legislative contests to determine whether a legislative redistricting plan diluted the

19 black vote); United States v. Blaine County, Mont. , 363 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir. 2004)

20 (contests between white and American Indian candidates are most probative of bloc voting).

21

Dr. Engstrom used three standard methodologies to measure racially polarized voting:

22 ecological regression; homogeneous precinct analysis; and ecological inference. Id.at 100-

23 02; see also United States v. City of Euclid, No. 1:06cv01652, 2008 WL 1775282, at *10,

24 13 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2008) (approving the use of these methods); Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine,

25 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 1001-04 (D.S.D. 2004) (same) (collecting cases).

26

He analyzed four races in the 2002 Dem ocratic primary; three in the 2004 general

27 election; and three in the 2006 general election. (Ex. 872, Table). In the 2002 Democratic

28

- 44 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 45 of 49

1 primary elections, all four races demonstrated racially polarized voting. Id. at 124-25; Ex.

2 872, Table. In these elections, however, at most 10% of the total electorate voted. (Trial Tr.

3 153-54).

4

In 2004 general election, the Latino-preferred candidate won two out of three

5 elections. Id. at 164. The Latino candidate also received a majority or near-majority of the

6 non-Latino votes in two out of three races. (Ex. 872, Table). While Representative Pastor

7 commanded a majority of the non-Latino vote, Representative Grijalva obtained a near-

8 majority: 49.4% of the non-Latino vote according to ecological inference, 48.4% according

9 to ecological regression, and 56.4% according to homogeneous precinct analysis. Id.

10

In 2006 general election, after the im plementation of Proposition 200, the Latino

11 preferred candidate again won two out of three elections. (Trial Tr. 164). The Latino

12 candidate again received a majority of the non-Latino votes in two out of three races. (Ex.

13 872, Table). Representative Pastor again commanded, by a large margin, a majority of the

14 non-Latino vote. Id. Receiving increased support am ongst non-Latinos, Grijalva also

15 commanded a majority of the non-Latino vote. Id.

16

Dr. Engstrom concluded that Latinos voters prefer Latino candidates. (Trial Tr. 120-

17 21). With som e significant exceptions, he also testified that this preference for Latino

18 candidates is not shared by non-Latino voters. Id. at 121. These exceptions include U.S.

19 Representatives Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva. Id. Dr. Engstrom attempted to explain the

20 reason for these exceptions was that they were Latino incum bents in Latino-m ajority

21 districts. Id. at 122, 123; see also Gingles , 478 U.S. at 57 (incum bency is a special

22 circumstance that may explain minority electoral success in an otherwise racially polarized

23 electorate).

24

Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not established racially polarized voting because

25 the Latino candidates fared better than the non-Latino candidates in two-thirds of the general

26 elections both before and after Proposition 200. SeeBone Shirt, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1010 (“In

27 order for white bloc voting to be legally significant, [i]t ha[s] to be high enough to ‘normally

28

- 45 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 46 of 49

1 defeat the combined strength of m inority support plus white crossover votes.’” (quoting

2 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 56)) (emphasis added).

3

However, the racially-polarized voting inquiry c enters around districts with a non-

4 Latino majority. See Old Person, 230 F.3d at 1122 (holding that the district court erred by

5 failing to draw a distinction between m ajority-minority and m ajority-white districts in

6 determining racial polarization). “To do otherwise would perm it white bloc voting in a

7 majority-white district to be washed clean by electoral success in neighboring

8 majority-[minority] districts.” Id.

9

Examining Latino candidates’ perform ance in majority non-Latino districts in the

10 2004 and 2006 general elections, the Latino preferred candidate lost both times. (Ex. 872,

11 Table).

12

The Court finds that to some degree there continues to be to some racially polarized

13 voting in Arizona.

14

d. Latinos Elected to Public Office

15

As of 2007, there were 354 elected Latino officials in Arizona. (Trial Tr. 202-03).

16

ii. Causation

17

Although Plaintiffs have demonstrated, at best, limited statistical disparity and some

18 of the Senate Factors, their Section 2 claimmust fail because they have failed to demonstrate

19 causation.

20

To establish a Section 2 claim, Plaintiffs must establish the Proposition 200 results in

21 discrimination “on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973. A mere statistical disparity

22 in impact is not sufficient enough. Smith v. Salt River Project Agr. Improvement and Power

23 Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] bare statistical showing of disproportionate

24 impact on a racial m inority does not satisfy the § 2 ‘results’ inquiry.”) (collecting cases).

25 “Instead, Section 2 plaintiffs must show a causal connection between the challenged voting

26 practice and a prohibited discriminatory result.” Id. (emphasis added).

27

28

- 46 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 47 of 49

1

Under the totality of the circum stances, Plaintiffs have failed to dem onstrate that

2 Proposition 200 interacts with social and historical conditions to deny Latino voters equal

3 access to the political process and to elect their preferred representatives. In particular,

4 Plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence that the observed difference in voter registration

5 and voting rates of Latinos is substantia lly explained by race, as opposed to factors

6 independent of race. See Salt River, 109 F.3d at 591. Not a single expert so testified.

7

Because Plaintiffs have not established that the statistically disproportionate impact

8 suffered by Latinos is on account of race or color, Proposition 200 does not violate Section

9 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

10

B. American Indian Voters

11

i. Statistical Evidence of Disparate Impact

12

Plaintiffs did not provide any statistical evidence of a disparate impact on American

13 Indian voters.

14

ii. Senate Factors

15

Factors not considered because no evidence was presented at trial are: use of voting

16 practices for discrim ination; racially polarized voting; candidate slating process; racial

17 appeals during political campaigns; lack of responsiveness; and tenuousness of the voting

18 practice.

19

a. History of Discrimination

20

Lewis testified, and Defendants do not dispute, that American Indians have suffered

21 a history of discrimination in Arizona. And the Court so finds.

22

American Indians were not recognized as citizens until 1924. Indian Citizenship Act

23 of 1924, 8 U.S.C. § 1401. And they did notwin the right to vote until 1948. (Trial Tr. 445-

24 46 (citing Harrison v. Laveen, 196 P.2d 456 (Ariz. 1948)).

25

Again, from 1909 until banned by the Voting Rights Ac t Amendments of 1970,

26 Arizona had a literacy test for voting. (Trial Tr. 354). Arizona also held English-only

27

28

- 47 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 48 of 49

1 elections until the state became covered by the language minority provisions of the VRA.

2 Id.

3

b. Current Socioeconomic Statistics

4

The Court finds there ar e substantial socioeconomic disparities between American

5 Indians and the Arizona population as a whole, which hinders American Indians’ ability to

6 participate effectively in the political process.

7

As of 2000, 13.9% of Arizonans lived below tehpoverty line, compared to 38% of the

8 American Indian population. (Trial Tr. 461; Ex. 1197-98). The median household income

9 for all Arizona was $40,388, compared to $23,709 for the American Indian population. Id.

10

Among those 18 and over in Arizona, 7.6% had not com pleted the ninth grade,

11 compared to 30.2% of the American Indian population. Id.

12

Among all households in Arizona in 2000, 7.4% had no vehicle available, while

13 20.3% of American Indian households did not. (Ex. 1198).

14

c. American Indians Elected to Public Office

15

As of 2007, there were 54 elected Am erican Indian officials in Arizona. (Trial Tr.

16 202-03).

17

iii. Causation

18

Under the totality of the circum stances, Plaintiffs have failed to dem onstrate that

19 Proposition 200 interacts with social and histor ical conditions to deny Am erican Indian

20 voters equal access to the political process and to elect their preferred representatives.

21 Therefore, they have not established a Section 2 violation.

22 V. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

23

Gonzalez Plaintiffs assert Proposition 200s' proof of citizenship requirement violates

24 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by discrim inating against naturalized citizens. Title VI

25 provides in relevant part:

26

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected

27

to discrimination under any programor activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

28

- 48 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1041 Filed 08/20/08 Page 49 of 49

1 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

2

To establish a claim under Title VI, a plaintiff must prove that the challenged law

3 intentionally discriminates on the basis of race or national origin. Alexander v. Sandoval ,

4 532 U.S. 275, 280 (2001) (it is “beyond disput e” that “§ 601 prohi bits only intentional

5 discrimination”); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985) (“ Title VI itself directly

6 reach[es] only instances of intentional discrimination.”). There is no private cause-of-action

7 for mere disparate treatment. Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 177-78

8 (2005); Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 285.

9

As discussed supr a, Section II, Gonzalez Plaintiffs have failed to dem onstrate

10 intentional discrimination. Therefore, they have not established a violation of Title VI.

11

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgm ent on behalf of the

14 Defendants.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be terminated.

16

DATED this 20th day of August, 2008.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 49 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1073 Filed 07/11/12 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7

8
9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.
12
State of Arizona, et al.,
13

14

Defendants.

No. CV-06-01268-PHX-ROS ORDER

15

16

17

This action is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of

18 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Counsel for the Gonzalez Plaintiffs, the ITCA Plaintiffs
19 and the Defendants (“the Parties”) have conferred to determine what further actions are
20
necessary. The Parties are in agreement that the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of
21
22 Appeals in Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012), requires injunctive relief

23 against the application of A.R.S § 16-166(f) as applied to the Federal Form for Voter

24 Registration under the National Voter Registration Act.
25
Accordingly,
26

27

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

28

1. Effective as of this date, Defendants shall not reject Federal Forms from

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 1073 Filed 07/11/12 Page 2 of 2

1 those who seek to register to vote for the reason that they have not provided proof of 2 citizenship under A.R.S § 16-166(f).

3

2. The parties shall brief the Court concerning the terms of any subsequent

4
order according to the following schedule:
5
July 13, 2012 – Plaintiffs’ opening briefs (ten pages each) are due;
6

7

July 19, 2012 – Defendants’ response briefs (ten pages if

8

separate, or seventeen pages if combined) are due;

9

July 24, 2012 – Plaintiffs’ reply briefs (five pages each) are due.

10

3. In the event that this Court’s final judgment issues before the Supreme
11

12 Court’s disposition of the Defendants’ petition for certiorari, any application for

13 attorneys’ fees shall be due within thirty days following the Supreme Court’s

14 determination.
15

16

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order, to

17 address the matters raised by the Parties in their briefs filed pursuant to this Order, and

18 to award such further relief as is required by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision

19 in Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012).

20

Dated this 11th day of July, 2012.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 15

I WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et aI.,

) No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS

10
II VS.

Plaintiffs,

OPI'SION AND ORDER
1

12 State of Arizona, et aI.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

16

17

In the general election of 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. That

18 initiative made significant changes to Arizona's voter registration scheme. Plaintiffs

19 challenge some of those changes as contrary to federal law and ask the Court to issue a

20 temporary restraining order preventing Arizona officials from enforcing Proposition 200.

21 Plaintiffs have not shown there is a likelihood they will succeed on the merits. Therefore,

22 their request will be denied.

23 I. Background

24

Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA") in 1993. 42 U.S.C.

25 §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10. The statute was passed to accomplish four goals:

26

(I) to establish procedures that will increase the number of

elIgible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal

27

office;

28

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 15

I

(2) to make it possible for Federdl, State, and local governments

to im{Jlement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the

2

participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for

Federal office;

3

(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

4

(4) to ensure that accUrdte and current voter registrdtion rolls are

5

maintained.

6 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(I)-(4). One ofthe methods Congress provided for achieving these

7 purposes was allowing individuals to register to vote by mail. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(2). In

8 the portion of the statute devoted to mail registration, Congress stated "[e]ach state shall

9 accept and use the mail voter registration application fonn prescribed bythe Federal Election

10 Commission pursuant" to the specific criteria for that form set forth elsewhere.' 42 U.S.C.

11 § 1973gg-4(a). Congress allowed states to "develop and use" their own mail voter

12 registrdtion fonns, provided those forms also complied with certain criteria. 42 U.S.C. §

13 1973gg-4(a)(2). The criteria Congress envisioned for mail voter registration forms are set

14 forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b). That section provides, in relevant part:

15

The mail voter registrdtion form developed [by the Election

16

Assistance Commission in conjunction with the States]~

17

(1) may require only such identifying information (including

18

the signature of the applicant) and other information

(including data relating to previous registration by the

19

applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State

20

election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election

21

process ....

22

23

24

25

26

I The Federal Election Commission's responsibilities regarding the mail voter

registration form were later transferred to the Election Assistance COlmnission. 42 U.S.C.

27 § 15532.

28

-2-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 15

1 42 U.S.C. § J973gg-7(b)(l). Prior to 2004, Arizona accepted and used the federal mail
2
voter registration form and did not require those wishing to register to provide any proof
3
4 of citizenship.

5

Arizona voters passed Proposition 200 in 2004. The initiative amended Arizona

6 Revised Statutes scction 16-166.2 That statute now reads, in part, "[t]he county recorder 7
shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory
8
9 evidence of United States citizenship." Id. The statute sets forth what qualifies as

10 "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship"; H[t]he number of the applicant's
11 driver license or nonoperating identification license, ... [a] legible photocopy of the
12 13 applicant's birth certificate, ... [a] legible photocopy of ... the applicant's United States

14 passport, ... [or] [a] presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's United States

15 naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization." Id.
16 Defendants claim that this law was precleared by the Department of Justice. (Response
17
18 p.4)

19

On March 6, 2006, the Executive Director of the Election Assistance Commission

20 ("EACH) sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State expressing the opinion that
21
22 Proposition 200's requirement regarding proof of citizenship violated the NVRA.

23 (Exhibit 5) According to the letter, "[n]o state may condition acceptance of the Federal

24 [Mail Voter Registration] Form upon receipt of additional proof.... Any Federal
25

26 2 Proposition 200 made other changes to state law not relevant to the application for
27 a temporary restraining order.

28

-3-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 4 of 15

1 Registration Fonn that has been properly and completely filled-out by a qualified
2
applicant and timely received by an election official must be accepted in full satisfaction 3 4 of registration requirements.II The Arizona Secretary of State responded to this letter and

5 requested an "opportunity to rcspond to the legal points raised by [the Executive

6 Director]." The Arizona Secretary of State also sent a letter to the Department of Justice
7 asking that the EAC be advised that requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship
8
9 did not violate the NVRA.

10

On May 9, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their complaint setting forth ten causes of action.)

11
(Doc. 1) That same day Plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order 12
13 arguing that the NVRA preempted Proposition 200. Plaintiffs later sought more specific

14 relief in the fonn of Han immediate order restraining and enjoining Defendants ... from

15 failing to distribute, use and accept the federal mail voter registration application fonn
16
prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission." (Doc. 13) Thus, the main issue
17
18 now before the Court is whether the NVRA's language regarding the federal mail voter

19 registration fonn preempts Proposition 200's requirement that individuals present proof of
20 citizenship at the time they attempt to register using the federal fonn.4
21
22 II. Legal Standards

23

24

25

3 Another action was consolidated with the current suit on June 1,2006. (Doc. 28)

26 4 Plaintiffs explicitly state that the issue currently before the court is Arizona's refusal

27 to accept the federal fonn. (Doc. p. 1 n.l)

28

-4-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 5 of 15

1

"The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard

2 for issuing a preliminary injunction." Lockheed Missile & Space Co" Inc. v. Hughes
3 4 Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320,1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The Ninth Circuit has provided

5 two sets of criteria for a court to use when evaluating a request for a temporary restraining

6 order. First, "[uJnder the 'traditional' criteria, a plaintiff must show '(1) a strong 7
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if 8
9 preliminary relief Is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

10 advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).'" Earth Island lnst. v. United States 11
Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of 12 13 Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427,1430 (9th Cir.1995». Or second, a plaintiff must
14 "demonstrate[] 'either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility
15 of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips 16
sharply in his favoL'" Id. (quoting Johnson, 72 FJd at 1430). These two ways of 17 18 evaluating a plaintiffs request "represent 'extremes of a single continuum,' rather than two

19 separate tests." Clear Channel Outdoor Inc.. a Delaware Corp. v. City of Los Angeles,
20 340 FJd 810, 813 (9th Cif. 2003) (quoting Walczak v. EPL Prolong. Inc., 198 FJd 725,
21 22 731 (9th Cif. 1999». "Thus, the greater the relative hardship to [Plaintiffs] the less

23 probability of success must be shown." Earth Island, 351 F.3d at 1298 (quoting Clear
24 Channel, 340 F.3d at 813). Of course, if Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter oflaw, no 25
likelihood of success exists and the temporary restraining order cannot be issued. See 26
27 Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902,

28

- 5-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 6 of 15

913 (9th Cir. 1995) (affmning dissolution of preliminary injunction because claims failed
2 as a matter of law).
3 4 II. Analysis

5

"It is axiomatic that '[t]he starting point in every case involving construction of a

6 statute is the language itself.'" Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681,685 7
(1985) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 756 (1975) 8
9 (Powell, 1., concurring». If the language of a statute is clear, a court "need not resort to

10 either the agency's interpretations or the statute's legislative history." Reynolds v.
II Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 435 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2006).5 In fact, if "the
12 13 words ofa statute are unambiguous ... Judicial inquiry is complete.'" Connecticut Nat.

14 Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992) (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S.

15 424,430 (1981». Accordingly, Plaintiffs' resort to legislative history and agency action is 16
premature in that an ambiguity in the statute must first be established.6 The text of the 17 18 NVRA must be examined in detail to determine if an ambiguity exists.

19
20
21 5 See also Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council. Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
22 843 n.9 (1984) ("If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains 23 that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and
must be given effect."); United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. I, 6 (1997) ("Given the 24 straightforward statutory command, there is no reason to resort to legislative history.").

25

6 Plaintiffs do not devote a great deal of argument to establishing that an ambiguity

26 exists, Instead, Plaintiffs believe that the terms of the NVRA clearly prohibit Proposition

200 and referto legislative history to get there. But ifthe terms ofthe NVRA are clear, there

27 is no need to resort to agency decisions and legislative history.

28

- 6-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 7 of 15

I

As cited earlier, 42 U,S.C, § 1973gg-7(b), sets forth the requirements for the

2 federal mail voter registration form. That statute details what the form may contain, what
3

4 the form must contain, as well as what the form must not contain. The statute provides

5 that the form "may require only such identifying infomlation (including the signature of

6 the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by 7
the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the 8
9 eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the

10 election process." 42 U.S,C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). The form must contain

11
a statement that12

13

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship); (B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and

14

(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.

15 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(2)(A)-(C). The form must also include statements setting forth 16
the "penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application" 17
18 and that voter registration is confidential. 42 U.S.C. § I973gg-7(b)(4). Finally, the form

19 must not "include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication." 42

20 U.S.C, § 1973gg-7(b)(3).
21

22

Plaintiffs submit that this statutory language sets forth all the requirements a state

23 may require of an individual wishing to register to vote. In Plaintiffs' view, once an

24 individual has fully and accurately completed the federal mail registration form, he or she 25
should be registered to vote; the state may not condition registration on any additional
26
27 requirements or actions not specifically set forth in the statute, Plaintiffs also contend

28

-7 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 8 of 15

1 that the NVRA explicitly bars states from requiring any type of "formal authentication,"
2 which they interpret to include a requirement regarding proof of citizenship. The text of
3 4 the statute does not support these conclusions.

5

A. Statutory Construction of NVRA Requirements

6

Plaintiffs' first argument is that if an individual completes the federal form

7 contemplated by the NVRA, Arizona must accept that form and register the person to
8

9 vote. In other words, the federal form acts as a ceiling regarding the requirements to

10 register to vote; any requirement not on the federal form violates the NVRA. Defendants
11 counter that the NVRA actually acts as a floor, setting forth the requirements for
12
13 completion of the federal form but leaving states free to impose additional requirements,
14 so long as those requirements are not specifically barred by the NVRA. In other words,
15 the full and accurate completion of the federal form does not assure an individual that 16
they are registered to vote, additional information may be required. To resolve whether 17
18 the NVRA requirements act as a ceiling or as a floor, the Court may look to the language

19 ofthe NVRA addressing the contents of the federal form, "the specific context in which
20 that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Robinson v.
21 22 Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337,341 (1997).

23

To begin, there is no indication in the language of the NVRA itself that states are

24 prohibited from requiring additional information, such as proof of citizenship, when
25
processing voter registration forms. The NVRA provides that a voter registration form 26
27 "may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant)

28

·8·

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 9 of 15

I and other information (including data relating to the previous registration by the
2
applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the 3 4 eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the

5 election process." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). In Plaintiffs' view, the terms "identifying

6 information" and "other information" are not sufficiently broad to encompass a 7
requirement of proof ofcitizenship. This does not square with the plain meaning of such 8
9 terms. The statute allows requiring "other information" meant to assist a state in

10 "assess[ing] the eligibility ofthe applicant" to vote. The plain meaning is if the state
11
deems some information necessary to identify the applicant, the information can be 12 13 required. The state may require a signature, data relating to prior registration, and such

14 other information that will enable the state to determine eligibility and to administer the

15 registration and election process. Therefore, in the identification process the state is
16
allowed to determine eligibility. Determining whether an individual is a United States 17
18 citizen is of paramount importance when determining his or her eligibility to vote. In

19 fact, the NVRA repeatedly mentions that its purpose and goal is to increase registration of
20 "eligible citizens." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1 )-(2). Providing proof of citizenship
21
22 undoubtedly assists Arizona in assessing the eligibility of applicants. Arizona's proof of

23 citizenship requirement does not conflict with the plain language of the NVRA.7

24

25

7 The portion ofthe NVRA both parties refer to controls the contents of the federal

26 form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b}. Arguably, Proposition 200 does not change the contents of the form so I973gg-7(b) does not apply. But changing what an individual must submit in

27 addition to the federal fonTI is at least within the spirit of the NVRA if not the letter.

28

-9-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 10 of 15

I

Further support for Defendants' position that the NVRA does not set out all of the

2
requirements for registering to vote is that the NVRA recognizes that states may have to
3
4 reject some submitted forms. Congress provided that states must "send notice to each

5 applicant of the disposition of the application" to register to vote. 42 U.S.c. § 1973gg-

6 6(a)(2). There is no indication from the statute itself what basis a state may have for 7
rejecting an application, but such rejections are clearly contemplated. Arizona 8
9 immediately sends notice to individuals who attempt to register to vote but fail to include

10 information regarding their citizenship status. The possibility that a state will have to
II reject some registration forms is contemplated by the NVRA and supports Defendants'
12 13 contention that completion of the federal form, simpliciter, may not be enough.

14

Another informative aspect of the NVRA is that it provides specific guidance

15 regarding what may not be required: the federal form "may not include any requirement 16
for notarization or other formal authentication." 42 U.S.C. § I 973gg-7(b)(3). This is the 17
18 only specific prohibition mentioned. Plaintiffs read this restriction as applying to

19 Arizona's request for proof of citizenship. The plain language of this prohibition,

20 however, rules out this argument
2l

22

The meaning of a statutory word or phrase, such as "other formal authentication,"

23 can be determined "by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis )."

24 Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.. Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995). U[W]ords grouped in a list 25
should be given related meaning," thus, "other formal authentication" should be given a 26
27 meaning similar to that of "notarization." This interpretation is supported by resort to

28

- 10-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 11 of 15

1 definitions of the two terms. See Note, Looking it Up: Dictionaries and Statutory
2 Interpretation, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1437 (1994) (detailing Supreme Court's reliance on
3
4 dictionary definitions in statutory interpretation cases).

5

According to Black's Law Dictionary 1087 (8th ed. 2004), "notarize" means "to

6 attest to the authenticity of (a signature, mark, etc.)." "Formal," on the other hand, is
7 defined as "[p]ertaining to or following established procedural rules, customs, and
8
9 practices.... Ceremonial, " id. at 678, and "authentication" is defined as "the act of

10 proving that something (as a document) is true or genuine." rd. at 142. Thus, "fom1ai
11
authentication" refers to a requirement similar to notarization, such as requiring a 12 13 ceremonial act in which an individual attests to the truth of the registration form. A bar

14 on notarization and formal authentication has no impact on a requirement that an

15 individual submit "other information" in any number of ways to prove citizenship. 16
Proposition 200's citizenship verification requirements are aimed at proving voter 17
18 eligibility, not at proving the registration form is "true or genuine." Therefore, the bar on

19 "formal authentication" does not prevent an application of Proposition 200's

20
requirements. 21

22

Connected to the finding that the NVRA's bar on notarization or other formal

23 authentication does not apply to requiring proof of citizenship is the observation that

24 Congress did not specifically bar any other type of information being required for
25
registration. As recognized in Key Tronic Com. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 818-19 26
27 (1994), an omission may "suggest a deliberate decision" by Congress. If Congress had

28

- 11 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 12 of 15

1 wished to bar any requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when
2
registering to vote, it could have stated as much in the text of the statute. See H.J. Inc. v. 3 4 Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249 (1989) (noting that "rewriting [a statute] is

5 a job for Congress, if it is so inclined, and not for this Court."). Congress's choice to not

6 include a prohibition of proof of citizenship supports Defendants' argument that
7 Proposition 200 does not violate the l'.'VRA.
8

9

Finally, a number of courts have found the NYRA does not act as a ceiling

10 preventing states from enforcing their own laws regarding voter qualifications. In
11 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Miller, 912 F.
12 13 Supp. 976, (W.D. Mich. 1995), the Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of

14 the NVRA. In finding that the NVRA did not "violate Congressional authority" under the
15 Constitution, the Court stated that "the NVRA does not regulate the qualifications of 16
voters." Id. at 986. The Court also noted that "[e]very court that has considered whether 17
18 the NVRA alters voter qualifications fixed by a state has found that it does not." Id. at

19 985. One of the cases cited for this proposition was ACORN v. Ridge, No. Civ. A. 9420
767[, [995 WL 136913, at *8 (E.D. Pa. March 30,1995). There the court observed that 21
22 the "NVRA does not establish who is entitled to vote. Instead, it establishes the method
23 which an othenvise qualified voter must follow to exercise his or her right to Yote. ,,& Id.
24

2S

8 Plaintiffs cite Ridge for the proposition that yoter registration forms that request

26 "more information than permitted by the NVRA are contrary to the National Voter

Registration Act of 1993." Ridge, 1995 WL 136913 at *9. But the fonus at issue in that case

27 contained a requirement for notarization, a clear violation of the NVRA. Also, the Court

28

- 12 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 13 of 15

1 (emphasis added); see also ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794 (7th Cir. 1995) ("The
2 [NVRA] does not purport to alter the qualifications fixed by the State of Illinois for voters
3 4 in elections for the Illinois Assembly."). The Court finds these preeedents persuasive.

5 There is no indication in the NVRA that Congress wished to supplant all state laws

6 regarding qualifications to vote. The NVRA was an attempt to provide unifonnity to the 7
registration process, it was not an attempt to preclude all determinations of voter 8
9 qualifications by the states. Arizona's decision to require proof of citizenship is not

10 contrary to the plain language of the NVRA.
II Because there is no ambiguity in the NVRA, the agency decisions and legislative
12 13 history are not to be consulted. Plaintiffs have not shown that the requirements of

14 Proposition 200 conflict with a plain language reading of the NVRA. Accordingly, there

15 is an insufficient likelihood of success on the merits regarding Plaintiffs' claim that 16
Arizona is not "accepting and using" the federal fonn. As a result, the request for a 17
18 temporary restraining order on this basis will be denied.

19

B. Preclearance Pursuant to Section V of the Voting Rights Act

20 Plaintiffs also believe they are entitled to a temporary restraining order based on
21
22 Defendants' failure to obtain preclearance of Proposition 200. The parties agree that the

23 Department of Justice precleared Proposition 200 in a letter dated January 24, 2005.

24

25

26 provided no analysis of the issue of additional requirements such as the individual's "color, height, hair and eye color." Without such analysis, the holding of the court that additional
27 infonnation is barred by the NVRA is not persuasive.

28

- 13 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 14 of 15

1 Plaintiffs believe, however, that "Defendants never revealed to the Justice Department
2 that Arizona would cease to use and accept the federal mail voter registration form for
3 4 federal elections." (Doc. p. 21) A complete copy of Proposition 200 was attached to

5 Arizona's submission to the Justice Department. (Submission p. 1) The submission also
6 contained an "Analysis by Legislative Council" pointing out that Proposition 200 required 7
"that evidence of United States citizenship be presented by every person to register to 8 9 vote." (Submission p. 2) (Emphasis added.) Thus, it appears likely that the state's

10 submission adequately apprized the Justice Department of Proposition 200's changes to
11 Arizona law.'J Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding
12 13 preclearance and they are not entitled to a temporary restraining order based on this issue.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.

16

13) is DENIED. 17

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for July

19 19th, 2006 at 9 a.m. and July 20th, 2006 at 9 a.m.
20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs shall submit briefing on the preliminary
21
22 injunction issues by June 30th, 2006. Defendants shall file their Response by July 7th,

23 2006 and Plaintiffs' Reply is due July 14th, 2006. 24

25

26

9 As recognized by some Plaintiffs, "preclearance .. relates only to compliance with

Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act], and has no bearing on compliance with other federal

27 laws such as the NVRA." (Doc. p. 4 n.2)

28

- 14-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 68 Filed 06/19/06 Page 15 of 15

1 2
DATED thisL2- day of June, 2006. 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23
24 25 26 27
28

Roslyn O. Silver
United States District Judge
- 15 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 142 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 5

WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Maria M. Gonzalez, et aI.,

} No. CV 06-1 268-PHX-ROS

10

Plaintiffs,

~ No, CV 06-1362-PHX-ROS (cons)

} No. CV 06-1S75-PHX-EHC

I I vs.
12 State of Arizona, et aI.,
I3

l OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

)

14 .-------~

IS

16

17

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Transfer and

18 Consolidate. For the following reasons, the Motion to Intervene will be denied and the

19 Motion to Transfer and Consolidate will be granted.

20 I. Motion to Intervene

21

One day after the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order,

22 a ballot initiative political committee kno'vvn as Yes on Proposition 200, and Randall Pullen,

23 the chainnen of Yes on Proposition 200, sought leave to intervene. (Doc. ) The proposed-

24 intervenors seek either intervention as a matter ofright or pennissive intervention. The Inter

25 Tribal Council of Arizona opposes the intervention, arguing that the proposed-intervenors

26 do not quality for either form of intervention. (Doc. 104)

27

A. Intervention as a Matter of Right

28

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 142 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 5

"[AJn applicant for intervention as of right must demonstrate that: (1) the intervention

2 application is timely; (2) the applicant has a 'significant protectable interest relating to the

3 propCl1y ortransaetion that is the subject ofthe action'; (3) 'the disposition of the action may,

4 as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest'; and (4)

5 'the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant's interest.''' Prete v. Bradbury,

6 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting .United States v. Ali~al Water Com. 370 F.3d

7 915,919 (9th eir. 2004». A proposed-intervenor must satisfy all of these requirements to

8 be entitled to intervention as a matter of right. Id. (finding that failure to satisfy fourth

9 requirement meant intervention should not have been granted). Assuming that the proposed-

10 intervenors have satisfied the first three elements, they have not presented adequate evidence

11 that the existing defendants "may not adequately represent [their] interest." Id. Thus, the

12 proposed- intervenors are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right.

13

"In assessing whether a present pa11y will adequately represent an intervenor-

14 applicant's interests, [a court must] 'consider several factors, mcluding whether [a present

IS party] will undoubtedly make all of the intervenor's arguments, whether [a present party] is

16 eapable ofand willing to make such arguments, and whether the intervenor offers a necessary

17 element to the proceedings that would be neglected.'" rd. at 956 (quoting Sagebrush

18 Rebellion. Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525,528 (9th Cif. 1983». When, as here, "the government

19 is acting on behalf of a constituency that it represents," there is an assumption that the

20 government will adequately represent that constituency. Id. To rebut that assumption

21 proposed-intervenors must make a "very compelling showing," including a demonstration

22 that the "government will abandon or concede a potentially meritorious reading of the

23 statute." Id.; California ex reI. L(2ckyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436,444 (9th Cir. 2006).

24

In this case, the state defendants have already vigorously defended Proposition 200

25 in the context of Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order. Also, the state

26 defendants' ultimate objective is a favorable ruling on the legality of Proposition 200, the

27 same objective as the proposed-intervenors. Finally, there is no indication that the State

28

-2 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 142 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 5

defendants will "abandon or concede a potentially meritorious reading of the statute." Id.

2 Thus, the proposed-intervenors have not satisned the requirements for intervention as a

3 matter of right.

4

B. Permissive Intervention

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) sets forth the procedure for pennissive

6 intervention. According to that Rule, a court must evaluate a request for permissive

7 intervention by considering "whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the

8 adjudication of the rights ofthe original parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). A court should also

9 "consider whether the applieant's input is likely to make a significant and useful contribution

10 to the development of the underlying factual and legal issues." James Wm. Moore, Moore's

I I Federal f'llictice § 24.IO[2J[b] (3d ed. 2006). Deciding whether to grant pennissive

12 intervention "is directed to the sound discretion of the district court." San Jose Mercury

13 News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999).

14

In support oftheirrequest forpennissive intervention, the proposed-intervenors state

15 that they will not seek to alter the discovery or hearing schedule. Thus, they believe that any

16 delay caused by their intervention would be "de minimis." (Doc. p.7) Given the extremely

17 compressed discovery and hearing schedule, the state defendants' ability to represent the

18 proposed-intervenors' positions, and judicial economy concerns regarding the multiplication

19 ofproceedings, the Court does not agree that allowing intervention would have only a minor

20 impact. See Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1989) (statingjudicia1 economy

21 is a valid consideration in deciding motion for permissive intervention); Menominee indjiLl}

22 Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson, 164 F.R.D. 672, 678 (W.D. Wis. 1996) (denying
23 permissive intervention after detennining state was adequately representing interests or i

24 proposed- intervenor and intervention would not promote "prompt detennination" of issues

25 before the court), Therefore, in an exercise of its discretion, the Court detennines that

26 pennitting the intervention ofthe proposed-intervenors would "unduly delay or prejudice the

27

28

-3-

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 142 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 5

adjudication of the rights oflhe original pmiies." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Thus, the proposed-

2 intervenors are not entitled to pennissive intervention.

3 II. :\'Iotion to Transfer and Consolidate

4

On June 30, 2006, the Secretary of State and the State of Arizona moved to transfer

5 and consolidate with the actions cun'ently before this Court an action pending before Judge

6 Carroll. (Doc. 92) The case before Judge Carroll involves claims by the Navajo Nation that

7 Proposition 200'5 voter identification requirements violate federal statute and are

8 unconstitutional. The Navajo Nation believes that transfer and consolidation is inappropriate

9 because the tacts and specific relief they seek differ from the facts and relief sought in the

10 previously consolidated cases. (06-1575 Doc. 15) The state defendants, however, believe

I I that there is "substantial overlap" in the legal theories in each case and judicial economy

12 favors transfer. (06-1575 Doc. 21 p.2)

13

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 42(a) allows for the consolidation of related actions.

14 The Rule states, in relevant part, "[w]hen actions involving a COlTunon question oflaw or fact

15 are pending before the court ... it may order all the actions consolidated." Fed. R. eiv. P.

16 42(a). Iftwo cases qualify for consolidation pursuant to this rule, a court must "weigh[l the

17 interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice

18 caused by consolidation." Paxonet Communications, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp.

19 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003). There is no dispute that the actions the State seeks to

20 consolidate "involve a number of corrunOl1 questions of law and fact." 1d. The actions

21 presently before the Court as well as the Navajo Nation action involve an alleged conflict

22 between federal statutory law and Proposition 200. The actions also share an allegation that

23 Proposition 200 violates a number of constitutional provisions. Thus, there are substantial

24 "common question[s] oflaw or fact" for the Court to resolve that favor consolidation. Fed.

25 R. Civ. P. 42(a).

26

The Navajo Nation argues that important factual differences are present such that

27 consolidation is not proper. But the factual differences in the actions are not sufflcient to

28

-4 -

Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS Document 142 Filed 08/04/06 Page 5 of 5

I prevent consolidation. See Bowman v. Legato Systems, Inc., 195 F.R.D. 655, 657 (N.D. Cal.

2 2000) (ordering cases consolidated despite factual differences). For example, in the actions

3 currently pending before the Court, the Plaintiffs seek statewide relief; in the Navajo Nation

4 action, however, the Plaintiffs seek relief only for voters on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo

5 Nation Plaintiffs argue that this difference in the scope of relief requested prevents

6 consolidation. While the scope of relief requested may be different, the legal and factual

7 issues in determining whether such relief is appropriate are substantially similar in all ofthe

8 actions. Thus, this factual difference is insufficient to prevent consolidation. The other

9 factual differences cited by the Navajo Nation are also unavailing. Therefore, the actions

10 will be ordered consolidated.

II

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Intervene (Doc. 72) is DENIED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Transfer and Consolidate (Doc. 92) is

14 GRANTED. Case number CV-06-1575-PHX-EHC shall be transferred to this Court and

15 consolidated with case number CV-06-1268-PHX-ROS.

16

17

DATED this '4-"','-""""'"'-

18

19

. 1 er

tates District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 27

1 Judith M. Dworkin (No. 010849) Marvin S. Cohen (No. 00923)
2 Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee (No. 020996)

SACKS TIERNEY P.A. (No. 00182000)

3 4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd., 4th Floor

Scottsdale, AZ 85251-3693

4 Telephone: (480) 425-2600

Judith.Dworkin@sackstierney.com

5 Marvin.Cohen@,sackstiernev.com

Patty.F enmson(a)sackstierney .com

6 Dana L. Bobroff(No. 019682)
7 The Navajo Nation, Dept. of Justice

P.O. Drawer 2010

8 Window Rock, Arizona 86515

Telephone: (928) 871-6275

9 FacsImile: (928) 871-6177 dbobroff@yahoo.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

13
THE NAVAJO NATION, a federally

14 recognized Indian tribe, and AGNES

LAUGHTER,

No.

15

Plaintiffs,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

16 v.
17 JAN BREWER, individually and in her

(Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, Injunction)

18 official capacity as Secretary of State of

the State of Arizona; PATTY HANSEN,

19 individually and in her official capacity as

Coconino County Election Administrator,

20 CANDACE OWENS, individually and in

her official capacity as Coconino County

21 Recorder, PENNY PEW, individually and

in her official capacity as Apache County

22 Elections Director, LENORA JOHNSON,

individually and in her official capacity as

23 Apache County Recorder, KELLY DASTRUP, individually and in her

24 official capacity as Navajo County Elections Director, LAURETTE

25 JUSTMAN, individually and in her official capacity as Navajo County

26 Recorder,

27 28 601075. \3

Defendants.

611912006/10:02:36 AM

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 27

1

Plaintiffs the Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter seek mandamus, declaratory

2 judgment, and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of proof of identification

3 procedures enacted pursuant to Proposition 200, A.R.S. § 16-579 and the "Procedure for

4 Proof of Identification at the Polls" ("Procedures") adopted by Defendant Secretary of State

5 to implement Proposition 200. For their complaint against the above-named Defendants,

6 Plaintiffs allege the following:

7

PARTIES

8

1. Plaintiff Navajo Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe pursuant to the

9 Treaty of 1868. The Navajo Reservation ("Reservation") was established by Treaty in 1868

10 and was thereafter expanded by successive executive orders. The Reservation consists of

11 approximately 13,989,222 acres of tribally-owned, allotted and government owned land.

12 The Reservation is located in Apache, Navajo, and Coconino counties in Arizona, as well

13 as counties in Utah and New Mexico. According to the 2000 census, the population of the

14 Reservation is 180,462 of whom 108,948 live on the Arizona portion of the Reservation.

15 The Navajo Nation has a voting age population of 61,000 living within the Arizona portion

16 of the Reservation.

17

2.

The Navajo Nation's tribal members would have standing to sue in their

18 individual right for the allegations set forth in the Complaint. The Navajo Nation

19 coordinates voter outreach and voter education on the Reservation. The Navajo Nation

20 Election Administration reviews and approves all Navajo language translations used by

21 Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties for use on Reservation precincts. The translations

22 include radio and print announcements, ballots, audio tapes, other election material, and

23 poll working training materials. Navajo members lacking identification deemed acceptable

24 by Defendants will not be able to vote in the upcoming elections without expending funds

25 in order to obtain an identification card. The Nation also asserts the right to bring this

26 claim on behalf of its members parens patriae.

27

28 601075.13

2

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 27

1

3. Plaintiff Agnes Laughter is a resident of Chilchinbeto, Arizona, an Arizona

2 elector, and a member of the Navajo Nation. Ms. Laughter is a citizen of Arizona and is

3 registered to vote in local, state, and national elections in Arizona. Ms. Laughter does not

4 possess an Arizona driver's license or another form of "acceptable" photo identification

5 listed in the "Procedures." Ms. Laughter does not possess two alternative forms of

6 "acceptable" photo identification listed in the "Procedures" that she can use at the polls to

7 cast a regular ballot. Ms. Laughter would have to pay a fee in order to acquire the

8 identification required by Proposition 200.

9

4. Jan Brewer, the Arizona Secretary of State, is sued individually and in her

10 official capacity as the chief election officer of the State. Her duties include certifying the

11 results of congressional and legislative elections. A.R.S. §§ 16-311, 16-648.

12

5. Patty Hansen is sued individually and in her official capacity as the Election

13 Administrator for Coconino County, Arizona. She is in charge of conducting elections in

14 Coconino County.

15

6. Penny Pew is sued individually and in her official capacity as the Elections

16 Director for Apache County, Arizona. She is in charge of conducting elections in Apache

17 County.

18

7. Kelly Dastrup is sued individually and in her official capacity as the Elections

19 Director for Navajo County, Arizona. She is in charge of conducting elections in Navajo

20 County.

21

8. Candace Owens is sued individually and in her official capacity as the

22 Coconino County Recorder. She is responsible for various aspects of elections in the

23 County.

24

9. LeNora Johnson is sued individually and in her official capacity as the

25 Apache County Recorder. She is responsible for various aspects of elections in the County.

26

10. Laurette Justman is sued individually and in her official capacity as the

27 Navajo County Recorder. She is responsible for various aspects of elections in the County.

28 601075.13

3

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 27

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

11. The claims alleged in this Complaint arise under the Constitution and laws of

3 the United States, seek redress of the deprivation under color of state law of rights,

4 privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and by Acts of

5 Congress providing for equal rights of citizens, seek to secure equitable or other relief

6 under Acts of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to

7 vote, and seek to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in Arizona. This

8 action arises under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

9 Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Twenty-Fourth Amendment of the

10 United States Constitution; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A) and

11 (a)(2)(B); Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a);

12 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

13

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

14 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(d), 1973U)(f) and

15 1983.

16

13. This Court has jurisdiction to grant both declaratory and injunctive relief

17 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2102.

18

14. All Defendants reside in or are present in the District of Arizona. All claims

19 in this Complaint arose in the District of Arizona and venue is proper in the District of

20 Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

21

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

22

15. The right to vote is a fundamental right.

23

16. Prior to 2004, Arizona law did not require electors to provide proof of

24 identification at the polls as a condition to cast a ballot.

25

17. In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a voter initiative, entitled

26 the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act." See The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen

27 Protection Act, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

28 601075.13

4

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 5 of 27

1

18. The impetus behind Proposition 200 was to prevent illegal immigrants from

2 obtaining public benefits.

3

19. The proponents of Proposition 200 claimed that individuals should present

4 identification at the polls to prevent voter fraud by illegal immigrants.

5

20. No evidence of voter fraud was provided to support Proposition 200.

6

21. Upon information and belief, there existed few, if any, incidents of voter

7 fraud or voter impersonation at the polls prior to the adoption of Proposition 200.

8

22. Upon information and belief, voter fraud occurs more often by mail than in

9 person at the polls.

10

23. Upon information and belief, voter fraud is rare and Arizona has safeguards

11 in place to protect against voter fraud.

12

24. Prior to the implementation of Proposition 200, Arizona law required voters

13 to be United States citizens. A.R.S. §16-lO1.

14

25. Randy Pullman, Chairman of the "Yes on Proposition 200" campaign claimed

15 that the "initiative will require registered voters to provide proof of identity when obtaining

16 a ballot whether in person or by mail." See Exhibit 1.

17

26. The Governor of the State of Arizona urged the electorate to vote "no" on

18 Proposition 200. In her written statement, the Governor said, "Proposition 200 would make

19 voting more difficult for lawful Arizona citizens and jeopardize our vote-by-mail system.

20 Valid voters could be denied ballots at the polls if they simply forget to bring i.d. And early

21 voting would be much more confusing. Either Arizonans would have to mail in

22 identification when they request a ballot (which would hinder many early voters, including

23 military personnel and seniors in nursing homes who may not have access to their

24 documents) or our system would unconstitutionally subject early voters to a less rigorous

25 verification process than election day voters face. Proposition 200 does not cure our

26 immigration problems; it compounds them, and does so at the expense of law-abiding

27 Arizonans. Please vote 'No'." See Exhibit 1.

28 601075.v!3

5

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 6 of 27

1

27. Under A.R.S. § 16-651, Governor Napolitano is charged with implementing

2 new initiatives by issuing a proclamation following a successful vote of the electorate.

3

28. Governor Napolitano officially proclaimed Proposition 200 into law on

4 December 13,2004.

5

29. Proposition 200 amended A.R.S. § 16-579, the procedures for obtaining a

6 ballot by an elector, by requiring an elector voting in person to "present one form of

7 identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different

8 forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector."

9

30. Proposition 200 does not define "identification" and does not limit the types

10 of identification that can be used to obtain a ballot.

11

31. A.R.S. § 16-579 neither authorizes nor requires Secretary Brewer to adopt a

12 narrow list of acceptable forms of identification.

13

32. Secretary Brewer adopted the "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the

14 Polls" ("Procedures") for the stated purpose of implementing A.R.S. § 16-579(A). See

15 Procedures, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

16

33. Governor Napolitano approved the "Procedures" on September 7, 2005.

17

34. Under the "Procedures" developed by Secretary Brewer, to receive a regular

18 ballot at the polls an elector must prove his identity. An elector can prove his identity by

19 either presenting:

20

A. One of the following forms of unexpired identification with the

21 photograph, name, and address of the elector:

,22

•

Valid Arizona driver license.

23

•

Valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

24

•

Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

25

•

Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued

26

identification.

27 OR

28 601075.13

6

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 7 of 27

1

B. Two of the following forms of unexpired identification without a

2 photograph that contains the name and address of the elector:

3

• Utility bill of the elector that is dated within ninety days of the date of

4

the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste,

5

sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television.

6

• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within ninety days of the

7

date of the election.

8

• Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration.

9

•

Indian census card.

10

• Property tax statement of the elector's residence.

11

• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

12

• Vehicle insurance card.

';;"-

'~" ~ M

0.... >w ~'"
~5 ~ ·0 '~ "

.(a:l"co

.,;~g~

.... !:( ti ~

~
z ~

~~Q~~~:;~<1Ii

[:J ~ 6l

Eo- ~ ....

(/) ~ b

~ U~0~ u'"

<

(/)

13

• Recorder's Certificate.

14

• Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued

15

identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county

16

recorder.

17

35. The "Procedures" identify three classes of ballots: regular, provisional, and

18 conditional provisional. Voters filing a provisional ballot do not need to return to the polls

19 with identification, but voters filing a conditional provisional ballot must return to the

20 county elections office with acceptable identification.

21

36. An elector with no identification can cast a conditional provisional ballot

22 under the "Procedures." The elector must return, with three days for state and local

23 elections and five days for federal elections, with acceptable identification in order for his

24 or her ballot to be counted.

25

37. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, on or about October 7, 2005,

26 the United States Department of Justice pre-cleared the "Procedure for Proof of

27 Identification at the Polls."

28 601075.13

7

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 8 of 27

1

38. Proposition 200 did not amend the process for electors to obtain an early

2 ballot or to cast an early ballot. To obtain an early ballot, the elector must make a verbal or

3 signed request to the county recorder or other officer in charge for an official early ballot.

4 The elector shall provide his/her name, address, date of birth, county or state of birth, or

5 other information to confirm the elector's identity. The elector must sign an affidavit on the

6 ballot envelope swearing that he/she is the individual casting the ballot. A.R.S. § 16-

7 547(A).

8

39. The new voter identification requirement applies only to electors voting in

9 person on Election Day. No similar voter identification procedures are required by electors

10 voting by mail. No form of identification for early voting is required to obtain a ballot

11 because Arizona has a statewide voter registration database. A.R.S. § 16-579(B)

12

40. On January 17, 2006, Speaker Lawrence T. Morgan of the Navajo Nation

13 Legislative Council addressed the Nation's concerns resulting from the voter identification

14 requirements and the impacts the Nation believes that the requirements will have on Navajo

15 electors during the "Tribal Issues Round Table" session on Tribal Legislative Day. See

16 Navajo Nation Presentation dated January 17,2006, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

17

41. On January 27, 2006, the Navajo Nation and other tribal representatives met

18 with Representative Laura Knaperek and Representative Albert Tom of the Arizona

19 Legislature to discuss possible solutions to the identification problem. One suggestion was

20 to appropriate funds to tribal governments to finance the issuance of tribal identifications.

21 No additional meetings were held, and no legislation was introduced in the Arizona

22 Legislature to address the problem.

23

42. During the 2006 Legislative Session, legislation introduced to extend

24 Proposition 200's voter identification requirements to early ballots failed.

25

43. On April 11, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations (P) held a

26 hearing on a strike-everything amendment to SB 1067. The amendment, as proposed,

27 would have applied Proposition 200's voter identification requirements to early voting. See

28 601075.13

8

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 9 of 27

1 Excerpts from Minutes of Committee on Appropriation (P), April 11, 2006, attached hereto

2 as Exhibit 4.

3

44. Maricopa County Elections Director, Karen Osborne testified before the

4 Committee opposing voter identification for early voting. She stated that (1) when one

5 votes by mail, the elector must sign the envelope that contains the ballot; (2) the signature

6 on the outside envelope is compared with the elector's voter registration signature; and (3)

7 Maricopa County considers signature verification for early ballots on the ballot envelope to

8 be an adequate form of positive identification. The voter identification strike-everything

9 amendment to SB 1067 was not voted out of Committee. See Exhibit 4.

lO

45. Electors who vote at the polls must also provide a signature before casting a

11 ballot. Pursuant to 16-579(D), "[e]ach qualified elector shall sign his name in the signature

12 roster prior to receiving his ballot . . .. The provisions of this subsection relating to signing

til
;.

'~" ~ M

'"....0>

0-
~

.... ...l

'" <:> ~
·0 ~ ..,(a:l"oo

".; t:l8i

;;... ~ Ii ::l

'"'
z ~

~~:r~:C~2
Q S::;I

'"':r: Q

........

til

~ cG ....

b CJ'.l @

u'"~ 0~

u
til

~

CJ'.l

13 the signature roster shall not apply to electors casting a ballot using early voting

14 procedures. "

15

46. Stringent voter identification requirements are applied to electors who vote in

16 person on Election Day that are not applied to early voters. The voter identification

17 requirements applied to electors who vote in person prevent persons from casting ballots

18 that would have been accepted from these persons if they had been early voters.

19

47. Pursuant to Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, Navajo, Apache, and

20 Coconino Counties must provide official language assistance to Navajo Nation members at

21 the polls. Because the Navajo language is historically an unwritten language, only oral

22 assistance is required.

23

48. Official assistance available at the polls for sight-impaired and non-English

24 speakers is not available to Navajo Nation members for early voting. Upon information

25 and belief, the lack of assistance for Navajo Nation language speakers and sight-impaired

26 electors during early voting impedes these electors from effectively participating in the

27 early voting process.

28 601075.13

9

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 10 of 27

1

NATIVE AMERICANS AND VOTING

2

49. Native Americans comprise approximately five percent of the total

3 population of the State ofArizona.

4

50. A history of official discrimination exists in Arizona and in political

5 subdivisions in and around Indian Reservations and communities and against tribes and

6 individual tribal members. This discrimination has impaired the rights of tribal members to

7 register to vote or to otherwise participate in the democratic process.

8

51. Voting in and around Indian Reservations and communities is, to a significant

9 extent, racially polarized.

10

52. There have been no tribal members elected to the national offices from

11 Arizona or to the offices of Governor, Attorney General, or Secretary of State, two

12 representatives to the 90-seat state legislature are Native American, and the extent to which

13 tribal members have been elected to other State elected offices and offices of the political

14 subdivisions in and around Indian reservations and communities is significantly

15 disproportionate or minimal in relation to the percentage of tribal members in the total

16 population of the state and political subdivisions in and around Indian reservations and

17 communities.

18

53. Native Americans bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as

19 education; employment and health which hinder their ability participate effectively in the

20 political process.

21

54. As a result of its history of racially discriminatory electoral practices, the

22 State of Arizona is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and must

23 submit its changes that impact voting to either the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S.

24 District Court for the District of Columbia for preclearance before any voting changes may

25 be implemented.

26

55. Native Americans are a protected class under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

27

28 601075.13

10

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 11 of 27

1

56. Because of past discrimination in the State of Arizona, any voting change in

2 Navajo, Apache, and Coconino Counties must be precleared before implementation.

3

57. Coconino, Apache and Navajo Counties are subject to Section 4(f)(4) and

4 Section 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act. These sections require language minority

5 assistance to members of the Navajo Nation. A Consent Decree was entered into to ensure

6 that the state and counties' election practices and procedures provide Navajo with an equal

7 opportunity to participate effectively in the electoral process. See First Amended Consent

8 Decree, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

9

NAVAJO NATION FACTS

10

58. The Navajo Nation is a long-standing, cultural and religious community that

11 has existed since time immemorial. There are over one hundred and thirty clans in Navajo

12 society. Because the Nation is comprised of a traditional society made up of clan and

13 family systems, relationships play an important role in daily life.

14

59. The Navajo Nation is divided into one hundred ten Chapters, local

15 governance systems within the Navajo Nation. Upon information and belief, many

16 Reservation precincts are located in Chapter Houses.

17

60. Because of extensive clan and family systems, the rural nature of the

18 Reservation, and the stability of the Nation, tribal members in Chapters do not need formal

19 identification to know the identity of other Chapter members.

20

6l. Upon information and belief, all polling places on the Reservation have

21 Navajo poll workers.

22

62. Navajos traditionally greet each other with a handshake.

23

63. If a poll worker personally knows a Navajo elector, requiring a form of

24 identification from that individual before voting is an offense to cultural interaction.

25

64. Navajos living on the Navajo Reservation are less likely than other electors to

26 have the forms of identification required by the "Procedures".

27

65. The Navajo Nation does not issue tribal identification cards to its members.

28 601075.13

11

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 12 of 27

1

66. Upon information and belief, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued census coins

2 to Navajo individuals. These coins include a census number, but do not include a name or

3 address.

4

67. Upon information and belief, when the census rolls were updated in 1940, the

5 federal government, the Office of Indian Affairs, later known as the Bureau of Indian

6 Affairs, issued family cards to Navajo Nation households. These family cards include the

7 name, census number, birthday, and relationship of all the family members. These cards

8 were issued only to the heads of households. These cards do not include an address.

9

68. Upon information and belief, from 1940 to 1982, the BIA issued certificates

10 of Indian blood. These certificates include the name, blood quantum, census number, and

11 birthdate of the member. These certificates do not include an address.

12

69. Since 1982, the Navajo Nation has issued certificates of Indian blood to tribal

13 members. These certificates include the name, blood quantum, census number and birthday

14 of the member. These certificates do not include an address of the tribal member.

15

70. A Navajo Nation member can only obtain a copy of his or her certificate of

16 Indian blood from the Navajo Nation Office of Vital Records - Tribal Enrollment Services.

17 In Arizona, these offices are located in Window Rock, Chinle, Fort Defiance, and Tuba

18 City.

19

71. Upon information and belief, the Navajo Nation Department of Highway

20 Safety recently agreed to issue identification cards to tribal members. The identification

21 cards include the individual's name, address, and photograph. The Navajo Nation

22 Department of Highway Safety is located in Window Rock, Arizona. In order to obtain a

23 photo identification card, an elector must travel to Window Rock, AZ, and pay a fee of

24 $5.00 to obtain the card. This is the only Navajo Nation office that issues identification

25 that contains a name, address, and photograph.

26

72. There are four Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles offices located on the

27 Arizona portion of the Reservation. These offices are located in Tuba City, Chinle,

28 601075.13

12

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 13 of 27

1 Window Rock, and Tec Nos Pos. The Tec Nos Pos office provides driver licenses only-

2 not title or registration. All of the offices are closed on Saturday and Sunday. The offices

3 are open Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

4

73. If an elector does not have identification, then an elector must expend funds

5 to travel to a state, federal, or tribal agency to obtain identification for voting.

6

74. Plaintiff Agnes Laughter plans to vote at the polls in the next election.

7 Although Ms. Laughter is a qualified and registered voter in the State of Arizona, she does

8 not posses the identification documents required by Proposition 200 for voting at the polls.

9 See Declaration ofAgnes Laughter, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

10

75. Ms. Laughter does not have the required documents to obtain an Arizona

11 identification card. See Exhibit 6.

12

76. The only reason Ms. Laughter would attempt to obtain a photo identification

13 card would be to ensure that she has proper identification to vote. As a result of

14 Proposition 200's voter identification requirements, Ms. Laughter will be denied an

15 opportunity to cast a regular ballot at the polls unless she expends funds to travel to a state,

16 federal, or tribal agency and pays a fee to obtain an identification acceptable under the

17 Procedures. See Exhibit 6.

18

77. Upon information and belief, the voter identification required for voting at

19 the polls is not necessary for everyday life and would be obtained only for the purpose of

20 voting at the polls.

21

78. Members of the Nation will be subject to the voter identification requirement

22 in the upcoming elections scheduled to be held on September 12, 2006, which includes

23 primaries for federal and state elections.

24

79. Navajo Nation members who do not bring the required forms of identification

25 to the polls will not be allowed to cast a regular ballot. Native Americans will be

26 irreparably harmed if they are forced-between now and the next election-to either (a)

27 obtain a photo identification from a state or federal office, or (b) obtain two identifications

28 601075.13

13

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 14 of 27

1 from a state, federal, or tribal office. Unless they take one of these actions, they will forfeit

2 their rights as registered voters to vote in the next and subsequent elections or referenda in

3 their respective voting districts or political subdivisions-an injury for which they cannot

4 be adequately compensated in an action at law for money damages.

5

80. Navajo Nation members lacking identification will be required to expend

6 funds to obtain an acceptable form of photo identification.

7

81. Navajo Nation members are less likely than other Arizona voters to have two

8 of the alternative forms of acceptable identification.

9

82. According to the 2000 Census, 33% of the housing units on the Arizona

10 portion of the Navajo Nation Reservation lack complete plumbing. See Navajo Nation

11 Data from U.S. Census 2000, attached hereto as Exhibit 7 at 20.

12

83. According to the 2000 Census, 62% the housing units on the Arizona portion

13 of the Navajo Nation Reservation lack telephone service. See Exhibit 7 at 20.

14

84. According to the 2000 Census, at least 20% of homes located on the Arizona

15 portion of the Navajo Nation Reservation lack access to a vehicle. See Exhibit 7.

16

85. Over 56% of Navajo households located on the Arizona portion of the Navajo

17 Nation Reservation are heated by wood, and traditional Navajos living in hogans do not

18 have electricity and do not receive utility bills. See Coconino County letter dated

19 September 28, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit 8; see U.S. Census Bureau General

20 Demographic Characteristics for the Navajo Nation Reservation, attached hereto as Exhibit

21 9.

22

86. On the Navajo Reservation, 37.5% of the homes lack electricity. In the

23 United States, only 1.4% of homes are without electricity. Of those, 75% are on the Navajo

24 Reservation.

25

87. Utility Bills are issued in one individual's name. Sometimes the recipient of

26 the utility services does not even receive the bill.

27

28 601075.13

14

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 15 of 27

1

88. According to the 2000 census, 42% of Navajos live below the poverty level.

2 See Exhibit 7 at 1.

3

89. Most Navajo voters living on the Navajo Reservation vote at the polls and do

4 not vote by early ballot because of language and social issues. See Exhibit 8.

5

90. Navajo County, Apache County, and Coconino County are required to

6 provide language assistance to Navajo language speakers at the polls under Section 203 of

7 the Voting Rights Act. See also Exhibit 8.

8

91. In 2004, 90% of the electors in Coconino County voted in person at precincts

9 located on the Navajo Reservation; 98% of the electors voted in person at the precinct

10 located on the Havasupai Reservation, and 96% percent of the electors voted in person at

11 the precinct located at Moenkopi on the Hopi Reservation. See Exhibit 8 at Exhibit K.

12

92. For the 2004 elections, Coconino County reported that 64% of the electors

13 living in non-reservation precincts voted at the polls, while 91 % of electors living in

14 reservation precincts voted at the polls. See Exhibit 8 at Exhibit K.

15

93. According to the 2000 Census, the population of Apache County was 69,423,

16 of which approximately 77%, 53,375, are Native American. The voting age population of

17 Apache County was 42,692 persons, of whom 73.7%, 31,470 persons, are Native

18 American. See U.S. Census Bureau Profile of General Demographics: 2000, attached

19 hereto as Exhibit 10.

20

94. According to the 2000 Census, 58.32% of Apache County's population speaks

21 the Navajo language at home. Over one-third, 11,377 persons, of the Native American

22 voting age population was limited-English proficient. See Written Testimony of Penny L.

23 Pew dated November 15, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit 9; see Apache County Data,

24 available at http://en.wikipedia.org, attached hereto as Exhibit 12.

25

95. According to the 2000 Census, in Apache County 37.8% of the popUlation

26 live below the poverty line. See Exhibit 10 at 3.

27

28 601075.v13

15

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 16 of 27

1

96. In Apache County, Native American voter turnout in precincts on the Navajo

2 Reservation increased from 14,277 voters in 2000 to 17,955 voters in 2004. See Exhibit

3 11 at 4.

4

97. Upon information and belief, Apache County has reissued approximately

5 46,000 voter identification cards by mail within the county.

6

98. Upon information and belief, approximately 12,000 voter registration cards

7 have been returned as not deliverable.

8

99. Members of the Navajo Nation living on the Navajo Reservation will be

9 disproportionately impacted by the new voter identification requirement because these

10 Navajo electors vote at the polls at a higher rate than other electors.

11

100. Because of the remoteness and lack of transportation in many areas on the

12 Navajo Reservation, Navajo voters who cast conditional provisional ballots will be less

13 likely than other Arizona voters to return to county election offices to perfect their ballots.

14 See Exhibit 8.

15

101. The Navajo Nation has expended scarce and valuable tribal resources to

16 inform Navajo members of the new voter identification requirements in an attempt to

17 prevent Proposition 200 from diluting the Native American vote and from obstructing

18 Navajo electors at the polls.

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

(Mandamus Action)

21

102. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference the allegations contained in

22 Paragraphs 1-101.

23

103. By their actions, Defendants are wrongfully requiring Arizona citizens who

24 are Members of the Navajo Nation living on the Navajo Reservation to produce

25 identification at the polls. Further, Defendants are wrongfully limiting the types of

26 identification that can be accepted at the polls.

27

28 601075.13

16

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 17 of 27

1

104. Defendants are legally obligated to treat all voters in a fair, equitable and

2 nondiscriminatory manner.

3

105. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.

4

106. Defendants have a ministerial duty under law to accept the same

5 identification at the polling places on the Navajo Reservation as they accept for early

6 voting.

7

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against all defendants as follows:

8

A. That defendants be ordered to accept as identification at the polling places on

9 the Navajo Reservation the same identification they accept for early voting.

10

B. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for attorneys' fees

11 and costs.

12

C.

That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the court

13 deems just and proper.

14

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15 (Declaratory Judgment that Voter Identification Requirements Violate the Equal

16

Protection Clause of the United States Constitution)

17

107. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all allegations contained in

18 Paragraphs 1 through 106 above.

19

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

20 Constitution prohibits states from denying "any person within its jurisdiction the equal

21 protection of the laws."

22

108. The voter identification requirement is not necessary to serve a compelling

23 state interest.

24

109. Persons voting by mail are not subject to the same requirements as electors

25 voting at the polls. Electors voting by mail have no burden to prove his or her

26 identification. This difference violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States

27 Constitution.

28 601075.13

17

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 18 of 27

1

110. The voter identification requirement imposes an undue burden on the right of

2 Arizona voters who vote at the polls, while not imposing the same or similar requirement

3 on Arizona voters who vote by early ballot.

4

111. The percentage of Navajo electors living on the Navajo Reservation who cast

5 ballots at the polls is significantly higher than the percentage other electors casting ballots

6 at the polls.

7

112. The voter identification requirements will deny or abridge the right of Navajo

8 electors living on the Navajo Reservation to vote in violation of the Equal Protection

9 Clause of the United States Constitution.

10

113. The voter identification requirement imposes an undue burden on the right of

11 Navajo electors living on the Navajo Reservation to vote. This burden is neither justified

12 nor necessary to promote a substantial and compelling state interest that was not already

13 adequately protected by existing criminal laws and election procedures, or which could not

14 have been accomplished in other less, restrictive alternatives.

15

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment against defendants as

16 follows:

17

A. That the application to Navajo electors voting on the Navajo Reservation of

18 the provisions of A.R.S. § 16-579 establishing voter identification requirements for Arizona

19 voters who vote at the polls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States

20 Constitution and is beyond the authority of the defendants to implement or enforce.

21

B. That defendants are legally obligated to allow Navajo voters to cast a regular

22 ballot at the polling places on the Navajo Reservation without showing identification set

23 forth inA.R.S. § 16-579.

24

C. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

25

D. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

26 deems just and proper.

27

28 601075.13

18

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 19 of 27

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Declaratory Judgment that Voter Identification Requirements As Applied To The

3 Polling Places on the Navajo Reservation Violate The Equal Protection Clause Of The

4

United States Constitution)

5

114. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all allegations contained III

6 Paragraphs 1 through 113 above.

7

115. Secretary Brewer created the "Procedures" for electors voting at the polls.

8 These procedures include a list of acceptable forms of identification deemed acceptable by

9 Secretary Brewer

10

116. Because of Secretary Brewer's action in creating the "Procedures", Navajo

11 electors voting on the Navajo Reservation will have less of an opportunity than other

12 Arizona voters to cast a regular ballot at the polls because these Navajo voters are less

13 likely to have a form of identification deemed acceptable by defendants than other Arizona

14 voters.

15

117. Upon information and belief, most Navajo voters living on the Navajo

16 Reservation will not return to county elections offices with acceptable identification to

17 perfect a conditional provisional ballot.

18

118. The voter identification requirements will deny or abridge the right of Navajo

19 electors living on the Navajo Reservation to vote in violation of the Equal Protection

20 Clause of the United States Constitution.

21

119. Application of the voter identification requirement to Navajo electors living

22 on the Navajo Reservation imposes an undue burden on their right to vote. This burden is

23 neither justified nor necessary to promote a substantial and compelling state interest that is

24 not already adequately protected by existing criminal laws and election procedures, or

25 which could not have been accomplished in other, less restrictive alternatives.

26

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment against defendants as

27 follows:

28 601075. J3

19

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 20 of 27

1

A. That application of the "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls"

2 establishing voter identification requirements for Arizona voters who vote at the polls to

3 Navajo electors living on the Navajo Reservation violates the Equal Protection Clause of

4 the United States Constitution and is beyond the authority of the defendants to implement

5 or enforce.

6

B. That defendants are legally obligated to allow Navajo voters living on the

7 Navajo Reservation to cast a regular ballot at the polls without showing identification set

8 forth in the "Procedures."

9

C. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

10

D. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

11 deems just and proper.

12

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

l3

(Declaratory Judgment That The Voter Identification Provisions

14

Constitute A Poll Tax)

15

120. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all allegations contained in

16 Paragraphs 1 through 119 above.

17

121. Under A.R.S. § 16-579 and the "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the

18 Polls" an elector must have identification in order to cast a regular ballot at the polls.

19

122. To meet the voter identification requirements, many Navajo Nation members

20 living on the Navajo Reservation must travel long distances to obtain identification from

21 either a state, federal, or tribal agency. To obtain the identification, they must incur costs to

22 travel and to obtain the identification.

23

123. The voter identification requirements impose an unconstitutional poll tax on

24 the right to vote in federal and state elections in Arizona.

25

124. Requiring an elector to pay money to obtain identification IS an

26 unconstitutional poll tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment of the United States

27 Constitution:

28 601075.13

20

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 21 of 27

1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other

election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice

2

President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or

abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay a poll

3

tax or other tax.

4 Amendment XXIV to the United States Constitution, Section 1.

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment against defendants as

6 follows:

7

A. That the voter identification requirements In A.R.S. § 16-579 and the

8 "Procedure for Proof of Identification at the Polls" ("Procedures") adopted by Defendant

9 Secretary of State to implement Proposition 200 as applied to Navajo voters living on the

10 Navajo Reservation violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States

11 Constitution.

12

B. That the implementation of A.R.S. § 16-579 and the "Procedures" constitutes

13 a poll tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

14

C. That defendants are legally obligated to allow Navajo voters to cast a regular

15 ballot at the polling places on the Navajo Reservation without showing identification set

16 forth in the "Procedures."

17

D. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

18

E. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

19 deems just and proper.

20

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21 (Declaratory Judgment that the Voter Identification Requirements Violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a)(2)(A) and 1971(a)(2)(B))
22 125. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all allegations contained in
23 Paragraphs 1 through 124 above.
24 126. The voter identification requirement violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42
25 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A), which provides that:
26 No person acting under color oflaw shall-
27

28 601075.13

21

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 22 of 27

'>"-

'~" ~ M

'" 0>
f-",

~

~5 ~

.. 0 ~

g <a:let.: OO
..; e3 ~

z~~~ .f.;.I;l':;;;:::~t o~

CI:: Cl
f_;I;l :t

"0 -<...J
Cl

E-d2 ~

CZl ~ b

'" ~ U~~0

u

<

CZl

1

(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or

laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure

2

different from the standards, practIces, or procedures applied under such law

or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar

3

political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to

vote; ...

4 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added).

5 127. The voter identification requirement violates 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A)

6 because only voters who vote in person are required to present identification as a condition

7 of being allowed to vote. Arizona law imposes no such voter identification requirement on

8 voters residing in the same "county" or "political subdivision" who vote by casting early

9 ballots.

10 128. The voter identification requirement also violates the Civil Rights Act of

11 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B)), which provides that:

12 No person acting under color of law shall -

13 (B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an

14

error or omissIOn on any record or paper relating to any application,

registration, or other act requisite to votmg, if such error or omission is not

15

material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law

to vote in such election; ...

16 129. The voter identification requirement violates 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B)

17 because it denies individuals who are fully qualified and lawfully registered the right to

18 vote in person based solely on whether or not they have an acceptable form of

19 identification. This requirement is imposed even though identity may be established by

20 other means, such as matching the voter's signature to the signature on the voter's official

21 voter registration card, or personal identification by election officials who know the voter

22 to be the same to be the same person whose name appears on the official list of registered

23 voters.

24 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment against defendants as

25 follows:

26 A. That A.R.S. § 16-579 and the "Procedures" violate the Civil Rights Act of

27 1964.

28 601075.13

22

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 23 of 27

1

B. That the voter identification requirement is invalid and defendants are legally

2 obligated to allow Navajo voters to cast a regular ballot at the polling places on the Navajo

3 Nation without showing identification set forth in the "Procedures."

4

C. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

5

D. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

6 deems just and proper

7

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

(Declaratory Judgment That The Voter Identification Requirements Violate

9

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act)

10

l30. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all allegations contained In

11 Paragraphs 1 through 129 above.

12

l31. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973(a)) provides:

l3

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or

procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in

14

a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen

of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

15 (emphasis added).

16

l32. Members of the Navajo Nation living on the Navajo Reservation, as a group,

17

have lower personal and family incomes than other citizens of Arizona, and are less likely,

18

as a group, to have Arizona driver's licenses or other "acceptable identification" as provided

19

in the "Procedures," than are other citizens, as a group.

20 l33. Members of the Navajo Nation living on the Navajo Reservation, as a group,

21 are more likely to live in rural parts of the State than are other persons, as a group.

22 l34. It is unlikely that Navajo electors who cast conditional provisional ballots

23

will return with "acceptable identification" to perfect the ballots.

24

135. The voter identification requirements are a limitation on voting, a practice or

25 procedure, which will result in the denial of the right to vote to Plaintiff Agnes Laughter

26 and other members of the Navajo Nation in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,

27 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a).

28 601075.13

23

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 24 of 27

1

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment against defendants as

2 follows:

3

A. That A.R.S. § 16-579 and the "Procedures" violate Section 2 of the Voting

4 Rights Act.

5

B. That defendants are legally obligated to allow Navajo voters to cast a regular

6 ballot at the polling places on the Navajo Reservation without showing identification set

7 forth in the "Procedures."

8

C. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

9

D. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

10 deems just and proper.

11

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

(Preliminary And Permanent Injunction)

l3

l36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

14 paragraphs 1 through 135.

15

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray:

16

A. That this Court issue an order to defendants to show cause why a preliminary

17 injunction should not be issued enjoining defendants from implementing the voter

18 identification requirements in Section 16-579 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and in the

19 "Procedures" at the polling places located on the Navajo Reservation.

20

B. That this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from

21 implementing the voter identification requirements in Section 16-579 of the Arizona

22 Revised Statutes and in the "Procedures" at the polling places located on the Navajo

23 Reservation.

24

C. That the preliminary injunction be made permanent.

25

D. That plaintiffs be awarded judgment against defendants for costs.

26

E. That plaintiffs be awarded such other, further and different relief as the Court

27 deems just and proper.

28 601075.13

24

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 25 of 27

1

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

2

SACKS TIERNEY P.A.

3

4 By: __=s/~~==a=rv~i=n~S=.~C=o=h=e=no ________________

5

Judith ~. Dworkin

6

~arvin S. Cohen Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Navajo Nation

and Agnes Laughter 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26 27

28 601075.v13

25

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 26 of 27

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

3

I hereby certify that on June 20, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached

4 document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28 601075.v13

sl Marvin S. Cohen

26

Case 3:06-cv-01575-ROS Document 1 Filed 06/20/06 Page 27 of 27

/. STATE OF ARI.5Z:~_
COUNTY OF nrttUlv

VERIFICATION
l ss.

Lawrence Morgan, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says: I am the Speaker of the Navajo Nation, a Plaintiff in the above-captioned lawsuit, and as such, I am authorized to make this verification. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof, that the answers are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated upon information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

~ay Jun~ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this /?

of

2006, by Lawrence Morgan, as Speaker of the Navajo Nation.

_z",--a_tJ~C; ~ My commission expires: -4-Q_'/_"()-+-'-"-=V=----I'f-

.

I

·.rol,\LSEAL

"

, ATERO

lteot AIImna

;t. "UUNTY

xp/res July 20, 2009

--
NOTJAARYYOPMUFFBEUICCPIA-LSLAtSatTEe EAatL~
I M APACHE COUNTY a y Comm. Expires July 20, 2009

614724.02

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 39

1 David B. Rosenbaum, 009819 Thomas L. Hudson, 014485
2 Sara S. Greene, 022706 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
3 2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
4 (602) 640-9000 E-mail: thudson@omlaw.com
5 E-mail: drosenbaum@omlaw.com E-mail: sgreene@omlaw.com
6 David J. Bodney, 06065
7 Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, 021121 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
8 Collier Center 201 East Washington Street
9 Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382
10 E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com E-mail: khartman@steptoe.com
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

15

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

16 THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., THE LEAGUE OF
17 WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA, THE

) No. ) )

18

HOPI TRIBE, THE LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS

) )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

19 ARIZONA, THE ARIZONA

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ADVOCACY NETWORK, THE PEOPLE )

20 FOR THE AMERICAN WAY

)

21 FOUNDATION, and REP. STEVE M.

)

GALLARDO,

)

22

)

23

Plaintiffs,

)

)

24 vs.

)

) 25 JAN BREWER, in her official capacity as )

26 Secretary of State of Arizona,

)

)

27

Defendant.

)

28

)

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 39

1

2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

3

4

This is an action to have the documentary proof of citizenship and polling

5 place identification requirements of the “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection

6 Act” (which appeared on the ballot in November 2004 as Proposition 200 and is
7 referred to herein as “the Act”), amended Sections 16-152, 16-166, and 16-579 of the 8
Arizona Revised Statutes, declared unconstitutional both facially and as applied, and 9
10 to enjoin the further enforcement of these provisions of the Act on the ground that

11 they impose an unauthorized and unnecessary burden on the fundamental right to vote
12 in violation of the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments to the U.S. 13
Constitution; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B); 14
15 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42.U.S.C. § 1983(a). In addition, this

16 action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the National

17 Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a), which mandates that states
18 “shall use and accept” the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form to register voters.
19

20

II. PARTIES

21

A. Plaintiffs

22

1. Plaintiff Hopi Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe exercising

23

powers which the Tribe now has under existing law or which were recognized by 24

25 Congress by the Act of June 18, 1934. The Tribal Council is the governing body of

26 the Hopi Tribe, duly recognized by the Secretary of Interior. The Council represents

27 and speaks for the Hopi Tribe on all matters for the benefit and general welfare of the 28

2

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 39

1 Tribe and its Members. The Board of Elections of the Hopi Tribe conducts voter
2 registration, educates Tribal Members about voter registration, encourages Tribal
3 4 Members to exercise their right to vote, and works to ensure the voting rights of Hopi
5 people in State, Federal and County elections. Voter registration is conducted in large

6 part on the Hopi reservation, which is in an isolated, rural area. Many Hopi Tribal
7 Members lack the identification required by the Act for registration and voting at the 8
polling place. Moreover, obtaining the necessary identification will cause financial 9
10 hardship because Tribal Members will have to expend time and money procuring the

11 identification from designated agencies, most of which are at a great distance from the

12 Hopi reservation. The Hopi Board of Elections uses the Federal Mail Voter 13
Registration Form required by the National Voter Registration Act. 14

15

2. Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Arizona (“LWVAZ”) is a

16 nonpartisan political organization whose mission includes encouraging the informed
17 and active participation by citizens in government at all levels, including the 18
protection of the right of all citizens to vote and the education of voters about voting 19
20 rights and procedures. LWVAZ has engaged and will engage in registering voters in

21 Arizona. LWVAZ’s voter registration efforts include registering voters at public

22 events (such as street fairs), school events (such as parents’ night at schools) and
23 door-to-door.
24

25

3. Plaintiff Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (“ITCA”) is a private,

26 non-profit Arizona corporation established to provide its 20 member Tribes in

27 Arizona with a means for action on matters that affect them collectively and 28

3

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 39

1 individually. ITCA's mission is to provide its member tribes with a united voice and 2
the means for united action on matters that affect them collectively or individually; to 3 4 be the voice of the Member Tribes in bringing about Indian involvement and self-
5 determination in order to improve the general welfare; to eliminate prejudice and
6 discrimination against Indians and to improve the image of Indians held by non-
7 Indians; to promote community development and enhance the quality of life for our 8
Tribal members living in our communities; to empower our youth to be healthy in 9 10 body, mind, and spirit and to make positive contributions for the well being of our
11 communities; to defend human and civil rights as protected by law; to educate Indians
12 and non-Indians about matters of concern to the Indians in Arizona through such 13
means as public discussion groups, forums, panels, lectures, or any means possible 14 15 and appropriate. ITCA’s members include 20 Arizona Indian Tribes, Nations, and
16 Communities, and each Tribe is represented in ITCA by its highest elected official.
17 The Tribes are recognized by the United States under the Constitution by Treaties, 18
Statutes, Executive Orders, the Secretary of the Interior and other actions by the 19 20 United States. ITCA member Tribes occupy Reservations with land areas (including
21 the Navajo Nation) of approximately a third of Arizona, or about 25 million acres.
22 Indians were recognized as citizens of the United States by the Act of June 2, 1924, 23
43 Stat. 253, 8 U.S.C. § 3. The ITCA operates projects and facilitates the formulation 24 25 of public policy designed to strengthen the self-determination of Indian Tribal
26 governments. For decades, ITCA has been involved in promoting Native American
27 voting rights in Arizona and providing voter education programs for its Members. 28

4

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 5 of 39

1 Many individuals in the ITCA’s member Tribes cannot register to vote because they
2 lack the identification required by the Act. Moreover, many individuals in the
3 4 member Tribes cannot cast a ballot on election day because they lack the polling place
5 identification required by the Act. Moreover, obtaining the necessary identification

6 will cause financial hardship because individuals in ITCA’s member Tribes will have

7 to expend time and money procuring the identification from various agencies, some of 8
which are at a great distance from the reservations of the member Tribes. 9

10

4. Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”)

11 Arizona is an Arizona-based branch of the organization founded in 1929 to advance
12 the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health and civil 13
rights, including voting rights, of the Hispanic population of the United States. 14
15 LULAC’s activities in the state of Arizona include voter education and registration.

16 LULAC registers voters in Arizona at registration drives outside of retail stores,

17 sporting venues, nightclubs, and at community parades and events. LULAC members
18 will be affected by the Act’s identification requirements.
19

20

5. Plaintiff Arizona Advocacy Network (“AzAN”) is a coalition of

21 nonprofit public interest organizations dedicated to increasing citizen participation in

22 the political process. AzAN promotes social, economic, racial and environmental 23
justice by connecting and building power among activists and leaders in those fields, 24
25 and by leading efforts for electoral justice and increased civic participation. Towards

26 that end, AzAN’s scope of work includes, among other goals, protecting and

27 improving citizen access to voting by working to diminish limitations and restrictions 28

5

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 6 of 39

1 on registration and voting, extending registration to vote up to and including election
2 days, promoting voting by mail, and ending the requirement of documentary proof of
3 4 citizenship at polling places and for voter registration. AzAN has conducted and will
5 conduct voter registration in Arizona, and is particularly focused on registering

6 underrepresented communities and thereby engaging those communities in civic
7 participation. 8
6. Plaintiff People For the American Way (“PFAWF”) Foundation is a 9
10 nonpartisan non-profit corporation committed to promoting values and institutions

11 that sustain a diverse democratic society and an informed electorate, and whose
12 efforts include voter education and registration in Arizona through a project focused 13
on Hispanic citizens. PFAWF has conducted and will conduct voter registration in 14
15 Arizona.

16

7. Plaintiff Steve M. Gallardo is an Arizona State House Representative

17 for District 13. Mr. Gallardo was elected in 2002. Mr. Gallardo engages in election
18 campaigns, seeks the votes of eligible, registered voters, and seeks to ensure that the
19

20 voting rights of all eligible citizens are protected, and that no eligible voters are

21 discouraged or prevented from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Mr. Gallardo

22 seeks to correctly inform eligible citizens about the identification required to register 23
to vote, and to correctly inform registered voters about the identification necessary to 24
25 cast a ballot. Voters who would vote for Mr. Gallardo in upcoming elections, but lack

26 the registration and/or polling place identification required by the Act, will not be able

27 to cast their vote for Mr. Gallardo. As a result, Mr. Gallardo will receive fewer votes. 28

6

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 7 of 39

1 Some of Mr. Gallardo’s constituents cannot register because they lack the
2 identification required by the Act. Some of Mr. Gallardo’s constituents cannot cast a
3 4 ballot because they lack the polling place identification required by the Act.
5 Obtaining the necessary identification will cause financial hardship because such

6 constituents will have to expend time and money procuring the identification required
7 by the Act from various designated agencies. Finally, some of Mr. Gallardo’s 8
constituents, who have secured or could secure the identification required by the Act, 9
10 through inadvertence, may prove unable to present the identification required by the

11 Act at the time of voting.

12

8. ITCA, the Hopi Tribe, and LULAC have members who would have

13

standing to sue in their individual right for the allegations set forth in the Complaint, 14

15 the interests that ITCA, the Hopi Tribe, LULAC and their members seek to protect in

16 the Complaint are germane to the purpose of each of each organization, and neither

17 the claim nor the relief sought requires participation by the individual members of
18 ITCA, the Hopi Tribe, and LULAC.
19

20

C. Defendant

21

9. Secretary of State Jan Brewer is in her official capacity as the

22 Secretary of State of Arizona, in which capacity she is the chief state election officer
23 under A.R.S. § 16-142.
24

25

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26

10. This case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

27 States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 28

7

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 8 of 39

1 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4) § 1361, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(d),

2 1973j(f) and 1983. This Court has jurisdiction to grant both declaratory and
3 4 injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

5

11. Venue in this district and division is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

6 because defendant Brewer resides and may be found in this district, and a substantial

7 part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 8
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9

10

A. Pre-Existing Arizona Law

11

12. Arizona has a history of widespread and persistent discrimination in

12 voting through practices and procedures that unconstitutionally interfere with the 13
fundamental right to vote guaranteed by the Constitution. In 1975, Congress 14

15 recognized Arizona’s discriminatory by requiring Arizona to prove that proposed

16 voting changes do not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or

17 membership in a language minority group pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
18 Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.
19

20

13. Prior to the enactment of the Act, a person registering to vote in Arizona

21 was required to sign a statement declaring that he or she is a United States citizen and

22 acknowledging that executing a false registration is a class 6 felony. Registrants were 23
not required to submit other documentary proof of United States citizenship with their 24
25 registration applications. A.R.S. § 16-152 (amended 2004).

26

27

28

8

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 9 of 39

1

14. Prior to 2003, registered voters in Arizona were not required to present

2 any form of identification at the polls as a condition of casting a ballot. A.R.S. § 16-
3 4 579 (amended 2004).

5

15. Effective November 2003, A.R.S. §16-579 was amended in order to

6 comply with the requirements of the Help American Vote Act. The amendments
7 provided that if a statewide voter registration database was not yet operational at the 8
time of an election, certain identification requirements would apply to voters who 9
10 registered by mail after January 1, 2003 or reregistered by mail after that date after

11 moving from one Arizona county to another.

12

B. The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (“Proposition 200”)

13

16. In November 2004, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Taxpayer and 14

15 Citizen Protection Act (“Proposition 200”), a ballot initiative which, according to the

16 “findings and declaration” section of the initiative, was designed to “discourage
17 illegal immigration.” The Act in large measure addresses issues unrelated to voting, 18
namely: requiring that state and local governments verify the identity of applicants 19
20 for certain public benefits, and requiring that government employees report alleged

21 violations of immigration law by applicants for public benefits. The Act also amended

22 three sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes pertaining to voting: A.R.S. §§ 16-152, 23
16-166, and 16-579. The Act imposed a new proof of citizenship requirement for 24
25 voter registration, as well as new requirements for presenting identification at the

26 polling place in order to receive and cast a ballot.

27

28

9

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 10 of 39

1

The New Proof of Citizenship Requirement for Voter Registration

2 17. The Act amended A.R.S. §§ 16-152 and 16-166 to require that an
3 4 individual who applies to register to vote must submit proof of United States

5 citizenship with the application, and that a county recorder must reject any application

6 for registration that is not accompanied by “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship as
7 specified by A.R.S. § 16-166(F). Such “satisfactory evidence” includes: 8
a) The number of the applicant’s driver’s license or non-operating 9
10 identification license if issued after October 1, 1996 by the Department of

11 Transportation or the equivalent governmental agency of another state within the
12 United States if the agency indicates on the applicant’s driver’s license or non13
operating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of 14
15 United States citizenship.

16

b) A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that

17 verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.
18 c) A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United
19

20 States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or

21 presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States passport.

22

d) A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United

23

States naturalization documents or the number of certificate of naturalization. If only 24

25 the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be

26 included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is

27

28

10

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 11 of 39

1 verified with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service by the County

2 Recorder.

3

4

e)

Other documents or methods of proof that are established

5 pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

6

f) The applicant’s Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, Tribal

7 treaty number or Tribal enforcement number. A.R.S. § 16-166(F). 8
18. The Act includes a “grandfather” clause that provides that a person who 9

10 was registered to vote in Arizona on the effective date of the amendment to A.R.S. §

11 16-166 is deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship, and is not

12 required to resubmit evidence of citizenship unless he or she changes voter 13
registration from one county to another. A.R.S. § 16-166(G). 14

15

19. A.R.S. § 16-166(F), as amended by the Act, further provides that proof

16 of voter registration from another state or Arizona county is not satisfactory evidence
17 of citizenship. Therefore, an individual who moves from one Arizona county to 18
another Arizona county must resubmit “satisfactory evidence” of United States 19
20 citizenship in order to register to vote in his or her new county of residence. A.R.S.

21 §§ 16-166(H).

22

20. Because Arizona is covered under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it

23

cannot implement a change in voting absent federal preclearance. Arizona’s proof of 24

25 citizenship requirement for voter registration was precleared by the U.S. Department

26 of Justice on January 24, 2005, and the Arizona Voter Registration Form was

27 precleared on May 6, 2005. Preclearance does not bar a subsequent action to enjoin 28

11

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 12 of 39

1 enforcement of a voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure. 42 U.S.C. §

2 1973(c).
3
4

The New Polling Place Identification Requirements

5

21. The Act also amended A.R.S. § 16-579 to require that all registered

6 Arizona voters appearing at the polls to vote must satisfy new identification
7 requirements before they will be allowed to cast a ballot. A voter who appears at a 8
polling place to cast a ballot must present either one form of identification that bears 9
10 the name, current address, and photograph of the voter, or two other forms of

11 identification that bear the name and current address of the voter. A.R.S. § 16-

12 579(A). 13
22. 14

Defendant Brewer has promulgated rules to implement the polling place

15 identification requirements of the Act. These regulations were precleared by the

16 Department of Justice on October 7, 2005.

17

23. In a document entitled, “Procedure for Proof of Identification at the

18

Polls,” dated September 6, 2005, posted on the Secretary of State’s website, the forms 19

20 of polling place identification deemed “acceptable” by the Secretary of State are

21 identified as follows:

22

Acceptable forms of identification with photograph, name, and address of

23

the elector

24

• Valid Arizona driver license

25

• Valid Arizona nonoperating identification license

• Tribal enrollment card or other form of Tribal identification

26

• Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued

27

identification

28

12

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 13 of 39

1

Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the

2

name and address of the elector (two required)

3

• Utility bill of the elector that is dated within ninety days of the

4

date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television

5

• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within ninety days of

the date of the election

6

• Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration

7

• Indian Census Card

• Property tax statement of the elector’s residence

8

• Tribal enrollment card or other form of Tribal identification

9

• Vehicle insurance card

• Recorder’s Certificate

10

• Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued

11

identification, including a voter registration card issued by the

county recorder.

12

13 The identification set forth above is “valid” unless it can be determined on its face

14 that it has expired.

15

According to the above-referenced document, “Procedure for Proof of

16 Identification at the Polls,” the foregoing list of “acceptable” proof of identification is
17
18 not exhaustive. However, other forms of identification not on the foregoing list must

19 be deemed acceptable by the county official in charge of elections and must establish

20 the identity of the elector in accordance with the requirements of A.R.S. § 16-579(A).
21 24. According to the Secretary of State’s regulations, electors who do not
22 23 provide the identification required by A.R.S. § 16-579(A) must be issued a
24 provisional ballot, and must be instructed by a poll worker that, in order for the

25 provisional ballot to be processed and counted, the elector must provide the
26 identification required by A.R.S. § 16-579(A) to the county recorder’s office by 5:00
27

28

13

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 14 of 39

1 p.m. on the fifth business day after a general election that includes an election for

2 federal office or 5:00 p.m. on the third business day after any other election.

3

4

25. The new identification requirements imposed by the Act apply only to

5 registered voters who vote in person on Election Day. The Arizona Taxpayer and

6 Citizen Protection Act did not affect Arizona’s early voting provisions.

7

26. All Arizona elections must provide for early voting and any qualified

8

elector may vote by early ballot. A.R.S. § 16-541. Except for first-time voters as set 9

10 forth in A.R.S. § 16-542(A), electors who vote by early ballot are not required to

11 satisfy the identification requirements imposed by the Act. Rather, to obtain an early
12 ballot, a voter is required only to submit along with his or her request for an early 13
ballot “the date of birth and state or country of birth or other information that if 14
15 compared to the voter registration information on file would confirm the identity of

16 the elector.” A.R.S. § 16-542(A). After the voter completes the early ballot and
17 executes an affidavit on an accompanying envelope that attests to the voter’s identity, 18
the early voter may deliver or mail the ballot to the county recorder or other officer in 19
20 charge of elections. A.R.S. § 16-547, 16-548. The county recorder is required to

21 review the signature on the completed affidavit to ensure that it corresponds to the

22 signature of the elector on his or her registration form, and if the voter’s affidavit is 23
sufficient, the vote shall be allowed. A.R.S. § 16-550, 16-552(A). Except as noted 24
25 above, an early voter is not required to satisfy the polling place identification

26 requirements imposed by the Act. Moreover, according to the Secretary of State’s

27

28

14

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 15 of 39

1 regulations, “[a]n elector who is dropping off his or her early ballot at a precinct

2 voting location is not required to show identification.”

3

4

C. Proposition 200’s Proof of Citizenship and Polling Place Identification Requirements Impose an Unnecessary and Undue Restriction on the

5

Fundamental Right to Vote

6

27. The proof of citizenship requirement of the Act, A.R.S. §§ 16-152 and

7 16-166, as amended, imposes an unnecessary and undue burden on the exercise of the 8
fundamental right to vote of thousands of citizens of Arizona who are fully eligible 9

10 and qualified to register to vote, but who either do not possess or are unable to access

11 the documents specified as “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship by A.R.S. § 16-
12 166(F), as amended, and, accordingly, will be disenfranchised. Individual members 13
of LULAC, the Hopi Tribe, and individuals in ITCA’s member Tribes will be injured 14
15 by the Act’s proof of citizenship requirements, for the reasons discussed below.

16

28. Indian reservations in Arizona, including the reservation of ITCA

17 Member Tribes, encompass approximately 25 million acres. Thousands of individual
18 Members of the ITCA’s Member Tribes who are residents of the reservations live in
19

20 remote areas, and many have no running water, electricity, telephone, gas services,

21 bank accounts, home addresses, drivers’ licenses, automobiles, or access to public

22 transportation. The ITCA Tribes have the highest unemployment rates in the nation. 23
Unemployment ranges up to 82% on some reservations. Many Members of the 24
25 ITCA’s Member Tribes live in such poor housing conditions that paper documents

26 proving citizenship are difficult to impossible to preserve.

27

28

15

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 16 of 39

1

29. Thousands of citizens of Arizona are eligible and qualified to register to

2 vote, but do not have one of the items required by § 16-166(F): a driver’s license or
3 4 non-operating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by Arizona or

5 another state indicating citizenship; a photocopy of a birth certificate or a passport;

6 naturalization or other documents established pursuant to the Immigration Reform and
7 Control Act of 1996; or Tribal documentation. Many U.S. citizens, by necessity or 8
choice, do not have driver’s licenses. Moreover, many citizens do not have passports, 9
10 either because their health or financial situation makes it difficult for them to travel

11 abroad, or simply because they choose not to. Many citizens, furthermore, either do
12 not possess or do not have access to a copy of their birth certificate. In addition, the 13
naturalization or Tribal documentation referenced in § 16-166(F) may not be 14
15 applicable to many Arizona citizens.

16

30. While the new voter registration provisions of the Act will burden all

17 registrants, compliance with these provisions will impose an especially difficult
18 obstacle for citizens who are eligible and qualified to register, but who are: (a) poor
19

20 and therefore do not own a vehicle, do not have a passport because they cannot afford

21 to travel abroad, and do not have possess or have access to a birth certificate; (b)

22 elderly and no longer drive, no longer have a passport because they do not travel 23
abroad, and do not possess or have access to a birth certificate; (c) physically disabled 24
25 and therefore do not drive, and either by necessity or choice do not travel abroad on a

26 passport, and do not possess or have access to a birth certificate; (d) residents of

27 retirement and nursing homes who, by choice or necessity, do not have driver’s 28

16

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 17 of 39

1 licenses or passports, and do not possess or have access to a birth certificate; (e)
2 married women who have changed their names; and (f) individuals who live in rural
3 4 areas for whom providing a photocopy of the required documentation would impose a
5 hardship.

6

31. Moreover, the Act’s requirement that citizens provide documentary

7 proof of citizenship in order to register will significantly hamper the voter registration 8
efforts of organizations that conduct voter registration in Arizona, including plaintiffs 9

10 the Hopi Tribe, LWVAZ, LULAC, AzAN, PFAWF, and ITCA. The Act’s citizenship

11 documentation requirement will make it extremely difficult for voter registration
12 organizations to register individuals in public places (such as shopping malls, fairs, 13
etc.) because individuals typically do not carry birth certificates or passports on their 14
15 persons, and because of the general unavailability of photocopying machines at such

16 public places. Moreover, the Act’s citizenship documentation requirement will make
17 it extremely difficult for voter registration organizations to conduct door-to-door voter 18
registration drives because households typically do not have photocopying machines, 19
20 and such machines cannot be moved from house to house. In sum, the Act limits the

21 number of persons who can be registered, and hinders the organizations’ ability to

22 conduct voter registration. 23
32. The Act will deplete the resources of voter registration organizations 24
25 who will be forced to copy, assist in copying, and transport for copying

26 documentation establishing citizenship, such as birth certificates and passports. The

27 Plaintiff organizations, including the ITCA, Hopi Tribe, LWVAZ, LULAC, AzAN, 28

17

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 18 of 39

1 PFAWF, and ITCA will be required to shift limited resources away from their
2 respective existing programs and voting outreach efforts and apply such resources to
3 4 helping their members comply with the Act’s identification requirements. Plaintiff
5 organizations, including the Hopi Tribe, LWVAZ, LULAC, AzAN, PFAWF, and

6 ITCA’s have an interest in accurately informing their members and constituencies of
7 the identification required to register to vote and to cast a ballot. This ability is 8
hindered by the Act’s requirements, and by Secretary Brewer’s refusal to use the 9
10 Federal Mail Voter Registration Form prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance

11 Commission for registration of voters in federal elections, as described more fully

12 below. 13
33. 14

The new polling place identification requirements of A.R.S. § 16-579,

15 as amended, as well as the Secretary of State’s implementing regulations, also impose

16 an unnecessary and undue burden on the exercise of the fundamental right to vote of
17 thousands of qualified voters in Arizona who do not possess or are unable to access 18
the documents deemed “acceptable” proof of identification, including members of 19
20 LULAC, the Hopi Tribe, and the individual members of the ITCA’s member Tribes.

21

34. Thousands of Arizona citizens are eligible and qualified voter

22 registrants but have neither a form of photo identification with a current address, nor 23
two forms of non-photo identification with a current address, that have been deemed 24
25 “acceptable” by defendant Brewer or their county election official. Many registered

26 and qualified electors do not have a driver’s license, or do not have a driver’s license

27 with a current address. Moreover, many qualified electors do not possess photo 28

18

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 19 of 39

1 identification issued by the federal, state or local government with a current address.
2 With respect to non-photo identification, many electors – including those who are
3 4 poor and/or elderly, who live in assisted living facilities, who live on reservations
5 and/or in rural areas without conventional addresses, who do not possess a vehicle or

6 real property, and who do not have a bank account or utility account in their own

7 name – will be unable to present the identification required at the polling place and, 8
accordingly, will be disenfranchised. 9

10

35. The burdens imposed by the polling place identification requirement

11 affect a wide spectrum of Arizona’s registered voters, such as:

12

1) Voters who are poor, do not own a vehicle, and lack a driver’s license

13

or other government-issued photo identification, and therefore are very unlikely to 14

15 have a vehicle insurance card or Arizona vehicle registration, and are less likely to

16 have two recent utility bills or bank statements in their names;

17

2) Residents of assisted living facilities who may not have driver’s

18

licenses, either because they are unable to drive or simply choose not to, and are 19

20 less likely to have vehicle insurance cards, vehicle registration documents, or recent

21 utility bills in their names.

22

3) Registered voters who do not drive and whose household utility bills

23

and other documents are in the name of the voter’s spouse; 24

25

4) Native American voters, particularly those who live on reservations

26 and/or in rural areas, and who may not have conventional addresses or documents

27

28

19

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 20 of 39

1 bearing their address, and who may not have bank statements or utility bills in their

2 name;

3

4

5) Students who do not drive and whose student identification cards lack

5 addresses and/or are issued by private colleges or universities, and who do not have

6 utility bills in their names because they share such costs with parents and/or
7 roommates; and 8
6) Women who recently married and changed their name but whose 9
10 identification documents do not yet reflect that change.

11 D. The Fees Necessary to Obtain the Documents Deemed To Be “Satisfactory

12

Evidence” of Citizenship by A.R.S. § 16-166(F), and “Acceptable” Proof of Identification Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-579 Are a Poll Tax On the Right to Vote

13

36. The fees necessary to obtain the documents deemed to be “satisfactory 14

15 evidence” of citizenship by A.R.S. § 16-166, as amended, and “acceptable” proof of

16 identification under A.R.S. § 16-579, as amended, constitute a poll tax on the right to
17 vote because, for individuals lacking these documents, including members of the Hopi 18
Tribe, LULAC and individuals in the ITCA’s member Tribes, such fees are a 19
20 financial condition for the right to vote.

21

37. Arizona citizens who are qualified and eligible and desire to register to

22 vote, but who lack one of the documents evidencing citizenship required by A.R.S. § 23
16-166, and for whom the naturalization, immigration and Tribal documents 24
25 referenced in that provision are inapplicable, will be required to either: (a) apply for

26 an Arizona driver’s license or state identification card by traveling to a Motor Vehicle

27 Division office, presenting required identification (such as an original birth certificate 28

20

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 21 of 39

1 or Social Security card), and paying a fee that ranges from ten dollars ($10.00) to
2 twenty-five dollars ($25.00), depending on the applicants age; (b) apply for a birth
3 4 certificate copy from the Arizona Division of Public Health Services (or the
5 equivalent agency of the person’s state of birth), which application must include a

6 copy of government-issued photo identification (such as a driver’s license) and
7 payment of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for births occurring prior to 1990; or (c) apply for 8
a U.S. passport by traveling to a designated office, presenting appropriate 9
10 documentation (such as a birth certificate), and two photographs, and paying ninety-

11 seven dollars ($97.00) in fees and surcharges.

12

38. Arizona citizens who are registered to vote and desire to cast a ballot at

13

the polling place on election day, but who lack one of the polling place identification 14

15 documents deemed “acceptable” under A.R.S. 16-579, will be required to either: (a)

16 apply for an Arizona driver’s license or state identification card by undergoing the
17 process and paying the fees described above; or (b) open a utility account or bank 18
account in their name and paying the associated fees. Even registered voters who 19
20 have driver’s licenses or non-operating licenses may not have updated the cards to

21 reflect their current address, as this is not required by Arizona law; doing so will

22 require payment of a four dollar ($4.00) fee. 23
39. The new voting registration and voting provisions of the Act impose an 24
25 undue burden on the right of voters, including individual members of LULAC, the

26 Hopi Tribe, and ITCA’s member Tribes, who will be required to expend time and

27

28

21

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 22 of 39

1 money in order to obtain the specified documents needed to register to vote and cast a

2 ballot.

3

4

E. Arizona’s Asserted Interest in “Discouraging Illegal Immigration” Does Not Justify the Severe Burden on the Fundamental Right to Vote Imposed by the

5

Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act

6

7

40. The Supreme Court has held that:

8

A court considering a challenge to a state election law must

weigh “the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights

9

protected by the [Constitution] that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate”

10

against “the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications

for the burden imposed by the rule,” taking into consideration “the

11

extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the

12

plaintiff’s rights.”

13

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992)(quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze,

460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 14 213-14 (1986)).

15 41. The state interest put forward by the proponents of the Arizona
16

17 Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act in the ballot measure’s “findings and

18 declaration” section relate to the purported economic hardship to the State caused by

19 the provision of public benefits to undocumented immigrants. The “findings and
20 declaration” section of the Act asserts: “Therefore, the people of this state declare
21 22 that the public interest of this state requires all public agencies within this state to

23 cooperate with federal immigration authorities to discourage illegal immigration.”

24 Nowhere in its “findings and declaration” section does Proposition 200 mention

25 voting.

26

27

42.

The burden upon Arizona citizens’ right to vote imposed by the Act’s

28 new proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration is unnecessary, and

22

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 23 of 39

1 unjustified by evidence of significant voting by “illegal immigrants” or non-citizens

2 in Arizona.

3

4

43. There is no evidence that the procedures in place prior to the enactment

5 of the Act for preventing undocumented immigrants or non-citizens from voting were

6 inadequate. In this regard, the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form (“Federal
7 Registration Form” or “Federal Form”) prescribed by the U.S. Election Assistance 8
Commission (“EAC”), which states are required to use and accept for the registration 9
10 of voters in elections for federal office pursuant to the National Voter Registration

11 Act (“NVRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a), does not require a registrant to provide
12 documentary evidence of citizenship. 13
44. Arizona law already protects against the unauthorized voter registration 14
15 of undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. Arizona law, both prior to the

16 enactment of Proposition 200 as well as currently, criminalizes the false voter
17 registration of persons not entitled to register. Under A.R.S. § 16-182, “[a] person 18
who knowingly causes, procures or allows himself to be registered as an elector of 19
20 any county, city, town, district or precinct, knowing that he is not entitled to such

21 registration, or any person who knowingly causes or procures another person to be

22 registered ….knowing that such other person is not entitled to such registration, ….is 23
guilty of a class 6 felony.” A.R.S. § 16-183. The term of imprisonment for a class 6 24
25 felony is one year. A.R.S. § 13-701(C)(5).

26

45. There is no evidence that the procedures in place prior to the Act for

27 preventing undocumented immigrants or non-citizens from registering to vote resulted 28

23

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 24 of 39

1 in substantial numbers of undocumented immigrants or non-citizens on the voting
2 rolls. Moreover, to the extent that undocumented immigrants or non-citizens were
3 4 registered to vote as a result of procedures in effect prior to the enactment of the Act
5 (which plaintiffs dispute), the Act is a wholly ineffective and inappropriate solution

6 due, in part, because of the Act’s “grandfather” clause. Pursuant to the Act, a person
7 who was registered to vote in Arizona on the effective date of the amendment to 8
A.R.S. § 16-166 is deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship, and 9
10 is not required to resubmit evidence of citizenship. A.R.S. § 16-166(G). If the

11 procedures in place prior to the enactment of the Act resulted in undocumented
12 immigrants and non-citizens being included on the voter registration rolls, it makes no 13
sense for the State to grandfather in these alleged undocumented immigrants and non14
15 citizens by specifically exempting them from the requirement of producing

16 documentation of citizenship.

17

46. Even if the citizenship documentation provision of the Act had been

18

truly intended to prevent undocumented immigrants or non-citizens from registering 19

20 to vote, the citizenship documentation provision is overbroad and not narrowly

21 tailored. It is overbroad because it applies to and burdens the right to vote of the

22 overwhelming majority of qualified and eligible citizens who attempt to register to 23
vote in order to prevent a hypothetical miniscule fraction of people from illegally 24
25 registering. Moreover, it is not narrowly tailored to prevent or deter continued voting

26 by any alleged undocumented immigrants or non-citizens who were registered prior to

27 the effective date of Proposition 200. 28

24

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 25 of 39

1

47. The burden upon Arizona citizens’ right to vote imposed by the Act’s

2 new polling place voter identification provisions is unnecessary, and unjustified by
3 4 evidence of significant voting by undocumented immigrants or non-citizens in

5 Arizona, or other fraudulent voting.

6

48. There is no evidence of substantial numbers of undocumented

7 immigrants or non-citizens voting in Arizona elections. Even if such evidence existed 8
(which Plaintiffs dispute), the Act’s polling place voter identification requirements are 9

10 not an effective or appropriate solution to prevent such illegal voting because many of

11 the documents deemed acceptable proof of identification under A.R.S. § 16-579 (e.g.,
12 utility bills, bank statements), do not establish U.S. citizenship. 13
49. To the extent that the State attempts to justify the polling place voter 14
15 identification requirements of the Act on the grounds that they are necessary to

16 prevent voter fraud in general, there is no evidence of such fraud in Arizona that
17 would justify the disenfranchisement of Arizona citizens caused by the polling place 18
identification requirements. Specifically, there is no evidence of substantial numbers 19
20 of voters in Arizona appearing at polling places and impersonating registered voters,

21 such that the restrictive and disenfranchising identification requirements of the Act

22 are justified. 23
50. There is no evidence that existing provisions of Arizona law have been 24
25 ineffective in deterring and preventing imposters from fraudulently obtaining and

26 casting ballots at the polls by misrepresenting their true identities to election officials

27 and passing themselves off as registered voters whose names appear on the official 28

25

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 26 of 39

1 voter registration list. Pursuant to Arizona law, a person who, not being entitled to
2 vote, knowingly votes, is guilty of a class 5 felony, punishable by imprisonment for
3 4 one and one-half years. A.R.S. § 16-1016, § 13-701. Thus, fraudulent voting was
5 already prohibited by existing Arizona law without unduly burdening the right of a

6 citizen to vote.

7

51. Even if there were evidence in Arizona of significant voter fraud by

8

impersonation of registered voters (which plaintiffs dispute), the Arizona Taxpayer 9

10 and Citizen Protection Act is not an effective or appropriate solution to prevent such

11 fraud because it creates a loophole for early voters. With the exception of first-time
12 voters as set forth in A.R.S. § 16-542(A), electors who vote by early ballot in Arizona 13
are not required to satisfy the identification requirements imposed by the Act, and 14
15 thus the Act is ineffective at preventing fraudulent voting by imposters.

16

52. Even if the polling place voter identification provision of the Act had

17 been truly intended to prevent fraudulent voting by imposters (which plaintiffs
18 dispute), the polling place identification provision is overbroad and not narrowly
19

20 tailored. It is overbroad because it applies to and burdens the right to vote of the

21 overwhelming majority of citizens who cast their ballots in person at the polling place

22 in order to prevent a hypothetical miniscule fraction of people from fraudulently 23
casting ballots by misrepresenting their identities to poll workers. Moreover, it is not 24
25 narrowly tailored to prevent or deter fraudulent voting by early voting.

26

53. In summary, the amendments to Arizona’s election laws brought about

27 by the Act do nothing to further the State’s purported interest in “discouraging illegal 28

26

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 27 of 39

1 immigration.” Nor is there evidence of unauthorized voting by undocumented
2 immigrants or non-citizens, or voter fraud generally, that would justify these
3 4 substantial burdens on the fundamental right to vote. Even if the proof of citizenship
5 and polling place voter identification provisions of the Act had been truly intended to

6 effect legitimate state interests relating to voter registration and voting, those

7 provisions are overbroad and are not narrowly tailored.

8

F. The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act Will Have A Disparate

9

Impact on Native American and Latino Voters

10 54. The voter registration and voting provisions of the Act will have a
11 12 disparate impact on the ability of voter registrants and voters who are Latino or Native

13 American, because Latinos and Native Americans in Arizona, on average, are (a) less

14 affluent than whites, when evaluated through a number of statistical measures,
15 including median household income, per capita income, and percent of persons below
16 17 the poverty line and (b) are less likely to own or have access to a motor vehicle than

18 whites according to recent data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Moreover,

19 Native Americans are more likely to live in rural locations at a greater distance to the

20 polls, and have unconventional addresses or no formal street address at all.
21

22

G. The National Voter Registration Act Requires States to Accept the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form, and Does Not Permit A State to

23 Condition Acceptance of the Form on Submission of Supplemental Evidence of

Citizenship 24

25 55. States are required by the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”),
26 27 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a), to accept and use the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form
28 (“Federal Registration Form” or “Federal Form”) prescribed by the U.S. Election

27

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 28 of 39

1 Assistance Commission (“EAC”) for the registration of voters in elections for Federal
2 office. 42 U.S.C. §1973gg-4(a). The Federal Registration Form prescribed by the
3 4 EAC requires that a registrant attest that he or she is a United States citizen, but does
5 not require the registrant to supplement the Federal Form with documentary evidence

6 of citizenship.

7

56. By letter to defendant Brewer, dated March 6, 2006, from the EAC’s

8

Executive Director, Thomas R. Wilkey, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 9

10 rejected a request by defendant Brewer’s office to apply the proof of citizenship

11 requirements derived from the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act to the
12 Federal Form registration process. The EAC advised defendant Brewer that “[n]o 13
state may condition acceptance of the Federal Form upon receipt of additional proof” 14
15 of voter qualification. Accordingly, the EAC advised defendant Brewer that “Arizona

16 may not refuse to register individuals to vote in a Federal election for failing to
17 provide supplemental proof of citizenship, if they have properly completed and timely 18
submitted the Federal Registration Form,” and that Arizona’s refusal to register such 19
20 individuals would violate the NVRA.

21

57. Notwithstanding the EAC’s rejection of defendant Brewer’s request that

22 Arizona be permitted to condition acceptance of the Federal Form upon submission of 23
supplemental evidence of citizenship, defendant Brewer subsequently advised the 24
25 EAC Chairman, Paul S. DeGregorio, by letter dated March 13, 2006, that she “will

26 instruct Arizona’s county recorders to continue to administer and enforce the

27 requirement that all voters provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote as 28

28

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 29 of 39

1 specified in A.R.S. § 16-166(F).” On March 13, 2006, State Election Director Joseph
2 Kanefield stated via email to all County Recorders that “Secretary Brewer’s position
3 4 [is] that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth in A.R.S. § 16-166(F) must
5 continue to be enforced for all newly registered voters and voters moving from one

6 county to another. Secretary Brewer made this decision after consulting with the
7 Arizona Attorney General.” 8
58. By letter dated March 22, 2006, counsel for plaintiffs LULAC, PFAWF 9
10 and Rep. Gallardo notified defendant Brewer pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1973gg- 9(b) of

11 plaintiffs’ intent to bring a civil action on behalf of aggrieved persons under the
12 National Voter Registration Act, based upon defendant Brewer’s refusal to accept, 13
and her instructions to Arizona’s county recorders not to accept, the Federal 14
15 Registration Form.

16

59. A civil action may be brought in an appropriate district court for

17 declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to a violation of the NVRA if a state’s
18 chief election officer fails to correct the violation within 90 days after receiving notice
19

20 of such violation. If the violation occurs within 120 days after the date of an election

21 for federal office, an action may be brought within 20 days after the chief election

22 officer’s receipt of notice of the violation. 42 U.S.C. §1973gg- 9(b). 23
60. On August 10, 2006 – less than 120 days before the filing of this 24
25 complaint – early voting will begin for federal primary election in Arizona.

26

27

28

29

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 30 of 39

1

61. The Office of the Attorney General, in any event, has advised

2 undersigned counsel that the defendant Secretary Brewer will waive the 90 day notice
3 4 requirement set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg- 9(b).

5

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

6

Count One

7 Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Violation of Equal Protection of the

8

Law

9

10

62. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 61 above are hereby

11 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

12

63. The proof of citizenship and polling place identification requirements

13

impose undue burdens on the fundamental right of Arizona residents who are eligible 14

15 to vote, and are neither justified by, nor necessary to promote, interests put forward by

16 the State that were not already being adequately protected by existing criminal laws
17 and election procedures or that could not have been accomplished by other, less 18
restrictive alternatives. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Harper v. Virginia 19
20 Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1972).

21

22

Count Two

23

Unconstitutional Poll Tax on the Right to Vote In Violation of Both the

Fourteenth and the Twenty-Fourth Amendments 24

25

64. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 63 above are hereby

26 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

27

65. Section 1 of Twenty-fourth Amendment provides that:

28

30

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 31 of 39

1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or

2

general election for President or Vice President, for electors for

President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in

3

Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any

4

State by reason of failure to pay a poll tax or other tax.

5

By virtue of its prohibition of abridgment as well as denial of the

6 right to vote, “the Twenty-fourth nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-

7 minded modes of impairing the right to vote.” Harman v. Fossenius, 380 U.S. 8
528, 540-41 (1965). 9

10

66. The repugnant results of the poll tax that prompted passage of the

11 Twenty-fourth amendment are imminent in Arizona as a result of the Arizona
12 Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act: “disenfranchisement of the poor occasioned by 13
failure to pay the tax,” as well as disenfranchisement of “a substantial number of 14
15 voters who did not plan [ ]far [enough] ahead.” Id. at 539-40.

16

67. Conditioning the right to vote on the production of certain forms of

17 identification impairs the ability of Arizona’s poor -- who are disproportionately
18 minority and who historically have been disenfranchised -- to exercise that right. The
19

20 requirements amount to a poll tax on Arizona citizens that do not have these forms of

21 identification. Qualified Arizona citizens who are poor are the most likely to need to

22 obtain these documents for the first time as a result of amended A.R.S. §16-166, and 23
are also the least likely to have internet access (the fastest way to find out about how 24
25 to obtain these documents and often to request them is online), least likely to be able

26 to take time away from work and family to visit offices of public agencies in person

27 during business hours, and least likely to be able to afford these documents. 28

31

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 32 of 39

1

Count Three

2 Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a)(2)(A)

3

4

68. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 67 above are hereby

5 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

6

69. The polling place identification requirements of the Arizona Taxpayer

7 and Citizen Protection Act, as set forth in A.R.S. §16-579 and the implementing 8
regulations, violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1971(a)(2)(A), which 9

10 provides that:

11

No person acting under color of law shall-

12

(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law

13

or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or

procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures

14

applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same

15

county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found

by State officials to be qualified to vote…

16

17

70. The polling place identification requirements violate 42 U.S.C. §

18 1971(a)(2)(A) because different standards with respect to identification requirements

19 are applied to individuals within the same county who vote in person at the polling
20 place as compared to those who vote by early ballot. Electors who vote by early
21 22 voting are not required to satisfy the identification requirements imposed by the Act.

23

Count Four

24

Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a)(2)(B)

25 71. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 70 above are hereby
26
27 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

28

32

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 33 of 39

1

72. The polling place identification requirements of the Act violate the Civil

2 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B), which provides that:

3

4

No person acting under color of law shall-

5

(B) deny the right of an individual to vote in any election because of an

error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application,

6

registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is

7

not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election;…

8

9

73. The polling place identification requirements violate 42 U.S.C. §

10 1971(a)(2)(B) because the requirements deny citizens who are lawfully registered and
11

12 fully qualified the right to vote in person at a polling place based solely on whether

13 they have identifying documents deemed acceptable, regardless of whether their

14 identity may be established by other means, such as matching signatures, or if they are
15 personally known to election officials to be the same person as the person whose
16 17 name appears on the official list of registered voters.

18

74. Proposition 200’s proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration

19 violates 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B) because the requirement denies citizens who are
20 fully eligible and qualified to register to vote the opportunity to register based solely
21 22 on whether or not they have identifying documents deemed satisfactory evidence of

23 citizenship, regardless of whether their citizenship status may be established by other

24 means. 25

26

27

28

33

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 34 of 39

1

Count Five

2 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

3

4

75. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 74 above are hereby

5 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

6

76. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973(a))

7 provides:

8

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or

9

procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political

10

subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the

right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or

11

color.

12

77. Latino and Native American citizens of Arizona, as a group, have lower

13

family and personal incomes than citizens of Arizona who are white and are less 14

15 likely, as a group, to have Arizona driver’s licenses or passports deemed to be

16 “satisfactory evidence” of U.S. citizenship than are white citizens.

17

78. Latino and Native American citizens of Arizona, as a group, have lower

18

family and personal incomes than citizens of Arizona who are white and are less 19

20 likely, as a group, to have Arizona driver’s licenses, bank or credit union statements,

21 utility bills in their name, vehicle registration and insurance cards, or other

22 government-issued identification deemed “acceptable” to establish identity at the
23 polling place.
24

25

79. Native Americans on reservations are more likely to live in remote,

26 rural locations at a greater distance to the polls, have unconventional addresses or no

27 formal street address at all. 28

34

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 35 of 39

1

80. The Act’s requirement of proof of citizenship, and its polling place

2 identification requirements, are qualifications or prerequisites to voting that have
3 4 resulted and will continue to result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote to

5 individual plaintiffs and others on account of race or color in violation of Section 2 of

6 the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). As a result of the Act’s new voter
7 registration and voting requirements, under the totality of circumstances, the political 8
process is not equally open to participation by Native American or Latino citizens in 9
10 that such citizens have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to

11 participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Id., §

12 1973(b). 13
14

Count Six

15

National Voter Registration Act

16

81. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 80 above are hereby

17 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
18 82. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a),
19

20 mandates that States “shall accept and use the mail registration application”

21 proscribed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission pursuant to section 9(a)(2)

22 for the registration of voters in elections for Federal Office. 23
83. Defendant’s actions, as chief elections officer of the State of Arizona, in 24
25 refusing to accept, and instructing Arizona’s county recorders not to accept, the

26 Federal Mail Voter Registration Form without supplemental documentation of

27 citizenship violate the National Voter Registration Act. 28

35

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 36 of 39

1

Irreparable Harm/ Inadequate Remedy at Law

2 84. Congressional and statewide elections that will be subject to the new
3 4 proof of citizenship and polling place identification requirements are scheduled for

5 September 12, 2006 (primary) and November 7, 2006 (general).

6

85. The plaintiffs and the members of the organizational plaintiffs who do

7 not have one of the forms of identification required by A.R.S. § 16-166 to establish 8
proof of citizenship or required at the polls by the procedure for implementing A.R.S. 9

10 § 16-579 will be irreparably harmed if they are forced, between now and the next

11 election to either (a) obtain new identification, or (b) forfeit their rights as Arizona
12 citizens qualified to register and vote in the next and subsequent elections or referenda 13
in their respective voting districts or political subdivisions for which they cannot be 14
15 adequately compensated in an action at law for money damages.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

17

(a) the Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring

18

A.R.S. §§ 16-152, 16-166, 16-579 as amended by the Arizona Taxpayer and 19

20

Citizen Protection Act, unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void;

21

(b) the Court order that defendant and her agents, servants and employees are

22

immediately restrained from refusing to register voters who timely submit a

23

properly completed Federal Mail Voter Registration Form (the “Federal 24

25

Form”), but do not submit “satisfactory evidence of citizenship” as defined by

26

A.R.S. § 16-166(F).

27

28

36

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 37 of 39

1

(c) the Court enter a preliminary and permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2 1973gg-9(a)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 restraining and enjoining defendant

3

4

from refusing to accept the Federal Mail Voter Registration Form without

5

"satisfactory evidence of citizenship" as defined in A.R.S. § 16-166;

6

(d) the Court enter a preliminary and permanent injunction pursuant to Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 65 restraining and enjoining defendant from enforcing or applying

8

A.R.S. §§ 16-152, 16-166, 16-579 to deny plaintiffs or any other qualified 9

10

Arizona resident the right to register voters, register to vote, obtain a ballot,

11

cast a ballot, and have their ballots counted in any primary, general, special,

12

run off or referenda election in Arizona because of their inability to provide

13

documentary proof of citizenship as required by A.R.S. §§ 16-152 and 16-166, 14

15

or to comply with the polling place identification requirements as set forth in

16

the guidelines for implementing A.R.S. § 16-579;

17

(e) Plaintiffs recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

18

(f) Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as may be just and equitable. 19

20

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of May, 2006

21

22

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

23

By s/ David B. Rosenbaum

Thomas L. Hudson

24

David B. Rosenbaum

25

Sara S. Greene

2929 North Central

26

21st Floor

27

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 Cooperating Attorneys for American Civil

28

Liberties Union Foundation

37

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 38 of 39

1

2

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

David J. Bodney

3

Karen J. Hartman-Tellez

4

Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600

5

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382

Telephone: 602-257-5212

6

Fax: 602-257-5299

7

E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com

8

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS UNDER LAW

9

Jon Greenbaum

10

Benjamin Blustein

Monica Saxena

11

1401 New York Avenue, Suite 400

12

Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 202-662-8315

13

Fax: (202) 628-2858 (fax)

E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

14

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION TO BE FILED

15 ACLU Southern Regional Office

16

Neil Bradley

17

2600 Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue

18

Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-523-2721

19

Fax: 404-653-0331

20

E-mail: nbradley@aclu.org

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION TO BE FILED

21

22

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION

23

Elliot M. Mincberg

2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400

24

Washington, DC 20036

25

Telephone: 202-467-4999

Fax: 202-293-2672

26

E-mail: emincberg@pfaw.org

27

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION TO BE FILED

28

38

1264568

Case 3:06-cv-01362-ROS Document 1 Filed 05/24/06 Page 39 of 39

1

THE LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN

2

AMERICAN CITIZENS

Luis Roberto Vera, Jr.

3

TX State Bar No. 20546740

4

111 Soledad, Suite 1325 San Antonio, TX 78205-2260

5

Telephone: 210-225-3300

Fax: 210-225-2060

6

E-mail: lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net

7

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION TO BE FILED

8

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

Daniel B. Kohrman (DC Bar No. 394064)

9

601 E Street, N.W., Suite A4-240

10

Washington DC 20049

Telephone: 202-434-2064

11

Fax: 202-434-6424

12

E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION TO BE FILED

13

THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF

14

ARIZONA, INC.

15

Joe P. Sparks, No. 002383

Susan B. Montgomery, No. 020595

16

Sparks, Tehan & Ryley PC

17

7503 First St, Scottsdale AZ 85251 Telephone: 480-949-1339

18

Fax: 480-949-7587

19

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39

1264568

 
 FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA M. GONZALEZ,; LUCIANO



VALENCIA; THE INTER TRIBAL

COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC.;

ARIZONA ADVOCACY NETWORK;

STEVE M. GALLARDO; LEAGUE OF

UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS

ARIZONA; LEAGUE OF WOMEN

VOTERS OF ARIZONA;

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY

 FOUNDATION; HOPI TRIBE, Plaintiffs,

and

BERNIE ABEYTIA; ARIZONA HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM; CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA; FRIENDLY HOUSE; JESUS GONZALEZ; DEBBIE LOPEZ; SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT; VALLE DEL SOL; PROJECT VOTE,
 Plaintiffs- Appellants,

4111

4112

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA



v.

STATE OF ARIZONA; SHELLY BAKER,

La Paz County Recorder; BERTA

MANUZ, Greenlee County

Recorder; CANDACE OWENS,

Coconino County Recorder; LYNN

CONSTABLE, Yavapai County

Election Director; KELLY DASTRUP,

Navajo County Election Director;

LAURA DEAN-LYTLE, Pinal County

Recorder; JUDY DICKERSON,

Graham County Election Director;

DONNA HALE, La Paz County

Election Director; SUSAN



HIGHTOWER MARLAR, Yuma County

Recorder; GILBERTO HOYOS, Pinal

County Election Director;

LAURETTE JUSTMAN, Navajo County

Recorder; PATTY HANSEN,

Coconino County Election

Director; CHRISTINE RHODES,

Cochise County Recorder; LINDA

HAUGHT ORTEGA, Gila County

Recorder; DIXIE MUNDY, Gila

County Election Director; BRAD

NELSON, Pima County Election

Director; KAREN OSBORNE,

Maricopa County Election

Director;



GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4113

 YVONNE PEARSON, Greenlee County

No. 08-17094

Election Director; PENNY PEW,

D.C. Nos.

 Apache County Election Director;
HELEN PURCELL, Maricopa County

2:06-cv-01268-ROS 06-cv-01362-PCT-

Recorder; F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, Pima

JAT

County Recorder, KEN BENNETT,

06-cv-01575-PHX-

 Defendants-Appellees,

EHC

MARIA M. GONZALEZ; BERNIE



ABEYTIA; ARIZONA HISPANIC

COMMUNITY FORUM; CHICANOS POR

LA CAUSA; FRIENDLY HOUSE; JESUS

GONZALEZ; DEBBIE LOPEZ;

SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT; LUCIANO



VALENCIA; VALLE DEL SOL;

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY

FOUNDATION; PROJECT VOTE,

Plaintiffs,

and



4114

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF



ARIZONA, INC.; ARIZONA ADVOCACY

NETWORK; STEVE M. GALLARDO;

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN

CITIZENS ARIZONA; LEAGUE OF

WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA; HOPI

TRIBE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA; KEN BENNETT;

SHELLY BAKER, La Paz County

Recorder; BERTA MANUZ, Greenlee

County Recorder; CANDACE

OWENS, Coconino County



Recorder; PATTY HANSEN,

Coconino County Election

Director; KELLY DASTRUP, Navajo

County Election Director; LYNN

CONSTABLE, Yavapai County

Election Director; LAURA DEAN-

LYTLE, Pinal County Recorder;

JUDY DICKERSON, Graham County

Election Director; DONNA HALE,

La Paz County Election Director;

SUSAN HIGHTOWER MARLAR, Yuma

County Recorder; GILBERTO

HOYOS, Pinal County Election

Director;



GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4115

 LAURETTE JUSTMAN, Navajo County

Recorder; CHRISTINE RHODES,

Cochise County Recorder; LINDA

HAUGHT ORTEGA, Gila County

Recorder; DIXIE MUNDY, Gila

County Election Director; BRAD

NELSON, Pima County Election

No. 08-17115

Director; KAREN OSBORNE, Maricopa County Election Director; YVONNE PEARSON,

 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01268-ROS

Greenlee County Election

OPINION

Director; PENNY PEW, Apache

County Election Director; HELEN

PURCELL, Maricopa County

Recorder; F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, Pima

County Recorder,

 Defendants-Appellees,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 21, 2011—Pasadena, California

Filed April 17, 2012

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Pamela Ann Rymer, Susan P. Graber, Marsha S. Berzon, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Sandra S. Ikuta, N. Randy Smith, and Mary H. Murguia,
Circuit Judges.1
1Judge Rymer participated in oral argument and deliberations but passed away before joining any opinion.

4116

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Opinion by Judge Ikuta; Concurrence by Chief Judge Kozinski;
Concurrence by Judge Berzon; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Rawlinson

4120

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

COUNSEL
Nina Perales, Esq. (argued), Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Antonio, Texas, for plaintiffs-appellants Jesus Gonzalez, et al.
Jon M. Greenbaum, Esq. (argued), Robert A. Kengle, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., David J. Bodney, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, David B. Rosenbaum, Esq., Thomas L. Hudson, Esq., Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Arizona, Joe P. Sparks, Esq., The Sparks Law Firm, Scottsdale, Arizona, Daniel B. Kohrman, Esq., AARP, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffsappellants The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al.
Samuel R. Bagenstos (argued), DOJ, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae United States.
Thomas C. Horne (argued), Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, Mary O’Grady, Solicitor General, Phoenix, Arizona, for defendant-appellee Ken Bennett.
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Proposition 200 requires prospective voters in Arizona to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote,

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4121

see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F) (the “registration provision”), and requires registered voters to show identification to cast a ballot at the polls, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-579(A) (the “polling place provision”). This appeal raises the questions whether Proposition 200 violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments to the Constitution, or is void as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg et seq. We uphold Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polling place, but conclude that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s registration provision as that provision is applied to applicants using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the “Federal Form”) to register to vote in federal elections.

I

On November 2, 2004, Arizona voters passed a state initiative, Proposition 200, which (upon proclamation of the Governor) enacted various revisions to the state’s election laws. As explained in more detail below, Proposition 200’s registration provision amended Arizona’s voter registration procedures to require the County Recorder to “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). Proposition 200’s polling place provision amended Arizona’s election day procedures to require voters to present specified forms of identification at the polls. See id. § 16-579(A).

Shortly after Proposition 200’s passage, a number of plaintiffs filed lawsuits against Arizona2 to enjoin these changes. Two groups of plaintiffs are relevant to this appeal: the Gon-

2We refer to the defendants collectively as “Arizona,” even though Arizona county recorders were also named as individual defendants.

4122

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

zalez plaintiffs (Gonzalez) and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona plaintiffs (ITCA).3

The district court consolidated the various complaints. After the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Gonzalez and ITCA appealed. See Gonzalez v. Arizona (Gonzalez I), 485 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the briefing schedule for the appeal extended beyond the 2006 election, Gonzalez and ITCA moved for an emergency interlocutory injunction (which would prevent the implementation of Proposition 200 pending the disposition of the appeal of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction), which we granted. See id. After Arizona petitioned for certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated the emergency injunction and remanded the case to this court for a determination of the merits of the appeal. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5-6 (2006) (per curiam).

On remand, Gonzalez and ITCA pursued their claim for preliminary injunctive relief only with respect to Proposition 200’s registration requirement. Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1048. The panel in Gonzalez I affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, holding that Proposition 200’s registration provision was not an unconstitutional poll tax and was not superseded by the NVRA. See id. at 1049, 1050-51.

On remand, the district court held that Proposition 200’s polling place provision was not a poll tax under the Twentyfourth Amendment and its registration provision did not conflict with the NVRA, and granted summary judgment to Ari-

3Jesus Gonzalez represented one group of plaintiffs, which consisted of individual Arizona residents and organizational plaintiffs. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, a non-profit organization of twenty Arizona tribes, represented another group of plaintiffs, which included the Hopi Tribe, Representative Steve Gallardo from the Arizona State House of Representatives, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Arizona Advocacy Network, and People For the American Way Foundation.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4123

zona on these claims. After trial, the district court resolved all other claims in favor of Arizona, holding that Proposition 200 did not violate § 2 of the VRA or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not constitute a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gonzalez and ITCA appealed the district court’s rulings on the NVRA and Twenty-fourth Amendment claims. In addition, ITCA challenged the court’s determination that Proposition 200 was not a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Gonzalez challenged the court’s determinations on the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause claims. A three-judge panel affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Proposition 200’s polling place provision did not violate the VRA or the Fourteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendments, but that Proposition 200’s registration provision was superseded by the NVRA. Gonzalez v. Arizona (Gonzalez II), 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010). In deciding Gonzalez and ITCA’s challenge to the registration provision, the panel overruled the contrary holding of Gonzalez I on the ground that an exception to the law of the case rule applied.4

4Under the law of the case doctrine, a court will generally refuse to reconsider an issue that has already been decided by the same court or a higher court in the same case. See Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1488-89 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). We have recognized exceptions to the law of the case doctrine, however, where “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.” Id. at 1489 (footnote omitted) (quoting Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d 278, 281 (9th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Some of our cases indicated that a three-judge panel could rely on these exceptions to overrule the law of an earlier published opinion, so long as no subsequent panel had yet relied on it. See id. at 1492-93; see also Mendenhall v. NTSB, 213 F.3d 464, 469 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 786-88 (9th Cir. 2000).
We now hold that the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine are not exceptions to our general “law of the circuit” rule, i.e., the rule that a pub-

4124

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

See id. at 1185-91. A majority of the active judges of the court voted to rehear the case en banc.

II

We first consider Proposition 200’s registration provision. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). Gonzalez and ITCA contend that this provision is preempted by the NVRA under both the Supremacy Clause and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In response, Arizona relies on the Supremacy Clause’s “presumption against preemption,” see Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), to argue that the NVRA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts state voter registration laws. Before addressing the parties’ arguments, we first consider whether the framework of the Elections Clause or the Supremacy Clause properly governs this question.

A

[1] The Elections Clause establishes a unique relationship between the state and federal governments. It provides:

lished decision of this court constitutes binding authority which “must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so,” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001). To the extent that our prior cases suggested otherwise, see Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1492-93; Mendenhall, 213 F.3d at 469 n.3; Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., 216 F.3d at 786-88, they are overruled. This determination, however, does not affect other recognized exceptions to the law of the circuit rule. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that where “the relevant court of last resort” has “undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable,” then “a three-judge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled”); see also Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005) (holding that a “court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion”).

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4125

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. In a nutshell, state governments are given the initial responsibility for regulating the mechanics of federal elections, but Congress is given the authority to “make or alter” the states’ regulations.

The history of the Elections Clause reveals the reasoning behind its unusual delegation of power. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had full authority to maintain, appoint, or recall congressional delegates.5 At the Philadelphia Convention, delegates expressed concern that, if left unfettered, states could use this power to frustrate the creation of the national government, see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 808-09 (1995), most obviously by neglecting to hold federal elections. The Framers decided that Congress should be given the authority to oversee the states’ procedures related to national elections as a safeguard against potential state abuse. See id.; see also The Federalist No. 59, at 168 (Alexander Hamilton) (Ron P. Fairfield ed., 2d ed. 1981) (explaining that “[n]othing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy”). Over the protest of some Southern delegates,6 the

5See Articles of Confederation of 1781, art. V (“[D]elegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each State shall direct . . . with a power reserved to each state, to recall its delegates . . . .”).
6South Carolinian delegates Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge moved to exclude the language giving Congress this supervisory power over the states. 5 The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the

4126

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Framers approved language giving Congress power to “make or alter” the states’ regulations. See 5 Elliot’s Debates 401-02 (statement of James Madison). As modified to give Congress this supervisory power, this language became the Elections Clause.7

[2] Thus, the Elections Clause empowers both the federal and state governments to enact laws governing the mechanics of federal elections. The clause gives states the default authority to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner” of conducting federal elections. Nevertheless, because Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter” the regulations passed by the state, power over federal election procedures is ultimately “committed to the exclusive control of Congress.” Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 554 (1946).8 While Congress may not

Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin’s Letter, Yates’s Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of ’98-’99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution 401 (photo. reprint 1987) (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1901) [hereinafter Elliot’s Debates]. “The states, they contended, could and must be relied on” to regulate legislative appointments. Id.; see also Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 275-76 (2004).
7Alexander Hamilton described the need for congressional oversight of the states as follows:
[The Framers] have submitted the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations; which, in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.
The Federalist No. 59, at 168. 8The Court has generally construed Congress’s authority under the
Elections Clause expansively. See, e.g., United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386 (1915) (authority to enforce the right of an eligible voter to cast ballot and have ballot counted); Ex Parte Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 753-54

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4127

always choose to exercise this power, “[w]hen exercised, the action of Congress, so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them.” Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 384 (1879); see also Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997) (stating that the Elections Clause “is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices” (citation omitted)). Moreover, we have held that the Elections Clause requires states to implement Congress’s superseding regulations without compensation from the federal government. See Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, unlike virtually all other provisions of the Constitution, the Elections Clause gives Congress the power to “conscript state agencies to carry out” federal mandates. Id. In sum, a state’s role in the creation and implementation of federal election procedures under the Elections Clause is to administer the elections through its own procedures until Congress deems otherwise; if and when Congress does so, the states are obligated to conform to and carry out whatever procedures Congress requires. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 69.

As should be clear from this overview, the Elections Clause operates quite differently from the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Under our system of dual sovereignty, courts deciding whether a particular state law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause must strive to main-

(1888) (authority to regulate conduct at any election coinciding with federal contest); Ex parte Yarbrough (The Ku-Klux Cases), 110 U.S. 651, 662 (1884) (authority to make additional laws for free, pure, and safe exercise of right to vote); Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S. 399, 404 (1879) (authority to punish state election officers for violation of state duties vis-a-vis congressional elections).

4128

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

tain the “delicate balance” between the States and the Federal Government, Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991); see Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485, especially when Congress is regulating in an area “traditionally occupied by the States,” United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). The Supreme Court has crafted special guidelines to assist courts in striking this balance. First, courts applying the Supremacy Clause are to begin with a presumption against preemption. E.g., Altria Grp. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008); Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485. This principle applies because, as the Court has recently noted, “respect for the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system leads us to assume that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.” Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 1195 n.3 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the Court has adopted a “plain statement rule,” holding that a federal statute preempts a state law only when it is the “clear and manifest” purpose of Congress to do so. Gregory, 501 U.S. at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only where the state and federal laws cannot be reconciled do courts hold that Congress’s enactments must prevail. See, e.g., Altria, 555 U.S. at 76-77.

[3] In contrast to the Supremacy Clause, which addresses preemption in areas within the states’ historic police powers, the Elections Clause affects only an area in which the states have no inherent or reserved power: the regulation of federal elections. See U.S. Term Limits, 514 U.S. at 804-05. As the Supreme Court has explained, because federal elections did not exist prior to the formation of the federal government, the states’ sole authority to regulate such elections “aris[es] from the Constitution itself,” id. at 805. Because states have no reserved authority over the domain of federal elections, courts deciding issues raised under the Elections Clause need not be concerned with preserving a “delicate balance” between competing sovereigns. Instead, the Elections Clause, as a standalone preemption provision, establishes its own balance. For

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4129

this reason, the “presumption against preemption” and “plain statement rule” that guide Supremacy Clause analysis are not transferable to the Elections Clause context. See Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir. 2008) (declining to apply Supremacy Clause preemption principles in analyzing the preemptive effect of the NVRA). Indeed, the Supreme Court has suggested as much. In Foster, the Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit’s determination that a state election law was voided by a federal election law; however, instead of adopting the Fifth Circuit’s Supremacy Clause analysis, the Court analyzed the claim under the Elections Clause, without ever mentioning a presumption against preemption or plain statement rule. See Foster, 522 U.S. 67, aff’g 90 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 1996). In fact, our survey of Supreme Court opinions deciding issues under the Elections Clause reveals no case where the Court relied on or even discussed Supremacy Clause principles. Because the Elections Clause empowered Congress to enact the NVRA, see Wilson, 60 F.3d at 1413-14, the preemption analysis under that Clause applies here.

B

The Supreme Court first explained the principles of Elections Clause preemption in Siebold, 100 U.S. 371. In that case, the Court likened the relationship between laws passed by state legislatures and those enacted by Congress under the Elections Clause to “prior and subsequent enactments of the same legislature.” Id. at 384. “The State laws which Congress sees no occasion to alter, but which it allows to stand, are in effect adopted by Congress.” Id. at 388. Just as a subsequent legislature is not required to make an “entirely new set” of laws when modifying those of a prior legislature, neither is Congress required to wholly take over the regulation of federal election procedures when choosing to “make or alter” certain of the states’ rules. Id. at 384. There is no “intrinsic difficulty in such co-operation” between the state and national legislatures because the two governments do not possess an “equality of jurisdiction” with respect to federal elections. Id.

4130

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

at 392. In all instances, “the laws of the State, in so far as they are inconsistent with the laws of Congress on the same subject, cease to have effect as laws.” Id. at 397.

Over a century later, the Supreme Court clarified what constitutes a conflict under an Elections Clause analysis. See Foster, 522 U.S. 67. Foster considered whether a congressional enactment superseded a Louisiana statute regulating the same federal election procedure. Id. at 68-69. Specifically, federal law set the date for congressional elections as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Id. at 68. A Louisiana statute established an open primary in October for the offices of United States Senator and Representative. Id. at 70. Only if the open primary failed to result in a majority candidate would a run off election between the top two candidates be held on Congress’s specified election day. Id. In response to a challenge by Louisiana voters, the Court unanimously held that the state and federal acts conflicted and thus that the federal statute superseded the Louisiana law. Id. at 74.

The Court rejected the state’s claim that its statute and the federal enactment could be construed harmoniously. Id. at 72-73. Louisiana asserted that “the open primary system concern[ed] only the ‘manner’ of electing federal officials, not the ‘time’ at which the elections will take place.” Id. at 72. The Court discarded the state’s “attempt to draw this timemanner line” as “merely wordplay” and an “imaginative characterization” of the statutes. Id. at 72-73. Building upon the principles from Siebold, the Court declined to adopt a strained interpretation of the statutes to reconcile a potential disagreement.9 See id. Rather, the Court emphasized Congress’s ple-

9The dissent’s claim that in Foster there was a “blatant conflict” between the state and federal election laws, dis. op. at 4213, is incorrect. Rather, the petitioners in Foster proffered a reading of the state and federal statutes that at least technically avoided a conflict. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 72 (arguing that “because Louisiana law provides for a ‘general election’ on federal election day in those unusual instances when one is

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4131

nary authority not only to supplant state rules but to conscript states to carry out federal enactments under the Elections Clause, and found it enough that, under a natural reading, the state and federal enactments addressed the same procedures and were in conflict. Id. Refusing to pare the statute “down to the definitional bone,” the Court held that the state enactment was void. Id. at 72, 74.

Reading Siebold and Foster together, we derive the following approach for determining whether federal enactments under the Elections Clause displace a state’s procedures for conducting federal elections. First, as suggested in Siebold, we consider the state and federal laws as if they comprise a single system of federal election procedures. Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384. If the state law complements the congressional procedural scheme, we treat it as if it were adopted by Congress as part of that scheme. See id. If Congress addressed the same subject as the state law, we consider whether the federal act has superseded the state act, based on a natural reading of the two laws and viewing the federal act as if it were a subsequent enactment by the same legislature. Foster, 522 U.S. at 74; see id. at 72-73. If the two statutes do not operate harmoniously in a single procedural scheme for federal voter registration, then Congress has exercised its power to “alter” the state’s regulation, and that regulation is superseded.

C

Before applying this Elections Clause analysis here, we must understand the scope and application of the federal and

needed, the open primary system concerns only the ‘manner’ of electing federal officials, not the ‘time’ at which the elections will take place”). The Court rejected this reading as “merely wordplay.” Id. The dissent provides a similarly strained reading of the NVRA and Proposition 200, see dis. op. at 4203-04, 4206-07 which likewise falls short, see infra at 4138-43.

4132

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

state statutes at issue, namely the NVRA and Proposition 200’s registration provision.

The NVRA prescribes three methods for registering voters for federal elections. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a). These methods are: (1) “by application made simultaneously with an application for a motor vehicle driver’s license,” id. § 1973gg-2(a)(1);10 (2) “by mail application” using the Federal Form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC),11 id. §§ 1973gg-2(a)(2), 1973gg-4; and (3) “by application in person” at sites designated in accordance with state law or state voter registration agencies, id. § 1973gg-2(a)(3). States must “establish procedures to register” voters through all three methods “notwithstanding any other Federal or State law” and “in addition to any other method of voter registration provided for under State law.” Id. § 1973gg-2(a).12

In connection with prescribing these three methods of voter registration, the NVRA mandates the creation of two new voter registration applications. First, the NVRA requires states to create a combined driver’s license and voter registration application form (the “Motor Voter Form”) pursuant to certain criteria set out in the statute. See id. § 1973gg-3. The

10Under this method, any application for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application.” § 1973gg-3(a)(1). This provision earned the statute its informal name: the “Motor Voter Law.”
11The responsibilities of the EAC were formerly held by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act or 2002 (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, it created the EAC, 42 U.S.C. § 15321, which eventually absorbed the FEC’s duties under the NVRA, see 42 U.S.C. § 15532. In this opinion, we refer to both entities as the EAC.
12States that do not require registration to vote or allow election-day registration at polling places are exempt from the NVRA. See § 1973gg2(b). These states are Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See 75 Fed. Reg. 47,729-01, 47,730 (Aug. 9, 2010).

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4133

NVRA also requires the EAC to create the Federal Form, a nationally uniform voter application that applicants can use to register by mail and in person at designated locations. See id. §§ 1973gg-4, 1973gg-7(a)(2). In addition, states may (but are not required to) create their own state mail voter registration forms for federal elections (the “State Form”), so long as these forms meet certain criteria in the NVRA. See id. § 1973gg-4(a)(2).

The NVRA sets out a broad framework for the contents of the Federal Form, including specifying certain items that must be included on the form, along with other items that cannot be. See id. § 1973gg-7(b). Among other things, id. § 1973gg7(b) provides that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” Id. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). Further, the Federal Form must include a statement specifying “each eligibility requirement (including citizenship)” for voting along with an “attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement,” id. § 1973gg-7(b)(2)(A)-(B), and must require “the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury,” id. § 1973gg-7(b)(2)(C). In addition, the NVRA provides that the Federal Form cannot include “any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” id. § 1973gg-7(b)(3).13

13In full, section 1973-gg7(b) states that the Federal Form
(1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;

(2) shall include a statement that—
(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

4134

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

The NVRA directs the EAC, in consultation with “the chief election officers of the States,” to develop the Federal Form in a manner consistent with these broad guidelines. Id. § 1973gg-7(a)(2). The EAC discharged this statutory requirement by designing a Federal Form that met the criteria set forth in section 1973gg-7(b). See 59 Fed. Reg. 32,311-01 (June 23, 1994), codified at 11 C.F.R., pt. 9428. As designed by the EAC (and subsequently modified by HAVA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 et seq.), the Federal Form is a postcard.14 See 11 C.F.R. § 9428.5. The top of the form asks “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” and “Will you be 18 years old on or before election day?” with boxes for the applicant to check yes or no.15 Applicants who check “no” to either of these questions are instructed not to complete the form. If the

(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and
(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;
(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and
(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application—
(i) the voter eligibility requirements and penalties for false applications set forth in § 1973gg-6(a)(5);
(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and
(iii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
Id. § 1973gg-7(b). 14The Federal Form is set forth in Appendix A. 15These two questions and the associated instructions were added to the
Federal Form by HAVA. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(4)(A)(i)-(ii).

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4135

applicant checks “yes” to both questions, the form then requests the applicant’s name, address, date of birth, telephone number (optional), choice of party,16 race or ethnic group,17 and “ID number.”18 It also requires the applicant to attest (with a signature or mark) that he or she is a U.S. citizen, meets his or her state’s voting eligibility requirements, and has provided information that is “true to the best of [his or her] knowledge under penalty of perjury.” No other proof of U.S. citizenship is required. The Federal Form postcard may be dropped into the mail or delivered in person to one of the designated offices.

As noted above, in addition to mandating the creation and use of the Federal Form, the NVRA allows states to develop and use an optional State Form for registering voters for federal elections. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). If a state chooses to create a State Form, that form must conform to the broad framework for the contents of the Federal Form set forth in section 1973gg-7(b). See id. Arizona chose to create a State Form19 that is similar to the Federal Form but requires that first-time voters and persons who have moved between Arizona counties “also include proof of citizenship or the

16“Choice of party” is required in some states for voters who wish to participate in closed primaries. It is not required to register to vote in general elections. See 59 Fed. Reg. at 32,314.
17This box was included on the Federal Form to assist certain states in their data collection efforts pursuant to § 5 of the VRA. Id. at 32,315-16.
18The “ID number” is used for “election administration purposes.” 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(a)(6), see 59 Fed. Reg. at 32,314 (explaining that ID numbers “are not necessary for determining the eligibility of the applicant,” but rather are for assisting the states in administering the registration process). The Federal Form’s instruction booklet provides state-specific instructions for the “ID number” box: for Arizona, applicants must provide a driver’s license, non-operating identification license number, the last four digits of a social security number, or write “None.” These instructions are consistent with Arizona’s election administration obligations under HAVA. See infra at pp. 4144-45.
19The Arizona State Form is set forth in Appendix B.

4136

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

form will be rejected.” According to the State Form instructions, an applicant can satisfy this proof of citizenship requirement by writing in a designated box on the State Form the number of the applicant’s Arizona driver’s license or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996,20 alien registration number, or specified tribal identification number (as relevant). If the applicant lacks such a number, the applicant must include a photocopy of one of the acceptable documents listed on the State Form (such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport, tribal document, or the like) along with the form itself.

[4] While the NVRA permits states to use their own State Forms to register voters for federal elections, the NVRA still requires every state to “accept and use” the Federal Form developed by the EAC. See id. § 1973gg-4(a)(2) (“In addition to accepting and using [the Federal Form], a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” (emphasis added)). In this way, the NVRA guarantees that an applicant in any state seeking to register to vote in federal elections may do so using the Federal Form.

D

Having reviewed the relevant provisions of the NVRA, we now turn to Proposition 200’s registration provision, which states: “The county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). The statute defines satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship to include the number of the applicant’s driver’s license or nonoperating identification license, certain numbers associated

20Arizona started requiring applicants to provide documentation of their lawful status as U.S. residents as a condition of receiving a driver’s license or non-operating identification license after October 1, 1996.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4137

with Native American tribal status, the number of a certificate of naturalization (or the in-person presentation of naturalization documents), or a legible photocopy of a U.S. birth certificate or passport.21 See id.

By its terms, this proof of citizenship requirement applies to the Federal Form as well as to Arizona’s State Form.22 In

21Section 16-166(F) provides the following list of approved identification documents:
1. The number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by the department of transportation or the equivalent governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship.
2. A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.
3. A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States passport.
4. A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is verified with the United States immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.
5. Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.
6. The applicant’s bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number. 22Proposition 200 also amended state law to require Arizona’s State Form to “contain . . . [a] statement that the applicant shall submit evidence of United States citizenship with the application and that the registrar shall reject the application if no evidence of citizenship is attached.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-152(A)(23). Because this provision does not affect the Federal Form, we do not consider it here.

4138

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

other words, Proposition 200’s registration provision directs Arizona county recorders to reject every Federal Form that is submitted without the specified evidence of citizenship. According to the Arizona Election Procedures Manual, which has the force and effect of law, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-452, if a rejected applicant wants to make a second attempt to provide evidence of citizenship, he or she must submit an entirely new voter registration form in order to do so.23

E

We now turn to Gonzalez and ITCA’s contention that the NVRA’s requirement that states “accept and use” the Federal Form supersedes Proposition 200’s registration provision as applied to applicants using the Federal Form.24

[5] In assessing this argument, we apply the Elections Clause framework we derived from Siebold and Foster and consider the NVRA and Proposition 200’s registration provision as if they comprise a single system of federal election procedures. With respect to mail voter registration, the NVRA provides that “[e]ach State shall accept and use” the Federal Form “for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). By contrast, Proposition 200’s registration provision directs county recorders to “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship,” as defined

23The manual instructs county recorders:
If [a voter registration] form is not accompanied by proper proof of citizenship, the voter registration form is not valid and either will not be entered into the system or if it was entered into the system, the record shall be canceled. If the registrant subsequently provides proof of citizenship, it must be accompanied by a new voter registration form and a new registration date.
Arizona Secretary of State Elections Procedures Manual (Oct. 2007). 24Gonzalez and ITCA do not challenge Proposition 200’s registration
provision as applied to Arizona’s State Form.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4139

by Arizona law. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). When read together, the federal and state enactments treat the same subject matter, namely, the procedure for registering by mail to vote in federal elections using the Federal Form, but they do not operate harmoniously. In fact, these procedures are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.

First, the NVRA requires a county recorder to accept and use the Federal Form to register voters for federal elections, whereas the registration provision requires the same county recorder to reject the Federal Form as insufficient for voter registration if the form does not include proof of U.S. citizenship. Arizona attempts to harmonize these procedures, arguing that because the county recorder will accept the Federal Form for voter registration so long as it includes satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the county recorder is in fact complying with the NVRA’s mandate to “accept and use” the Federal Form, per 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). Rejection of the Federal Form in certain circumstances, Arizona argues, does not in itself mean that the state is failing to accept and use the form. Indeed, Arizona asserts, Congress must have contemplated that some applicants using the Federal Form would be rejected, because the NVRA directs states to notify “each applicant of the disposition of [his or her] application.” Id. § 1973gg-6(a)(2).

[6] We disagree. Although Arizona has offered a creative interpretation of the state and federal statutes in an effort to avoid a direct conflict, we do not strain to reconcile a state’s federal election regulations with those of Congress, but consider whether the state and federal procedures operate harmoniously when read together naturally. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 72-74; Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384. Here, under a natural reading of the NVRA, Arizona’s rejection of every Federal Form submitted without proof of citizenship does not constitute “accepting and using” the Federal Form. Arizona cannot cast doubt on this conclusion by pointing out that the NVRA allows states to reject applicants who fail to demonstrate their

4140

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

eligibility pursuant to the Federal Form. Congress clearly anticipated that states would reject applicants whose responses to the Federal Form indicate they are too young to vote, do not live within the state, or have not attested to being U.S. citizens. Indeed, the NVRA instructs the EAC to request information on the Federal Form for the precise purpose of “enabl[ing] the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). Thus, a state that assesses an applicant’s eligibility based on the information requested on the Federal Form is “accepting and using” the form in exactly the way it was meant to be used. In contrast, Proposition 200’s registration provision directs county recorders to assess an applicant’s eligibility based on proof of citizenship information that is not requested on the Federal Form, and to reject all Federal Forms that are submitted without such proof. Rejecting the Federal Form because the applicant failed to include information that is not required by that form is contrary to the form’s intended use and purpose.

The dissent likewise attempts to justify Arizona’s rejection of the Federal Form, but rests its arguments almost exclusively on the fact that § 1973gg-4(a)(2) allows states to develop and use a State Form, which may include requirements that are not included in the Federal Form. See dis. op at 4200-03, 4204-06. According to the dissent, because states may impose additional proof-of-citizenship requirements on applicants using the State Form, it necessarily follows that states may impose the same proof-of-citizenship requirements on applicants using the Federal Form; that is, that they may reject Federal Forms that do not include the additional proof of citizenship. See dis. op. at 4203-06. But there is no logical connection between the dissent’s premise and its conclusion, which is contrary to the text of the statute. The NVRA clearly requires states to accept and use the Federal Form (as designed by the EAC) “[i]n addition to” the State Form.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4141

The NVRA’s State Form provision, § 1973gg-4(a)(2), merely gives a state more options. Congress could have required all states to use only the Federal Form, as designed by the EAC, for federal elections. If Congress had done so, then states could not use their state registration forms to register applicants for federal elections. Instead, Congress allowed States to use their state registration forms to register applicants for both state and federal elections (provided the state form complies with § 1973gg-7(b)).25 But states cannot reject applicants who register for federal elections who use the Federal Form. There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about requiring states to accept the federal registration form in addition to their own state form.

In order to avoid the clear import of the NVRA’s text, the dissent argues that the Federal Form merely establishes the default minimum or baseline registration requirements. See dis. op. at 4203-04, 4209. In effect, the dissent wants to replace the words “in addition to” with the words “instead of,” so that “a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title” instead of “accepting and using” the Federal Form. We have no authority to rewrite the statute, however, and reject the dissent’s interpretation as being inconsistent with the plain language. See id. (“In addition to accepting and using [the Federal Form], a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” (emphasis added)).

25The dissent therefore has it exactly backwards in asserting that, under our interpretation of § 1973gg-4(a)(2), states may not use their state registration forms to register “voters in elections for Federal office.” Dis. op. at 4208. States may use their state registration forms to register voters in elections for federal office; they simply may not require registrants to use the State Form (or the equivalent of the State Form, namely, the Federal Form altered to include additional state requirements).

4142

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

[7] Second, Proposition 200’s registration provision clashes with the NVRA’s delegation of authority to the EAC (not the states) to determine the contents of the Federal Form. See id. § 1973gg-7(a)(2). While states may suggest changes to the Federal Form, the EAC has the ultimate authority to adopt or reject those suggestions. See id. § 1973gg-7(a). Here the EAC sent Arizona a letter rejecting its proposal to modify the Federal Form to require applicants to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register, see infra p. 4148 n.29, but Arizona nevertheless proceeded to impose this additional requirement on applicants using the Federal Form. Arizona’s insistence on engrafting an additional requirement on the Federal Form, even in the face of the EAC’s rejection of its proposal, accentuates the conflict between the state and federal procedures.26

Arizona attempts to minimize the clash between the NVRA and Proposition 200 by noting that a proof of citizenship requirement is consistent with the broad framework set out by Congress in section 1973gg-7(b); specifically, Arizona notes that the NVRA permits the Federal Form to seek such information as is necessary to “assess the eligibility of the applicant,” id. § 1973gg-7(b)(1), and does not expressly preclude a requirement that applicants provide proof of citizenship. Further, Arizona asserts that although Congress provided that

26Arizona argues that McKay v. Thompson, 226 F.3d 752, 755-56 (6th Cir. 2000), supports its conclusion that states may add requirements to the Federal Form, so long as the NVRA does not expressly forbid those requirements. Arizona is misreading McKay. In that case, the court rejected a prospective voter’s objection to Tennessee’s practice of requiring a full social security number as a precondition to successful registration, see id. at 754, stating that “[t]he NVRA does not specifically forbid use of social security numbers.” Id. at 756. But this holding does not help Arizona because the Federal Form allows states to instruct applicants to provide their full social security numbers in the “ID number” box on the Federal Form (and Tennessee’s instructions do so). See supra p. 4135 & n.18. McKay therefore does not support the proposition that a state may condition registration on an applicant’s provision of information that is not requested on the Federal Form.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4143

the mail voter registration form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” id. § 1973gg-7(b)(3), Arizona’s demand for proof of citizenship does not amount to such a requirement. This argument misses the point. Even assuming, without deciding, that Arizona is correct in its interpretation of section 1973gg-7(b), this would mean only that the NVRA allows Arizona to include a proof of citizenship requirement on its State Form. See id. § 1973gg-4(a)(2) (allowing a state to “develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b)”). It would not mean that Arizona has authority to add this requirement to the Federal Form. Congress entrusted that decision to the EAC. Once the EAC determined the contents of the Federal Form, Arizona’s only role was to make that form available to applicants and to “accept and use” it for the registration of voters.

[8] Third, Proposition 200’s registration provision is discordant with the NVRA’s goal of streamlining the registration process. See, e.g., Nat’l Coal. for Students with Disabilities Educ. & Legal Def. Fund v. Allen, 152 F.3d 283, 285 (4th Cir. 1998) (“Congress passed the NVRA . . . to make it easier to register to vote . . . .”); ACORN v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 835 (6th Cir. 1997) (“In an attempt to reinforce the right of qualified citizens to vote by reducing the restrictive nature of voter registration requirements, Congress passed the [NVRA].”). While the EAC chose to design the Federal Form as a postcard, which could be easily filled out and mailed on its own, Proposition 200’s registration provision makes the Federal Form much more difficult to use. For example, nothing on the face of the Federal Form or in the state-specific instructions for Arizona indicates that some applicants may need to provide a full social security number, a tribal identification number, or an alien registration number, as Proposition 200 requires.27 Nor does the Federal Form instruct that additional

27Because the Federal Form can be used as a mail-in postcard, the dissent’s credit card analogy, see dis. op. at 4204, is not on point. A con-

4144

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

documents, such as birth certificates or passports, must be provided by some applicants. Even if an applicant were aware of Arizona’s requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship with the Federal Form, the applicant would have to locate the required document, photocopy it, and enclose the photocopy with the form in an envelope for mailing. In short, much of the value of the Federal Form in removing obstacles to the voter registration process is lost under Proposition 200’s registration provision.

Notwithstanding these concerns, Arizona asserts that Proposition 200’s registration provision imposes little additional burden on applicants, because only a small minority of applicants lack a driver’s license number, tribal identification number, or alien registration number, all of which could suffice to show citizenship and can easily be written on the Federal Form. For this reason, Arizona contends, its proof of citizenship requirement is not excessively burdensome under the standard set forth in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 199-200 (2008) (Stevens, J., announcing the judgment of the Court). This argument misses the mark. The goal of the NVRA was to streamline the registration process for all applicants; the fact that Proposition 200’s registration provision only partially undermines this goal does not make it harmonious with the NVRA. Nor does Crawford provide support for Arizona’s argument. In Crawford, the Court considered whether a polling place requirement imposed a substantial burden on the right to vote, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 187. Even if Arizona is correct that Proposition 200’s registration provision does

sumer would rightly cry foul if a merchant claimed it would “accept and use” mailed-in credit card information for a purchase, but then refused to complete the transaction because the consumer failed to include additional information that the merchant had not requested. By the same token, the Federal Form does not request documentary proof of citizenship. Because a state must “accept and use” this form it cannot reject it merely because an applicant has mailed it in without including information that is not expressly required.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4145

not impose such a burden, this conclusion sheds no light on the question before us here: whether the registration provision is displaced by the NVRA under an Elections Clause analysis.

F

Because on its face the NVRA does not give states room to add their own requirements to the Federal Form, Arizona suggests that Congress’s subsequent enactment of HAVA permits us to reinterpret the NVRA to allow states to impose additional requirements on applicants for voter registration. Again, we disagree, because by its terms HAVA precludes such an interpretation.

Congress enacted HAVA in response to the 2000 Presidential election and the ensuing controversial Florida recount. See Fla. State Conference of NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 2008). For the most part, the NVRA and HAVA operate in separate spheres: the NVRA regulates voter registration, whereas HAVA is concerned with updating election technologies and other election-day issues at polling places. However, a handful of provisions in HAVA relate to the voter registration process, primarily by creating mechanisms through which states can ensure that the person who appears to cast a ballot at the polls is the same person who registered to vote. Relevant here, HAVA requires states to obtain (or assign) unique identification numbers for all registered voters: each applicant must provide his or her driver’s license number or the last four digits of his or her social security number on the voter registration form, or if the applicant lacks such a number, the state must assign the applicant a number “which will serve to identify the applicant for voter registration purposes.” 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). In addition, states are to take steps to verify that the applicant’s claimed identity matches the identification number he or she provided. See id. § 15483(a)(5)(A)(iii) (requiring states to “determine whether the [identification] information provided

4146

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

by an individual is sufficient to meet the requirements” of HAVA); see also Crawford, 553 U.S. at 192.

HAVA also includes language limiting its scope. It clarifies that “[t]he requirements established by [HAVA] are minimum requirements and nothing in [HAVA] shall be construed to prevent a State from establishing election technology and administration requirements that are more strict than the requirements established under [HAVA] so long as such State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements under [HAVA] or any law described in section 15545 of this title.” Id. § 15484. Section 15545 is HAVA’s savings clause: it provides that except for the changes to the NVRA specified in HAVA, “nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under [a number of federal laws, including the NVRA], or to supersede, restrict, or limit the application of [those federal laws].” Id. § 15545(a).

Arizona argues that HAVA gives it the authority to impose additional requirements on applicants using the Federal Form for two reasons. First, Arizona contends that because HAVA directs states to verify the accuracy of the driver’s license or social security numbers provided on the Federal Form, see id. § 15483(a)(5)(A)(iii), Arizona must likewise have the authority to verify the accuracy of other information on the Federal Form, including an applicant’s claim of citizenship. Second, Arizona asserts that because HAVA establishes only “minimum requirements,” and authorizes states to develop “election technology and administration requirements that are more strict than [HAVA’s] requirements,” id. § 15484, HAVA gives states a green light to impose stricter requirements on voter registration.

Both of these arguments fail in light of HAVA’s savings clause, which makes clear that Congress intended to preserve the NVRA except as to the specific changes it enacted in HAVA. While HAVA made a handful of changes to the

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4147

NVRA, it did not add a proof of citizenship requirement to the Federal Form and did not authorize states to do so. For the reasons explained above, an interpretation of HAVA that allows states to override the EAC’s authority in designing the Federal Form would “supersede, restrict, or limit the application of” the NVRA. Id. § 15545(a). Because the savings clause precludes such an interpretation, we decline to adopt one. Therefore, HAVA does not provide Arizona the authorization it seeks.

G

We recognize Arizona’s concern about fraudulent voter registration. Nevertheless, the Elections Clause gives Congress the last word on how this concern will be addressed in the context of federal elections. As is evidenced by one of the four articulated purposes of the NVRA, which is “to protect the integrity of the electoral process,” id. § 1973gg(b)(3), Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the act and provided for numerous fraud protections in the NVRA.28

With respect to the Federal Form, Congress delegated to the EAC the decision of how to balance the need “to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office” and the

28These safeguards include the NVRA’s requirement that the Federal Form, the State Forms, and the Motor Voter Forms contain an attestation clause that sets out the requirements for voter eligibility. Id. §§ 1973gg3(c)(2)(C)(i)-(ii), 1973gg- 7(b)(2)(A)-(B). Applicants are required to sign these forms under penalty of perjury, id. §§ 1973gg-3(c)(2)(C)(iii), 1973gg-7(b)(2)(C), and persons who knowingly and willfully engage in fraudulent registration practices are subject to criminal penalties, id. § 1973gg-10(2). In addition, the NVRA allows states to require first-time voters who register by mail to vote in person at the polling place, where the voter’s identity can be confirmed. See id. § 1973gg-4(c). Finally, section 1973gg-6 requires states to give notice to applicants of the disposition of their applications, which states may use as a means to detect fraudulent registrations. See id. § 1973gg-6(a)(2).

4148

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

need to protect “the integrity of the electoral process,” id. § 1973gg(b)(1), (3). The EAC struck this balance by requiring applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but not requiring other proof of citizenship. See 59 Fed. Reg. at 32,316 (“The issue of U.S. citizenship is addressed within the oath required by the Act and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. To further emphasize this prerequisite to the applicant, the words ‘For U.S. Citizens Only’ will appear in prominent type on the front cover of the national mail voter registration form.”). Though Arizona has eloquently expressed its reasons for striking the balance differently, the federal determination controls in this context. See ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 795-96 (7th Cir. 1995) (rejecting Illinois’s argument that because the “motor voter” component of the NVRA “opens the door to voter fraud,” the state was entitled to refuse to comply with the law).

[9] In sum, the NVRA and Proposition 200’s registration provision, when interpreted naturally, do not operate harmoniously as a single procedural scheme for the registration of voters for federal elections. Therefore, under Congress’s expansive Elections Clause power, we must hold that the registration provision, when applied to the Federal Form, is preempted by the NVRA.29

29We reach our conclusion based on the language and structure of the statute, and therefore do not rely on the EAC’s interpretation of the NVRA or the NVRA’s legislative history. While ITCA maintains that the EAC’s view is entitled to some level of deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), Arizona argues that Congress did not delegate any authority to the EAC to interpret the NVRA, see 42 U.S.C. § 15329, and thus deference is not appropriate. We need not resolve this dispute, but merely note that both the EAC’s view and the NVRA’s legislative history are consistent with our holding. In its letter to Arizona, the EAC construed the NVRA as not permitting states to “condition acceptance of the Federal Form upon receipt of additional proof.” With respect to the legislative history, the NVRA’s Conference Report, which we have held is the most authoritative and reliable legislative material, see, e.g., Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 835 (9th Cir. 1996), shows that Con-

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA III

4149

Because we hold that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s registration provision,30 the remainder of our analysis focuses solely on the validity of Proposition 200’s polling place provision. Proposition 200 amended section 16-579 of the Arizona Revised Statutes to require that a voter “present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector” as a prerequisite to receiving a ballot. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-579(A) (2005). The Secretary of State, acting under statutory authority, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-452(A), (B), promulgated a procedure specifying the “forms of identification” accepted under the statute, which included photograph-bearing documents such as driver’s licenses as well as non-photograph-bearing documents such as utility bills or bank statements. In 2009, the state legislature amended section 16-579 to codify that procedure.31

gress rejected an amendment to the NVRA which would have provided that “nothing in this Act shall prevent a State from requiring presentation of documentation relating to citizenship of an applicant for voter registration,” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 23 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 148. The conferees explained that the amendment was not “consistent with the purposes of” the NVRA and “could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the mail registration program of the Act.” Id.
30Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause is limited to preempting state regulations as they relate to federal elections. Therefore, our holding invalidating Proposition 200’s registration provision does not prevent Arizona from applying a proof of citizenship requirement to voter registrations for state elections. However, because Arizona has presented its system of voter registration as concurrently registering voters for state and federal elections, we do not consider whether Proposition 200’s registration provision, as applied only to voter registrations for state elections, is valid under Gonzalez and ITCA’s remaining claims.
31Section 16-579(A)(1) now provides that a voter must “present any of the following” before being permitted to vote:

4150

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Gonzalez and ITCA challenge Proposition 200’s polling place provision on three grounds: that it is a prohibited voting qualification under section 2 of the VRA, an unconstitutional poll tax under the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. We first consider Gonzalez’s argument that Proposition 200’s polling place provision violates section 2 of the VRA.

(a) A valid form of identification that bears the photograph, name and address of the elector that reasonably appear to be the same as the name and address in the precinct register, including an Arizona driver license, an Arizona nonoperating identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification or a United States federal, state or local government issued identification. Identification is deemed valid unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.
(b) Two different items that contain the name and address of the elector that reasonably appear to be the same as the name and address in the precinct register, including a utility bill, a bank or credit union statement that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election, a valid Arizona vehicle registration, an Arizona vehicle insurance card, an Indian census card, tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a property tax statement, a recorder’s certificate, a voter registration card, a valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification or any mailing that is labeled as “official election material.” Identification is deemed valid unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.
(c) A valid form of identification that bears the photograph, name and address of the elector except that if the address on the identification does not reasonably appear to be the same as the address in the precinct register or the identification is a valid United States Military identification card or a valid United States passport and does not bear an address, the identification must be accompanied by one of the items listed in subdivision (b) of this paragraph.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA A

4151

[10] Section 2(a) of the VRA prohibits states from imposing any voting qualification that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). A violation of section 2 is established “if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation” by members of a protected class, “in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate [1] to participate in the political process and [2] to elect representatives of their choice.” Id. § 1973(b). Said otherwise, a plaintiff can prevail in a section 2 claim only if, “based on the totality of the circumstances, . . . the challenged voting practice results in discrimination on account of race.” Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted); see also United States v. Blaine Cnty., 363 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir. 2004). Although proving a violation of § 2 does not require a showing of discriminatory intent, only discriminatory results, see Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 383-84 (1991); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 557 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), proof of “causal connection between the challenged voting practice and a prohibited discriminatory result” is crucial, Smith v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also id. (“[A] bare statistical showing of disproportionate impact on a racial minority does not satisfy the § 2 ‘results’ inquiry.”). Said otherwise, a § 2 challenge “based purely on a showing of some relevant statistical disparity between minorities and whites,” without any evidence that the challenged voting qualification causes that disparity, will be rejected. Id.32

32This approach applies both to claims of vote denial and of vote dilution. Id. at 596 n.8.

4152

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

In applying the totality of the circumstances test, “a court must assess the impact of the contested structure or practice on minority electoral opportunities ‘on the basis of objective factors.’ ” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 44 (1986) (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 27 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 205). In Gingles, the Supreme Court cited a non-exhaustive list of nine factors (generally referred to as the “Senate Factors” because they were discussed in the Senate Report on the 1982 amendments to the VRA) that courts should consider in making this totality of the circumstances assessment. Id. at 44-45. Relevant here, the factors direct courts to consider the history of official state discrimination against the minority with respect to voting, the extent to which voting in the state is racially polarized, and “the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.” Id. at 36-37 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28-29, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07); see Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1016, 1020. “[T]here is no requirement that any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 29, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 209) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Gonzalez argues that Proposition 200 disparately impacts Latino voters, unlawfully diluting their right to vote and denying them the right to vote by providing them with less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process. Considering both Proposition 200’s registration requirement and its requirement that voters who cast ballots at the polls present specified identification, the district court determined, after “examining the facts as a whole, [that] Proposition 200 does not have a statistically significant disparate impact on Latino voters.”33 In considering the Senate Fac-

33Judge Pregerson’s dissent relies heavily on statistical analysis pre-

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4153

tors listed above, the district court found that Latinos had suffered a history of discrimination in Arizona that hindered their ability to participate in the political process fully, that there were socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and whites in Arizona, and that Arizona continues to have some degree of racially polarized voting. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that Gonzalez’s claim failed because there was no proof of a causal relationship between Proposition 200 and any alleged discriminatory impact on Latinos. The district court noted that not a single expert testified to a causal connection between Proposition 200’s requirements and the observed difference in the voting rates of Latinos, and that Gonzalez had failed to explain how Proposition 200’s requirements interact with the social and historical climate of discrimination to impact Latino voting in Arizona. Therefore, the district court concluded that Gonzalez had not proved that Proposition 200 results in discrimination “on account of race or color.”

Because a § 2 analysis requires the district court to engage in a “searching practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality,’ ” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 (quoting S. Rep. 97-417, at 30, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 208), a district court’s examination in such a case is “intensely fact-based and localized,” Salt River, 109 F.3d at 591. We therefore “[d]efer[ ] to the district court’s superior fact-finding capabilities,” id., and review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, including its ultimate finding whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practice violates § 2, Old Per-

pared by the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Louis Lanier. Dis. op. at 4197-98. The state’s expert, however, testified that Lanier’s results were unreliable in light of several factors, including the absence of evidence that the Latinos whose votes went uncounted were qualified to vote. In holding that the plaintiffs had not shown that Proposition 200 had a statistically significant impact on Latino voters, the district court implicitly rejected Lanier’s testimony, a conclusion that is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985).

4154

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

son v. Cooney, 230 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 78-79). We review de novo the district court’s legal determinations and mixed findings of law and fact. Salt River, 109 F.3d at 591.

[11] The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gonzalez failed to establish that Proposition 200’s polling place provision, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-579, had a disparate impact on Latinos. To prove a § 2 violation, Gonzalez had to establish that this requirement, as applied to Latinos, caused a prohibited discriminatory result. Here, Gonzalez alleged that “Latinos, among other ethnic groups, are less likely to possess the forms of identification required under Proposition 200 to . . . cast a ballot,” but produced no evidence supporting this allegation.34 The record does include evidence of Arizona’s general history of discrimination against Latinos and the existence of racially polarized voting. But Gonzalez adduced no evidence that Latinos’ ability or inability to obtain or possess identification for voting purposes (whether or not interacting with the history of discrimination and racially polarized voting) resulted in Latinos having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Without such evidence, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that Gonzalez failed to prove causation was clearly erroneous. Therefore we affirm the district court’s denial of Gonzalez’s VRA claim.35

34The dissent likewise fails to cite any evidence to support the theory that Proposition 200’s polling place provision “has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls” because it “evokes fear of discrimination.” Dis. op. at 4200.
35Gonzalez also argues that the district court erred in evaluating one of the Senate Factors and in concluding that the disparate impact on Latinos was statistically insignificant. Because the failure to show causation is dispositive, however, we need not reach these issues.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA B

4155

We next consider Gonzalez and ITCA’s claim that Proposi-
tion 200’s polling place provision violates the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.36

The Twenty-fourth Amendment provides:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

U.S. Const. amend. XXIV, § 1. Gonzalez and ITCA do not argue that requiring voters to show identification at the polls is itself a poll tax. Rather, they argue that, because some voters do not possess the identification required under Proposition 200, those voters will be required to spend money to obtain the requisite documentation, and that this payment is indirectly equivalent to a tax on the right to vote.

[12] This analysis is incorrect. Although obtaining the identification required under § 16-579 may have a cost, it is neither a poll tax itself (that is, it is not a fee imposed on voters as a prerequisite for voting), nor is it a burden imposed on voters who refuse to pay a poll tax. Cf. Harman, 380 U.S. at 541-42.

36Although ITCA’s briefing collapses the Twenty-fourth and Fourteenth Amendment poll tax claims into a single argument, these are different claims that arise under different constitutional amendments. The Twentyfourth Amendment extends only to federal elections, see Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965), whereas the Fourteenth Amendment can also invalidate restrictions on the right to vote in state elections, see Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 (1966). We will therefore address these two claims separately.

4156

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Our conclusion is consistent with Harman, the only Supreme Court case considering the Twenty-fourth Amendment’s ban on poll taxes. In that case, the Court considered a state statute that required voters to either pay a $1.50 poll tax on an annual basis or go through a “cumbersome procedure,” id. at 541, for filing an annual certificate of residence, id. at 530-32. There was no dispute that the $1.50 fee, if it were a freestanding prerequisite for voting, would constitute a poll tax barred by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. See id. at 540. Accordingly, the only question before the Court was whether the state “may constitutionally confront the federal voter with a requirement that he either pay the customary poll taxes as required for state elections or file a certificate of residence.” Id. at 538. The Court enunciated the rule that a state may not impose “a material requirement solely upon those who refuse to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax.” Id. at 541. Applying this rule, the Court determined that the state’s certificate of residence requirement was a material burden: among other things, the procedure for filing the certificate was unclear, the requirement that the certificate be filed six months before the election “perpetuat[ed] one of the disenfranchising characteristics of the poll tax which the Twenty-fourth Amendment was designed to eliminate,” and the state had other alternatives to establish that voters were residents, including “registration, use of the criminal sanction, purging of registration lists, [and] challenges and oaths.” Id. at 541-43. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it was “constrained to hold that the requirement imposed upon the voter who refuses to pay the poll tax constitutes an abridgment of his right to vote by reason of failure to pay the poll tax.” Id. at 542.

[13] Proposition 200’s polling place provision is not a poll
tax under Harman. Requiring voters to show identification at the polls does not constitute a tax.37 Nor does the identifica-

37Voters who use an early ballot to vote do not even have to show identification. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-550(A) (for early ballots, elector identity is verified by signature comparison alone).

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4157

tion requirement place a material burden on a voter “solely because of his refusal to waive [his] constitutional immunity” to a poll tax, id.; rather, under Proposition 200, all voters are required to present identification at the polls. Because Arizona’s system does not, as a matter of law, qualify as a poll tax, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Proposition 200’s polling place provision does not violate the Twentyfourth Amendment.

C

[14] Nor is Proposition 200’s polling place provision an unconstitutional poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Harper is the leading Supreme Court case considering whether a state law is a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Harper, the Supreme Court held that a state law levying an annual $1.50 poll tax on individuals exercising their right to vote was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. 383 U.S. at 664-66 & n.1. The Court held that “the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications,” and that the imposition of poll taxes fell outside this power because “[w]ealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.” Id. at 668. Because the state’s poll tax made affluence of the voter an electoral standard, and such a standard is irrelevant to permissible voter qualifications, the Court concluded that the tax was invidiously discriminatory and a per se violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 666-67.

Proposition 200’s polling place provision falls outside of Harper’s rule that “restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.” Crawford, 553 U.S. at 189 (Stevens, J., announcing the judgment of the Court). Requiring voters to provide documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay to obtain the documents. On the contrary, such a

4158

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

requirement falls squarely within the state’s power to fix core voter qualifications. Nevertheless, ITCA argues that the Court’s more recent decision in Crawford, 553 U.S. 181, extended Harper’s holding that an electoral standard based on voter affluence is invidiously discriminatory (and thus a per se violation of the Equal Protection Clause) to encompass indirect fees, such as the fees or costs necessary to obtain identification documents.

ITCA’s argument is based on a misreading of Crawford. Crawford involved an Indiana state requirement that a citizen voting in person or at the office of the circuit court clerk before election day present a photo identification card issued by the government. Id. at 185. The state would provide a free photo identification to “qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity.” Id. at 186. A number of plaintiffs challenged this requirement on the ground that the “new law substantially burden[ed] the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 187. Although the Court was unable to agree on the rationale for upholding Indiana’s photo identification requirement,38 neither the lead opinion nor the concurrence held that Harper’s per se rule applied. See id. at 203-04. The lead opinion, upon which ITCA relies, explained that Harper’s “litmus test” made “even rational restrictions on the right to vote . . . invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.” Id. at 189-90. But according to the lead opinion, later election cases had moved away from Harper to apply a balancing test to state-imposed burdens on the voting process. Id. Under these later cases, a court “must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the ‘hard judgment’ that our adversary system demands.” Id. at 190. The lead opinion then proceeded to apply this balancing test

38The lead opinion authored by Justice Stevens was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer dissented.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4159

to the Indiana photo identification requirement. Id. at 191-200. Because Crawford did not extend Harper’s per se rule to other burdens imposed on voters, it does not support ITCA’s argument that Proposition 200’s identification requirement is per se invalid.

[15] Although ITCA’s reliance on Crawford is not entirely clear, ITCA does not appear to argue that Proposition 200’s polling place provision is invalid under Crawford’s balancing test. Such an argument would be unavailing in any event. The lead opinion in Crawford held that the burden imposed on citizens who must obtain a photo identification document was not sufficiently heavy to support a facial attack on the constitutionality of the state law, in light of the state’s legitimate interests in deterring and detecting voter fraud, modernizing election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence. Id. at 191, 202-03. The same reasoning is applicable here. While the lead opinion noted that photo identification cards were provided for free by Indiana, it also recognized that to obtain these free cards, prospective voters needed to “present at least one ‘primary’ document, which can be a birth certificate, certificate of naturalization, U.S. veterans photo identification, U.S. military photo identification, or a U.S. passport.” Id. at 198 n.17. Obtaining these primary documents, the Supreme Court acknowledged, may require payment of a fee. Id. Because Proposition 200’s polling place provision allows voters to present these same sorts of primary documents, Proposition 200 is no more burdensome than the identification requirement upheld in Crawford. Nor has ITCA suggested any reason why Arizona’s interests in imposing a photo identification requirement would be less weighty than the state interests at issue in Crawford. Therefore, even under the balancing test set forth in Crawford’s lead opinion, we would uphold Proposition 200’s polling place identification requirement against a facial challenge.
In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200’s polling place

4160

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

provision is related to the state’s legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

IV

Our system of dual sovereignty, which gives the state and federal governments the authority to operate within their separate spheres, “is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 921 (1997). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite our respect for the state’s exercise of its sovereign authority, however, the Constitution’s text requires us to safeguard the specific enumerated powers that are bestowed on the federal government. The authority granted to Congress under the Elections Clause to “make or alter” state law regulating procedures for federal elections is one such power. The Framers of the Constitution were clear that the states’ authority to regulate federal elections extends only so far as Congress declines to intervene. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 4, cl. 1; Foster, 522 U.S. at 69. Given the paramount authority delegated to Congress by the Elections Clause, we conclude that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s conflicting registration requirement for federal elections, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16166(F). We uphold Proposition 200’s polling place provision with respect to all other claims.39

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

39Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4161

APPENDIX A
(NOTE: APPENDIX A and APPENDIX B, slip op. pages 4161-4191, is posted separately)

4192

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Chief Judge KOZINSKI, concurring:

I find this a difficult and perplexing case. The statutory language we must apply is readily susceptible to the interpretation of the majority, but also that of the dissent. For a state to “accept and use” the federal form could mean that it must employ the form as a complete registration package, to the exclusion of other materials. This would construe the phrase “accept and use” narrowly or exclusively. But if we were to give the phrase a broad or inclusive construction, states could “accept and use” the federal form while also requiring registrants to provide documentation confirming what’s in the form. This wouldn’t render the federal form superfluous, just as redundant braking systems on cars and secondary power supplies on computers aren’t superfluous. This is known colloquially as wearing a belt and suspenders, and is widely used to safeguard against failure of critical systems (i.e., getting caught with your pants down). See Redundancy (engineering), Wikipedia, http://goo.gl/ce8il (last visited Jan. 9, 2012).

The two constructions embody different, and somewhat antithetical, policies. The narrow construction maximizes federal control and national uniformity at the expense of state autonomy and local control. The broad construction defers to state and local interests while sacrificing national uniformity. As a linguistic matter, neither construction of “accept and use” strikes me as superior.

If Congress had made it clear that states must accept the federal form as a complete application, or that they need not, I would cheerfully enforce either command. But Congress used tantalizingly vague language, which would make it very useful to fall back on a rule of construction, such as the Clear Statement Rule or the Presumption Against Preemption. Judge Ikuta is right, however, that the Supreme Court has so far adopted such rules only for Supremacy Clause cases, not for those arising under the Elections Clause. See maj. op. at 4127-29.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4193

There would, I believe, be ample justification for adopting such rules for Elections Clause preemption. While the federal government has an interest in how elections for federal office are conducted, the states are not disinterested bystanders. Federal elections determine who will represent the state and its citizens in Congress, the White House and, indirectly, the federal courts. Making sure that those representatives are chosen by the state’s qualified electors is of vital significance to the state and its people. Moreover, the federal government is commandeering the state’s resources, giving states a significant stake in ensuring that the process is conducted efficiently and fairly. Rightly or wrongly, many still blame (or credit) voting irregularities in Illinois for John F. Kennedy’s election as President in 1960, and in Texas for Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948. States have an interest in ensuring that their reputations aren’t soiled in this fashion for decades, maybe longer. The risk of fraud and other malfeasance may depend on local conditions and thus differ from state to state. States with a tradition of electoral chicanery, or with large transient populations, may need to impose stricter controls to ensure the integrity of their voting processes.

The fact remains that the Supreme Court has never articulated any doctrine giving deference to the states under the Elections Clause. This may be because it hasn’t had occasion to do so in modern times. Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997), was an easy case where the state’s election scheme directly contradicted the constitutional text, while the state’s interest in avoiding a general election on the same day as the rest of the country was slight. A case such as ours, where the statutory language is unclear and the state has a compelling interest in avoiding fraudulent voting by large numbers of unqualified electors, presents a far more suitable case for deciding whether we should defer to state interests. But only the Supreme Court can adopt such a doctrine.

In the absence of something better, I must resort to secondary aids to construction. In this case, we have legislative his-

4194

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

tory that supports reading “accept and use” in the exclusive sense, which would preclude states from seeking additional documentation. Senator Simpson proposed amending the bill that eventually became the NVRA to provide that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to preclude a State from requiring presentation of documentary evidence of the citizenship of an applicant for voter registration.” 139 Cong. Rec. 5098 (Mar. 16, 1993). He explained his purpose: “It allows States to check documents to verify citizenship. . . . [I]t simply makes clear that this bill must not be interpreted to stop any particular State from requiring documents. This includes States which currently by State law check documents, as well as those who may wish to check documents in the future. . . . I offer my amendment to try to ensure that States will continue to have the right, if they wish, to require documents verifying citizenship . . . .” Id. at 5098-99. Senator Simpson understood that “accept and use” could be read narrowly to preclude states from seeking documentation beyond the federal form, and offered his amendment to ensure that the phrase would be construed in the broad, inclusive sense.

Senator Ford, the NVRA’s sponsor, responded: “[T]here is nothing in the bill now that would preclude the State’s requiring presentation of documentary evidence of citizenship. I think basically this is redundant, even though you probably put it in a section. But there is nothing in there now that would preclude it.” Id. at 5099. Senator Ford seemed to believe that “accept and use” was already being used in the inclusive sense, and was amenable to adding language that would confirm this.

The Senate adopted the Simpson amendment, but the House bill lacked a similar provision. The Conference Committee adopted the House version, explaining that “[t]he conferees agree with the House bill and do not include this provision from the Senate amendment. It is not necessary or consistent with the purposes of this Act. Furthermore, there is concern that it could be interpreted by States to permit regis-

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4195

tration requirements that could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the mail registration program of the Act. It could also adversely affect the administration of the other registration programs as well. . . . These concerns lead the conferees to conclude that this section should be deleted.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 23-24 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 148-49 (Conf. Rep.). The conferees thus rejected the Simpson amendment, not because they thought it superfluous (as did Senator Ford) but because the inclusive meaning of “accept and use” was inconsistent with their vision of how the Act should operate.

After the conference, the Senate re-passed the NVRA without the Simpson amendment. S. Rep. No. 103-6, at 12-13 (1993). A minority of senators opposed the bill in part because they thought “requiring proof of citizenship” would be helpful in combating fraud and worried that the bill “would preclude such corrective action.” Id. at 50.

In the House, some members sought to recommit the bill in order to tack on a Simpson-like amendment. They argued that failure to do so would encourage voter fraud. See 139 Cong. Rec. at 9228 (May 5, 1993) (Rep. Livingson: “Without this provision, this bill is an auto-fraudo bill.”); id. at 9229 (Rep. Cox: “Despite its benign name, this pernicious bill would make it nearly impossible to prevent ineligible people— including illegal aliens—from voting.”). Their arguments fell on deaf ears. Id. at 9231.

The Supreme Court has warned us time and again not to rely on legislative history in interpreting statutes, largely because of the ease with which floor statements and committee reports can be manipulated to create a false impression as to what the body as a whole meant. But the history here consists of actions taken by legislative bodies, not just words penned by staffers or lobbyists. The Court has recognized that such drafting history can offer interpretive insight: “Congress’ rejection of the very language that would have

4196

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

achieved the result the Government urges here weighs heavily against the Government’s interpretation.” Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 579-80 (2006). While the dissenting Justices in Hamdan objected to the use of legislative history, their objection rested in large part on the fact that it was being used to defeat clear statutory language. See id. at 665-68 (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Thomas and Alito, JJ.). I’m not convinced they would object with equal vigor where, as here, the statutory language is in equipoise and both chambers affirmatively rejected efforts to authorize precisely what Arizona is seeking to do.

The dissent mistakenly sees some inconsistency between my conclusion today and that in my “well-drafted dissent to the original panel opinion.” Dissent at 4211 n.1. But, as a member of a three-judge panel, I had no occasion to construe the statute de novo because we were bound by the law of the circuit and the law of the case. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting in large part). To the extent I could reach the issue at all, it was only to determine whether “Gonzalez I is clearly wrong.” Id. at 1208. Because I concluded then, as I do now, that “both preemptive and non-preemptive constructions of ‘accept’ and ‘use’ are plausible,” I deferred to the earlier panel’s construction. Id. at 1206. As an en banc court, we cannot defer to Gonzalez I. Rather, we must come up with what we think is the best construction of the statute. For the reasons outlined above, and those in Judge Ikuta’s very fine and thorough opinion, I believe the preemptive reading of the statute is somewhat better than the alternative.

BERZON, Circuit Judge, concurring, with whom MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, joins:
I fully concur in the majority opinion but note the following: With respect to whether Proposition 200’s polling place

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4197

provision “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color” in violation of § 2(a) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a), the court holds only that the current record is insufficient to show a “causal connection between the challenged voting practice and [a] prohibited discriminatory result,” Smith v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). I concur in Section III.A of the majority opinion with that understanding of its limited reach. A different record in a future case could produce a different outcome with regard to the § 2 causation question.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that Proposition 200’s registration provision violates the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). See Maj. Op. at 4148. I part ways with the majority, however, when it comes to Proposition 200’s requirement that voters provide identification at the polls (“the polling place provision”). The majority concludes that Gonzalez’s challenge to the polling place provision under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act fails because Gonzalez has not established that the polling place provision “results in discrimination on account of race.” Maj. Op. at 4151. I respectfully disagree with the majority, for two reasons.
First, in concluding that Proposition 200’s polling place provision does not disparately impact Latino voters, the majority conflates statistics on Proposition 200’s registration provision with Proposition 200’s polling place provision. See Maj. Op. at 4152-53. A thorough review of the record reveals that Proposition 200’s polling place provision has a significant disproportionate impact on Latino voters. In the 2006 general election, Latino voters comprised between 2.6% and

4198

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4.2% of the voters who turned out to vote, but Latino voters cast 10.3% of the ballots that went uncounted because of insufficient identification. Latino voters were overrepresented by 200% to 500% in ballots that were uncounted because of insufficient identification.

Second, the majority mistakenly gives short shrift to the “Senate Factors” from Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 44 (1986).1 In discussing these factors, the majority acknowledges that Latino voters have “suffered a history of discrimination in Arizona that hindered their ability to participate in the political process fully, that there were socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and whites in Arizona, and that Arizona continues to have some degree of racially polarized voting.” Maj. Op. at 4152. Despite acknowledging these facts, the majority concludes that Proposition 200’s polling place provision does not result “in discrimination on account of race.” Maj. Op. at 4151. But a proper Section 2 analysis requires that we “consider how the challenged practice ‘inter-

1In Gingles the Supreme Court held that a court should consider the following factors, commonly referred to as the “Senate Factors,” in determining whether a plaintiff has established a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
[T]he history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
Gingles, 478 U.S. at 44-45.

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4199

acts with social and historical conditions’ ” to cause an inequality in the opportunities of Latino voters to cast their ballots. Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47).

Indeed, as the district court recounted in much detail, de jure discrimination against Latinos in Arizona existed during most of the twentieth century. Just prior to 1910, Arizona voters passed a literacy law that explicitly targeted Mexicans and disqualified non-English speakers from voting in state elections. As late as the 1960s, these literacy requirements were a precondition for voting in Arizona.

After Arizona attained statehood in 1912, the new state government engaged in an anti-immigrant campaign characterized by a series of proposals aimed at restricting the political rights of Mexican immigrants’ and limiting their right to work. The new Arizona constitution restricted non-citizens from working on public projects. In 1914, the Arizona legislature enacted the “eighty percent law,” which stated that eighty percent of the employees in businesses that had five or more employees had to be “native-born citizens of the United States.”

Segregation of Latinos in housing and public accommodations was also common in Arizona during most of the twentieth century. In the years immediately following World War II, the city of Phoenix segregated Latino veterans in separate housing units. Movie theaters, restaurants, and stores frequently excluded Latinos or required Latinos to sit in segregated areas. Public parks and swimming pools were also segregated. A particularly notorious example of this segregation occurred in Tempe, where Latinos were only permitted to use the public swimming pool the day before the pool was drained.

In my view, statistics showing that Proposition 200’s polling place provision disparately impact Latino voters, when

4200

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

coupled with Arizona’s long history of discrimination against Latinos, current socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and whites in Arizona, and racially polarized voting in Arizona, establish that Proposition 200’s polling place provision results in discrimination on account of race.

History has also shown that when a Latino voter approaches the polling place but is stopped by a person perceived to be an authority figure checking for identification, there’s something intimidating about that experience that evokes fear of discrimination. This intimidation has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls.

In sum, I would hold that Proposition 200’s polling place provision results in discrimination on account of race, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, joined by Judge N.R. Smith, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Arizona’s Proposition 200, which amended Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-579 to require proof of identification prior to receiving a ballot, does not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I also agree that the statutory amendment did not constitute a poll tax as proscribed in the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, I join Part III of the majority opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the balance of the majority opinion, because I am not persuaded that application of Proposition 200’s proof-of-citizenship provision to prospective voters using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the Federal Form) is precluded by the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA). In my view, there is no conflict between the NVRA

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4201

and Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement. In fact, the plain text of the NVRA validates Arizona’s proof-ofcitizenship requirement, even while recognizing that Arizona must “accept and use” the Federal Form.

The text of the NVRA allows for Arizona’s proof-ofcitizenship requirement, notwithstanding whether a presumption against preemption generally exists under the Election Clause, as it does under the Supremacy Clause. The NVRA states the following:

In addition to accepting and using the [Federal Form], a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.

42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). Therefore, the plain text of the NVRA authorizes a state to “develop and use a mail voter registration form . . . for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office,” in addition to the Federal Form if it “meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b).” As part of such criteria, the NVRA provides that a mail voter registration form “may require only such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 1973gg-7(b)(2) then specifies that citizenship is a necessary eligibility requirement. Thus, the NVRA expressly allows Arizona to require proof of eligibility, such as proof of citizenship, because “it is identifying information . . . necessary to enable the . . . State election official to assess eligibility,” and Arizona accepts and uses the Federal Form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1).

I emphasize the point that the NVRA itself expressly, not merely implicitly, authorizes a state to “develop and use” its own form “for the registration of voters in elections for Fed-

4202

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

eral office,” in addition to accepting and using the [Federal Form].” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). Because a state must accept and use the Federal Form but is also expressly authorized to develop and use its own form that meets the criteria in § 1973gg-7(b), the plain text creates a minimum standard through the Federal Form and allows a state to require more as long as it is within the bounds of § 1973gg-7(b). See Hui v. Castaneda, 130 S. Ct. 1845, 1855 (2010) (“We are required, however, to read the statute according to its text. . . .”); Arkansas v. Farm Credit Servs. of Cent. Ark., 520 U.S. 821, 827 (1997) (noting that it is a “basic principle that statutory language is to be enforced according to its terms”). While state forms must comply with the same general standards as the Federal Form, there is no mandate that states must use only the information included in the Federal Form or that the Federal Form is a complete application. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). States have the same discretion to decide the contents of the form they develop and use, when drafted in accordance with § 1973gg-7(b), as the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) had for the Federal Form’s requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-4(a)(2), 1973gg-7(b). Thus, the statute expressly authorizes a state, as long as it complies with the standards set forth in § 1973gg-7(b), to require additional information outside of the Federal Form for voter registration. I do not know how to more clearly and emphatically stress the point that the plain text of the statute allows Arizona to require proof-of-citizenship in elections for federal office.

The majority argues that the NVRA preempts the proof-ofcitizenship requirement, because the NVRA requires states to “accept and use” the Federal Form and Proposition 200’s requirement to “ ‘reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship’ . . . do not operate harmoniously. . . .” Majority Opinion, p. 4138-39 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F)). The majority rejects Arizona’s argument that the statutes are harmonious, because Arizona is accepting and using the Federal Form for voter registration as long as evidence of citizenship

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4203

is provided pursuant to the state form requirement. See id. at 4139-40. The majority reasons that rejecting voter registration based on anything outside the Federal Form is inappropriate because it “is contrary to the form’s intended use and purpose.” Id. at 4140. Further, the majority opines that its reading is consistent with the “natural reading of the NVRA.” Id. I disagree.

The terms of the statute trump the intended use and purpose of the Federal Form. See Lockart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, 146 (2005) (“The fact that Congress may not have foreseen all of the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning.”) (citation omitted); see also Siripongs v. Davis, 282 F.3d 755, 758 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In interpreting the statute we look to general principles of statutory construction and begin with the language of the statute itself.” If the “language is clear on its face, the sole function of the court is to enforce it according to its terms. . . .”) (citation, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the “accept and use” provisions of the NVRA do not establish a conflict between Proposition 200 and the NVRA where one is not otherwise present in the text of the statutes. Reading the requirement to “accept and use” the Federal Form in § 1973gg-4(a)(1) along with § 1973gg-4(a)(2) does not naturally lead to the conclusion that no requirement outside the Federal Form may disallow a voter’s registration. The relevance and importance of § 1973gg-4(a)(2) is paramount. Invalidating the registration provision ignores § 1973gg-4(a)(2), which qualifies the extent to which a state must depend on the Federal Form for federal voter registration—i.e., the Federal Form is not the exclusive form.

The majority seems to read § 1973gg-4(a)(2) in such a way as to acknowledge a state’s right to develop and use its own form (if compliant with § 1973gg-7(b)), but that a state form cannot require anything more than the Federal Form or cause a voter to be ineligible to register to vote in federal elections.

4204

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

However, a more logical and appropriate reading is that the Federal Form acts as the default—setting minimum requirements—, and a state may require additional requirements for federal elections through its own form if the requirements comply with the criteria of the statute (essentially setting the maximum available requirements that may be used in the state form). See La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. F.C.C., 476 U.S. 355, 370 (1986) (“[W]here possible, provisions of a statute should be read so as not to create a conflict. . . .”). Therefore, there is flexibility while providing for control through the standards in § 1973gg-7(b). The Federal Form acts as a baseline while the criteria in § 1973gg-7(b) act as outer limits.

The requirement to “accept and use” the Federal Form does not preclude states from imposing additional requirements. First, accepting and using something does not mean that it is necessarily sufficient. For example, merchants may accept and use credit cards, but a customer’s production of a credit card in and of itself may not be sufficient. The customer must sign and may have to provide photo identification to verify that the customer is eligible to use the credit card. Second, the ordinary and natural meaning of the word “use” is “to employ” or “derive service from . . .”. Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228-29 (1993) (citation omitted). The word “accepts” means “to adopt, to agree to carry out provisions, to keep and retain.” Worden v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 549 F.3d 334, 344 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 12 (5th ed.1979)). It is undisputed that Arizona has employed and derived service from the Federal Form and adopted its use for the registration of voters in federal elections. The only real issue is whether Proposition 200’s requirement of proof of citizenship so conflicts with the use of the Federal Form that the requirement of proof of citizenship should be voided.

I realize that the majority’s argument that “rejecting” necessarily counters “accepting” has some superficial appeal. See Majority Opinion, p. 4139. However, what is being argued is

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4205

whether states must accept and use the Federal Form in their federal election procedures as a whole, or whether they must accept the Federal Form as completely sufficient and the sole requirement for voter registration. Thus, the point of contention is whether Arizona defies the demand to accept and use the Federal Form by not finding voter registration wholly sufficient based solely on the Federal Form. The answer cannot be that the Federal Form is the end-all-be-all. Section 1973gg4(a)(2) clarifies that “accept and use” cannot mean that a state must allow a voter to register solely on the basis of the Federal Form, because it specifically allows a state to develop and use a state form, in addition to the Federal Form, for federal elections. It is beyond my understanding how the Federal Form can be considered “the end” when the NVRA explicitly allows states to develop and use a form “[i]n addition to accepting and using the [Federal Form].” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg4(a)(2) (emphasis added).

No provision of the NVRA expressly forbids states from requiring additional identifying documents to verify a voter’s eligibility. The NVRA only expressly prohibits states from requiring “notarization or other formal authentication.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(3). “We . . . read the enumeration of one case to exclude another [if] it is fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it. . . .” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003) (citation omitted). Here, Congress prohibited requiring notarization or other formal authentication but failed to prohibit proof-of-citizenship, while expressly recognizing its importance in voter registration. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b); see also Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct 827, 838 (2010) (“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (alteration and citation omitted)). Nor does the NVRA state that it is the exclusive authority on eligibility verification or that “Arizona’s only role was to make [the Federal] [F]orm available to

4206

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

applicants and to ‘accept and use’ it for the registration of voters.“ Majority Opinion, p. 4143 (emphasis added). The language of the statute not only does not prohibit additional documentation requirements, it permits states to “require . . . such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1).

If, as the majority believes, the requirement to accept and use the Federal Form and the express allowance for a state to develop and use a form that complies with the set criteria of the statute are contradictory, see Majority Opinion, pp. 4139-43, then the court “must interpret the statute to give effect to both provisions where possible.” See Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2674 (2009) (citation omitted). Here, it is possible and necessary to interpret the statute as requiring states to accept and use the Federal Form, while allowing states to demand adherence to their form and specific requirements for federal voter registration if in compliance with § 1973gg-7(b).

Reading the statute as a whole solidifies my conclusion that Arizona’s registration provision is valid. See Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278, 2289 (2010) (“We do not . . . construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a whole.” (citation and alteration omitted)); see also, K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (“In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole. . . .”) (citation omitted). Besides the express authorization for a state to “develop and use” a form compliant with the statute’s criteria, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2), the NVRA also provides that “each State shall establish procedures to register to vote in elections for Federal office . . . (2) by mail application pursuant to section 1973gg-4 of this title, . . . in addition to any other method of voter registration provided for under State law,” id. § 1973gg-2(a) (emphasis added). Although the NVRA

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4207

requires that states “accept and use” the Federal Form, id. § 1973gg-4(a)(2), the NVRA does not foreclose states from using other methods for registering voters, id. § 1973gg-2(a), and allows states to develop and use state specific forms, if those forms fit within set criteria, id. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). Therefore, Congress did not “assume exclusive control of the whole subject . . . .” Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 383 (1879) (emphasis in the original). Arizona is allowed to require proof of citizenship for federal voter registration because of its expressly granted authority to develop and use a form complying with § 1973gg-7(b) and may deny voter registration for federal office for lack of such proof. See id. at 392 (“[W]e think it clear that the clause of the Constitution relating to the regulation of such elections contemplates such co-operation whenever Congress deems it expedient to interfere merely to alter or add to existing regulations of the State . . . .”).

The majority notes that, if Arizona is correct that §§ 1973gg-4(a)(2) and 1973gg-7(b) allow the registration provision, “this would mean only that the NVRA allows Arizona to include a proof of citizenship requirement on its State Form.” Majority Opinion, p. 4143 (citation omitted). “It would not mean that Arizona has authority to add this requirement to the Federal Form . . .” Id. However, this conclusion ignores the specific language of § 1973gg-4(a)(2). That language allows states to develop and use a state form complying with the statute’s criteria for federal elections.

The majority also asserts that, even if the NVRA allows a state form to include additional conditions within the parameters of § 1973gg-7(b) (like proof-of-citizenship), a state may not decline an applicant’s voter registration for federal elections because of the applicant’s failure to satisfy the additional conditions. See Majority Opinion, pp. 4140-41. According to the majority,

[t]he NVRA’s State Form provision, § 1973gg4(a)(2), merely gives a state more options [and] Con-

4208

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

gress could have required all states to use only the Federal Form . . . Instead, Congress allowed States to use their state registration forms to register applicants for both state and federal elections (provided the state form complies with § 1973gg-7(b)). But states cannot reject applicants who register for federal elections who use the Federal Form. . . . Majority Opinion, pp. 4140-41 (emphasis by the majority).

Again, the majority’s attempt to rebut Arizona’s arguments and this dissent contradicts the language of the NVRA and leads to an absurd result. Under the majority’s argument, the state form (and the additional conditions allowed in the state form) have no real effect, because the applicant must only meet the Federal Form requirements in order to register for federal elections. Thus, Arizona must allow an applicant, satisfying all but the proof-of-citizenship requirement, to be registered to vote in federal elections, while not allowing the applicant to be registered for state elections. This faulty interpretation contradicts the NVRA’s plain language that “a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2) (emphasis added). Put differently, under the majority’s view, a state “registration form that meets all the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b)” but that includes an additional condition beyond the Federal Form requirements may not be used to register “voters in elections for Federal office,” although the state form is specifically allowed by the language in § 1973gg-4(a)(2).

In addition, the majority believes that my interpretation of § 1973gg-4(a)(2) substitutes “instead of” for “[i]n addition to.” Majority Opinion, p. 4141. However, my interpretation is loyal to the wording “[i]n addition to,” because the Federal Form requirements must be met. State form requirements, constrained by § 1973-gg-7(b), are added to the Federal Form requirements. In contrast, the majority’s view of § 1973gg-

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4209

4(a)(2) basically strikes the statute’s text allowing state forms to be used “[i]n addition to” the Federal Form “for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.”

The majority’s view makes voter registration burdensome for states. For example, an Arizona applicant meeting the Federal Form requirements, but lacking proof-of-citizenship, would have to be allowed to vote for federal officials but could not vote for state officials. States that desire a proof-ofcitizenship requirement in their state forms (as the majority suggests is allowed by the NVRA), would be forced to track whether their residents are registered to vote for federal elections, state elections, or both. In essence, the majority’s alteration of the statute imposes an unnecessary burden on the states. Although “it is not our task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt one that produces the least mischief[,]” Lewis v. City of Chi., Ill., 130 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2010), the majority’s view, ignoring the plain meaning of the NVRA, cannot be what Congress intended. This is especially true when one considers that the statutory allowance for a state form does not displace the importance of the Federal Form or the delegated authority to the EAC to determine the contents of the Federal Form. The Federal Form maintains its importance, because its use is required in all states. The Federal Form, therefore, establishes a minimum set of requirements. The EAC’s rejection of Arizona’s request to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement demonstrates that the EAC served its purpose of establishing a minimum (not a maximum) set of requirements for all states. Then, states individually are allowed to impose additional requirements within the strict bounds of § 1973gg-7(b).

The majority believes that the proof-of-citizenship requirement disrupts the goal of the NVRA—to streamline the registration process. See Majority Opinion, pp. 4142-44. Although the NVRA seeks to simplify and harmonize registration procedures, the statute also identifies “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” and “enhanc[ing] the participation of

4210

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office” as guiding purposes of the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b) (emphasis added). Even under the majority’s complementary analysis conducted pursuant to Seibold and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997), see Majority Opinion, p. 4131, Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship procedure complements—rather than conflicts with—these important purposes. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384; Foster, 522 U.S. at 74 (holding that a state election law is preempted only “to [the] extent [that] it conflicts with federal law”). The stated harmonious purposes are not served if ineligible voters are allowed to register.

Finally, even though allowing states to “develop and use” their own forms (if compliant with § 1973gg-7(b)) may decrease the efficiency of a Federal Form, this policy consideration cannot overrule the express terms of the statute. DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225, 2233 (2011) (“That we may rue inartful legislative drafting, however, does not excuse us from the responsibility of construing a statute as faithfully as possible to its actual text. . . .”) (footnote reference omitted); Lewis, 130 S. Ct. at 2200 (“Truth to tell, however, both readings of the statute produce puzzling results. . . . In all events, it is not our task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief. Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted. . . .”); cf. United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251, 1266 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ikuta, J.) (determining that a statute compensating victims of child pornography was “a poor fit for these types of offenses[,]” but acknowledging that “the responsibility lies with Congress, not the courts, to develop a scheme to ensure that defendants . . . are held liable . . .”).

In sum, the majority’s holding hinges on § 1973gg4(a)(1)’s requirement that states “accept and use” the Federal Form. However, § 1973gg-4(a)(2) also allows a state to “develop and use” its own form if it complies with the broad standards in § 1973gg-7(b). Therefore, I am unable to see how Arizona’s registration provision squarely conflicts with the

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4211

NVRA or how the NVRA “assume[s] exclusive control of the whole subject. . . .” Siebold, 100 U.S. at 383 (emphasis in the original).1

1Chief Judge Kozinski describes the NVRA as “readily susceptible to the interpretation of the majority, but also that of the dissent. . . .” Concurring Opinion, p. 4192. His well-drafted dissent to the original panel opinion said it better. See Gonzalez v. Arizona (Gonzalez II), 624 F.3d 1162, 1206 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (“The NVRA doesn’t say that states must treat the federal form as a complete application. . . . There’s no question that Arizona accepts and uses the federal form for the information contained in it. Arizona only asks for proof of citizenship in addition to the form in order to complete the registration process.”), reh’g en banc granted & opinion withdrawn, 649 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2011). This en banc concurrence discusses the statutory language “accept and use” in isolation, with no reference to the “[i]n addition” language in 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2), see Concurring Opinion, again diverging from his prior dissent, where he noted: “[S]ection 1973gg-4(a)(2) . . . allows states to ‘develop and use’ their own form if it ‘meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b).’ [Gonzalez v. Arizona (Gonzalez I), 485 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007),] reads the statute correctly; it is the majority here that is mistaken.” Gonzalez II, 624 F.3d at 1205. In fact, Chief Judge Kozinski previously identified a basic problem with the majority’s view via a single question: “[I]f the statute permits zero deviation from the federal form, why permit states to develop their forms at all? The only development needed would be photocopying the federal form.” Id. at 1209.
To determine its meaning, all of the NVRA’s language must be read together and not in isolation. See Samantar, 130 S. Ct. at 2289 (“We do not . . . construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a whole. . . .”) (citation and alteration omitted). When read together, the meaning is clear. States must accept and use the Federal Form for registering voters for federal elections, but may also develop and use a state form with additional conditions if they comply with § 1973gg-7(b). When the meaning of the statute is clear, reverting to legislative history is inappropriate. See Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 567 (2005); see also Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 665-68 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“We have repeatedly held that . . . reliance [on legislative history] is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous. . . .”).
The legislative history is also unhelpful here, because it is unreliable. “[L]egislative history is itself often murky, ambiguous, and contradictory.” Exxon Mobile, 545 U.S. at 568; see also Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S.

4212

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Siebold meticulously outlined the interplay between election regulations promulgated by a state government and Congress respectively. In the process, the United States Supreme Court took care to emphasize the respect that should be accorded the procedures implemented by states. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 394 (“State rights and the rights of the United States should be equally respected. Both are essential to the preservation of our liberties and the perpetuity of our institu-

511, 519 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: ‘The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself . . . .”) (quoting Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845) (emphasis in the original). In fact, this case is a glaring example of the flaws of using legislative history. Although the legislative history cited by Chief Judge Kozinski supports his reasonable argument, the original view of the NVRA’s sponsor casts doubt on the clarity of that legislative history. Senator Ford, the sponsor of the bill, thought that “there is nothing in the bill now that would preclude the State’s requiring presentation of documentary evidence of citizenship.” 139 Cong. Rec. S2897-4, at S2902 (Mar. 16, 1993). He thought that an amendment specifying that a state could require proof-of-citizenship was redundant. See id. Therefore, even though the Conference Committee opined that the unamended NVRA disallowed proof-of-citizenship, H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 20 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 148-49 (Conf. Rep.), it is unclear how many of the members of Congress who voted for the NVRA agreed with Senator Ford. See Exxon Mobile, 545 U.S. at 570 (“The utility of either can extend no further than the light it sheds on how the enacting Legislature understood the statutory text. Trying to figure out how to square the Subcommittee Working Paper’s understanding with the House Report’s understanding, or which is more reflective of the understanding of the enacting legislators, is a hopeless task.”); cf. Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 666 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Whether the floor statements are spoken where no Senator hears, or written where no Senator reads, they represent at most the views of a single Senator. . . .”). As has been previously said, “[j]udicial investigation of legislative history has a tendency to become, to borrow Judge Leventhal’s memorable phrase, an exercise in ‘looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.’ ” Exxon Mobile, 545 U.S. at 568 (quoting Patricia M. Wald, Some Observations on the Use of Legislative History in the 1981 Supreme Court Term, 68 Iowa L. Rev. 195, 214 (1983)).

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4213

tions. But, in endeavoring to vindicate the one, we should not allow our zeal to nullify or impair the other.”) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court recognized the right of Congress to exercise its power to enact voting regulations that would supersede regulations promulgated by a state. See id. at 393. However, the Supreme Court also noted that “we are bound to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious manner; that it has endeavored to guard as far as possible against any unnecessary interference with State laws and regulations . . .” Id.

The Supreme Court further reasoned that the power of Congress to enact statutes governing state matters “does not derogate from the power of the State to execute its laws at the same time and in the same places . . . .” Id. at 395 (emphasis added). The laws of the state are preempted if, and only if, “both cannot be executed at the same time . . . .” Id. (emphasis added).

In Siebold, there was no dispute regarding a conflict between the state and federal regulations. Rather, the question raised was whether Congress may enact partial regulations to be implemented together with state regulations governing election procedures. See id. at 382. Having answered that question in the affirmative, the Supreme Court denied the writ of habeas corpus filed by defendants who were convicted of violating the federal laws. See id. at 374, 399.

Foster, the more recent case, addressed an actual conflict between a state law and a federal law. Indeed, in Foster a blatant conflict existed between federal statutes requiring Congressional elections to be held “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year” and a state statutory scheme under which no election was held on the date designated by Congress if a candidate received a major-

4214

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

ity of the votes during an earlier “open primary” election. 522 U.S. at 68-69.

The Supreme Court explained that the issue to be decided was “a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes . . .” Id. at 71 (emphasis added). The Court defined election as encompassing “the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder . . .” Id. The Court noted that Congress had established the Tuesday following the first Monday in November as “the day” for electing members of Congress. Id. Because the system in Louisiana was “concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress,” the Louisiana statute conflicted with 2 U.S.C. § 7, and was preempted. Id. at 73.

Because no Congressional election was to be held on the date Congress explicitly designated as “the day” for holding Congressional elections, the Louisiana statutory scheme clearly and directly conflicted with § 7. Reiterating that federal law “mandates holding all elections for Congress . . . on a single day throughout the Union,” id. at 70, the Court voided Louisiana’s statutory scheme. See id. at 74.

Unlike the statutory scheme voided in Foster, Proposition 200’s proof-of-citizenship provision does not present the blatant conflict addressed by the Supreme Court in that case. Indeed, the majority rests its analysis on what it perceives to be the “expansive” sweep of the Elections Clause. Majority Opinion, p. 4126-27 n.8. However, the message from Siebold is to the opposite effect. After taking great pains to emphasize the equal role of the states in preserving the integrity of federal elections, the Supreme Court counseled that we should not hasten to declare preemption of a state statutory scheme. Indeed, Siebold expressly held that the paramountcy of federal law extends only “so far as the two are inconsistent, and no farther . . . .” Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386. The Court clarified

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

4215

that state and federal enactments conflict only “[i]f both cannot be performed . . .” Id.

Foster couched its holding in similar fashion, clarifying that the preeminence of federal statutes over state statutes applies only to the extent that the two conflict, and only “so far as the conflict extends . . .” Foster, 522 U.S. at 69, (quoting Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384).

In making the determination whether the Louisiana statutory scheme violated 2 U.S.C. § 7, the Supreme Court focused on the word “election” as used in § 7. Id. at 71. The Court consulted a dictionary for the definition of “election” to determine if a conflict existed between Louisiana’s statutory scheme and § 7.

It is important to remember that the Supreme Court opined that State enactments are superseded by Federal enactments only “[i]f both cannot be performed . . .” Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386. As applied in Foster, the state statutory scheme was voided because it was impossible to hold a Congressional election on the designated day if the election was in fact completed on an earlier date. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 73.

In my view, the majority opinion has stretched the principle
established in Siebold and applied in Foster beyond its intended bounds.2

2I do not agree that the cases cited on pages 4126-27, n.8 of the majority opinion establish that the Supreme Court has “construed Congress’s authority under the Election Clause expansively.” Rather, in the earlier years of this nation’s existence, when many states resisted the notion of a centralized government, these cases served to emphasize that federal elections conducted in the various states were subject to federal regulation. See, e.g., The Ku Klux Cases, 110 U.S. 651, 657-58 (1884) (“If this government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other states and governments, each of which is superior to the general government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends, from violence and corruption . . . .”); id. at 662 (“This proposition answers, also, another objection to the constitutionality of the laws under consideration, namely, that the right to vote for a member of congress . . . is governed by the law of each state respectively . . . .”).

4216

GONZALEZ v. ARIZONA

Indeed, both Siebold and Foster took care to delineate that preemption extended only as far as a conflict exists, and no farther. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386; Foster, 522 U.S. at 69. And a conflict exists only if the two regulations cannot coexist. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386. As discussed above, such is not the case for Proposition 200’s requirement that a prospective voter present proof of citizenship, when considered with the contents of the Federal Form.

The fact that the NVRA contains a provision precluding the requirement of “notarization of other formal authentication” in no way conflicts with Proposition 200’s proof-ofcitizenship requirement. Notarization and authentication are concerned with the genuineness of an executed document. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) (“The requirement of authentication . . . is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”); see also In re Big River Grain, Inc., 718 F.2d 968, 971 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting that “the notary’s function is to protect against recording false instruments . . .”). In contrast, Proposition 200’s proof-of-citizenship requirement has nothing to do with notarization or authentication and everything to do with affirming eligibility for registration. Because the requirements of both the NVRA and Proposition 200 may be met without conflict, they can easily co-exist under the Election Clause. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386; Foster, 522 U.S. at 69. As both statutes may be enforced with no conflict, the NVRA does not pre-empt Proposition 200. See id. For that reason, I would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State of Arizona. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion to the contrary.

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 1 of 126
CLOSED,LEAD,PROTO,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−01268−ROS

Gonzalez, et al. v. State of Arizona, et al. Assigned to: Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 06−16521
Ninth Circuit, 06−16702 Ninth Circuit, 06−16706 Ninth Circuit, 08−17094 Ninth Circuit, 08−17115 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights Plaintiff
Maria M Gonzalez TERMINATED: 06/27/2008

Date Filed: 05/09/2006 Date Terminated: 08/20/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Carlos Becerra , MALDEF 110 Broadway Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: cbecerra@maldef.org TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. Roush McCracken Guerrero Miller & Ortega 1112 E Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85034−1010 602−253−3554 Email: danny@rmgmo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Urias Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives PA 20 1st Plaza, Ste, 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 505−842−9960 Fax: 505−842−−0761 Email: dhu@fbdlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karl J Sandstrom , Perkins Coie LLP 607 14th St NW Ste 800 Washington, DC 20005 202−628−6600 Fax: 202−434−1690 Email: ksandstrom@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisa Bono MALDEF 110 Broadway St

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 2 of 126
Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: mbono@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol L Perez Mexican American Legal Defense and & Educational Fund (MALDEF) 110 Broadway Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: mperez@maldef.org TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Rakesh Saxena Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8318 Fax: 202−662−2858 Email: msaxena@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu National Immigration Law Center 3450 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 108−62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: espiritu@nilc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Alvin Kengle Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8320 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: bkengle@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diego M Bernal Mexican American Legal Defense and 140 E Houston St Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: Dbernal@maldef.org TERMINATED: 11/09/2010

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 3 of 126

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley ACLU − Atlanta, GA Voting Rights Project 230 Peachtree St NW., Ste. 1440 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−523−2721 Fax: 404−653−0331 Email: nbradley@aclu.org TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales MALDEF 110 Broadway St Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bernie Abeytia

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 4 of 126

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters MALDEF − San Antonio, TX 110 Broadway, Ste. 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: klyznik@maldef.org TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Arizona Hispanic Community Forum

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 5 of 126

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 6 of 126

Plaintiff Friendly House

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 7 of 126

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jesus M Gonzalez

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 8 of 126

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debbie Lopez

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 9 of 126

TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 10 of 126

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luciano Valencia TERMINATED: 06/27/2008

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 11 of 126

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Valle Del Sol

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Nina Perales

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 12 of 126

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated

represented by Benjamin Jay Blustein Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8320 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: bblustein@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St. NW, Ste. A4−170 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2064 Fax: 202−434−6424 Email: dkohrman@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Jeremy Bodney Steptoe & Johnson LLP − Phoenix, AZ Collier Center 201 E Washington St., Ste. 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2382 602−257−5200 Fax: 602−257−5299 Email: bodneyd@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joe P Sparks Sparks Tehan & Ryley PC 7503 E 1st St Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480−949−1339 Fax: 480−949−7587 Email: joesparks@sparkslawaz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon Marshall Greenbaum Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8315 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 13 of 126
Karen J Hartman−Tellez Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−4951 Fax: 602−542−4385 Email: karen.hartman@azag.gov TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene Osborn Maledon PA PO Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85012−6379 602−640−9000 Fax: 602−640−6053 Email: sgreene@omlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067−6379 602−640−9301 Fax: 602−640−9050 Email: thudson@omlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067−6379 602−640−9000 Fax: 602−640−9050 Email: drosenbaum@omlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elliot M Mincberg People for the American Way Foundation 2000 M St NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20036 202−467−2392 Fax: 202−293−2672 Email: emincberg@pfaw.org TERMINATED: 10/05/2012
Karolina J Walters (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 14 of 126

TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff Arizona Advocacy Network

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karl J Sandstrom , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff Steve M Gallardo

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 15 of 126

TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff Hopi Tribe

represented by Benjamin Jay Blustein (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joe P Sparks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara S Greene (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 16 of 126

TERMINATED: 07/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elliot M Mincberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Arizona

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 17 of 126

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff
People For the American Way Foundation

represented by Carlos Becerra , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neil Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Plaintiff Agnes Laughter

represented by Dana Lee Bobroff Navajo Nation Department of Justice PO Box 2010 Window Rock, AZ 86515 928−871−6936 Fax: 928−871−6177 Email: dbobroff@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith M Dworkin Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd., 4th Fl.

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 18 of 126

Scottsdale, AZ 85251−3647 480−425−2600 Fax: 480−970−4610 Email: judith.dworkin@sackstierney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marvin S Cohen Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd 4th Floor Scottsdale, AZ 85251−3647 480−425−2600 Fax: 480−970−4610 Email: marvin.cohen@sackstierney.com TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Ferguson−Bohnee Arizona State University College of Law P.O. Box 877906 Tempe, AZ 85287−7906 480−727−0420 Fax: 480−727−9270 Email: pafergus@asu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Garcia Ramos Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd 4th Floor Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480−425−2673 Fax: 480−425−4973 Email: javier.ramos@sackstierney.com TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Navajo Nation a federally recognized Indian tribe

represented by Dana Lee Bobroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith M Dworkin (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 19 of 126

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marvin S Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Ferguson−Bohnee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brenna L Clani Navajo Nation Dept of Justice PO Box 2010 Window Rock, AZ 86515 928−871−7506 Fax: 928−871−6200 Email: brennalclani@navajo.org TERMINATED: 10/05/2012

Javier Garcia Ramos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Georgia Morrison Flores

represented by Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 20 of 126

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Naeem Abdul−Kareem TERMINATED: 06/27/2008

represented by Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 21 of 126

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Common Cause

represented by Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Project Vote

represented by

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 22 of 126

Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

represented by Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Urias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diego M Bernal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 23 of 126

Marisa Bono (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol L Perez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Rakesh Saxena (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Alvin Kengle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karolina J Walters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Shelly Baker La Paz County Recorder
Defendant Berta Manuz Greenlee County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik Wilenchik & Bartness PC 2810 N 3rd St., Ste. 103 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−606−2810 Fax: 602−606−2811 Email: diw@wb−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derek D Rapier Greenlee County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 1717 Clifton, AZ 85533−1717 928−865−4108 Fax: 928−865−4665

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 24 of 126

Email: drapier@co.greenlee.az.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Janice K Brewer in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona

represented by Barbara Anne Bailey Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−8305 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: barbara.bailey@azag.gov TERMINATED: 07/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ruth OGrady Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8986 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: mary.ogrady@azag.gov TERMINATED: 07/21/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Lee Forney Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−7684 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: michele.forney@pcao.pima.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Alex Silverman Mandel Young PLC 2390 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 318 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−424−8480 Fax: 602−734−5431 Email: peter@mandelyoung.com TERMINATED: 11/08/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce L Skolnik Office of the Attorney General 177 N Church Ave Ste 1105 Tucson, AZ 85701 520−388−7124 Fax: 520−628−6050 Email: bruce.skolnik@azag.gov TERMINATED: 05/12/2008

Carrie Jane Brennan − Inactive US Attorneys Office − Phoenix, AZ 2 Renaissance Square 40 N Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4408 602−514−7740

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 25 of 126

Fax: 602−514−7760 Email: USAAZ.DepartedAUSAs@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/21/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Robert Cole Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−8986 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: Dave.Cole@azag.gov TERMINATED: 07/01/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven A LaMar Beer & Toone PC 76 E Mitchell Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85012−2330 602−263−0900 Fax: 602−263−9817 Email: slamar@beer−toone.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Matthew Collins Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−3333 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: Thomas.Collins@azag.gov TERMINATED: 07/01/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Candace Owens Coconino County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jean E Wilcox Coconino County Attorneys Office 110 E Cherry St Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928−779−6518 Fax: 928−779−5618 Email: jwilcox@coconino.az.gov TERMINATED: 02/20/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William P Ring Coconino County Attorneys Office 110 E Cherry Ave. Flagstaff, AZ 86001−4627 928−679−8200 Fax: 928−679−8201 Email: wring@coconino.az.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 26 of 126

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor Maricopa County Attorneys Office 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−372−2275 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: connorc@mcao.maricopa.gov TERMINATED: 07/27/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Christine Rhodes Cochise County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lynn A Constabile Yavapai County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kelly Dastrup Navajo County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Stanley Moore Navajo County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 668 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928−524−4307 Fax: 928−524−4307 Email: jason.moore@navajocountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance B Payette Navajo County Attorney PO Box 668 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928−524−4002 Fax: 928−524−4244 Email: lance.payette@navajocountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 07/09/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 27 of 126

Laura Dean−Lytle Pinal County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geraldine L Roll Pinal County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 887 Florence, AZ 85132 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: Geraldine.Roll@pinalcountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Weber Pinal County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: Nicole.Weber@pinalcountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 11/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris Myrl Roll Pinal County Attorneys Office PO Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: chris.roll@pinalcountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 11/19/2013

Defendant
Judy Dickerson Graham County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Donna J Hale La Paz County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Patty Hansen Coconino County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jean E Wilcox (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William P Ring (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 28 of 126

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Susan Hightower Marlar Yuma County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gilberto Hoyos Pinal County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geraldine L Roll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Weber (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris Myrl Roll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2013

Kathleen Erin Martoncik Wilenchik & Bartness PC 2810 N 3rd St., Ste. 103 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−606−2810 Fax: 602−606−2811 Email: katiem@wb−law.com TERMINATED: 02/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Laurette Justman Navajo County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Stanley Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance B Payette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/09/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 29 of 126

Defendant LeNora Johnson Apache County Recorder
Defendant Linda Haught Ortega Gila County Recorder
Defendant Patti Madrill Yuma County Election Director
Defendant Joan McCall Mohave County Recorder
Defendant Melinda Meek Santa Cruz County Election Director
Defendant Dixie Mundy Gila County Election Director
Defendant

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luis Fernando Parra Parra Law Offices PLLC 571 N Grand Ave Nogales, AZ 85621 520−281−9369 Fax: 520−281−5705 Email: lfparra@azmxlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 30 of 126

Brad R Nelson Pima County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Karen Osborne Maricopa County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Yvonne Pearson Greenlee County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Penny L Pew Apache County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Helen Purcell Maricopa County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
F Ann Rodriguez Pima County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Colleen Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 31 of 126

Suzie Sainz Santa Cruz County Recorder

Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luis Fernando Parra (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas Schelling Cochise County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Arizona, State of

represented by Barbara Anne Bailey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ruth OGrady (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Lee Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Alex Silverman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/08/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce L Skolnik (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2008

Carrie Jane Brennan − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Robert Cole (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven A LaMar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Matthew Collins

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 32 of 126

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Allen Tempert Mohave County Election Director

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ann Wayman−Trujillo Yavapai County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wendy John Graham County Recorder

represented by Dennis Ira Wilenchik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John McCall

Defendant Steve Kizer

Defendant Charles Hoskins

Defendant Susan Hightower Marler

V. Respondent Patricia Hernandez Greenlee County Treasure and Respondent to subpoena
Respondent Ellen Solper La Paz County Treasurer

represented by Derek D Rapier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William McCarthy Greenlee County Attorney PO Box 1717 Clifton, AZ 85533 928−865−4108 Fax: 928−865−4665 Email: mmccarthy@co.greenlee.az.us TERMINATED: 08/15/2012

V. Intervenor Defendant

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 33 of 126

Yes on Proposition 200 TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

represented by Joel M Spector Mountain States Legal Foundation 2596 S Lewis Wy Lakewood, CO 80227 303−292−2021 Fax: 303−292−1980 Email: jspector@mountainstateslegal.com TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

William Perry Pendley Mountain States Legal Foundation 2596 S Lewis Wy Lakewood, CO 80227 303−292−2021 Fax: 303−292−1980 Email: wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

Movant
Ross Jacobs Yavapai County Treasurer

represented by Thomas M Stoxen Yavapai County Attorneys Office 255 E Gurley St Prescott, AZ 86301 928−771−3338 Fax: 928−771−3375 Email: thomas.stoxen@co.yavapai.az.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Jean Reynolds

represented by Kenneth Andrew Angle Graham County Attorneys Office 800 W Main St Safford, AZ 85546 928−428−3620 Fax: 928−428−7200 Email: kangle@graham.az.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Amicus Curiae Protect AZ NOw and WA Legal Foundation

represented by Dan W Montgomery Law Office of Dan W Montgomery 432 E Speedway Blvd Tucson, AZ 85705−7492 520−792−0580 Fax: 520−792−0501 Email: montgomerydanlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Protect Arizona Now PAN

represented by Dan W Montgomery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Washington Legal Foundation

represented by Dan W Montgomery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 34 of 126

Date Filed 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006
05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/11/2006 05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/12/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
2 Notice re OF FILING OF CIVIL ACTION SHEET by Maria M Gonzalez re 1 Complaint, (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
3 APPLICATION re: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
5 MEMORANDUM re: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 3 Application, for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 to Memorandum of Points & Authoritiez in Support of Plaintiffs Application for TRO# 2 Exhibit A Part 1# 3 Exhibit A − Part 2# 4 Exhibit A − PART 3# 5 Exhibit A − PART 4# 6 Exhibit A − PART 5# 7 Exhibit A − PART 6# 8 Exhibit A − PART 7# 9 Exhibit A − PART 8# 10 Exhibit A − PART 9# 11 Exhibit B# 12 Exhibit C)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
6 APPLICATION of Attorney Nina Perales for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing# 2 Text of Proposed Order to Nina Perales Application of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Under the 14th & 24th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Memorandum in Support by Maria M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
Filing fee paid 05/10/06, receipt number PHX043137. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Neil V. Wake. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06−1268−PHX−NVW (entered by ESH, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
8 Notice re Notice of Filing of Exhibit A Part 8a by Maria M Gonzalez re 5 Memorandum,, of Points & Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Part 8−a)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
9 Summons Issued as to Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, STATE OF ARIZONA, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Brewer# 2 LeNora# 3 Christine# 4 Candace# 5 Linda# 6 Wendy# 7 Berta# 8 Shelly# 9 Helen# 10 Joan# 11 Laurette# 12 F. Ann# 13 Laura# 14 Suzie Sainz# 15 Ann# 16 Susan# 17 Penny# 18 Thomas# 19 Patty# 20 Dixie# 21 Judy# 22 Yvonne# 23 Donna# 24 Karen# 25 Allen# 26 Kelly# 27 Brad# 28 Gilberto# 29 Melinda# 30 Lynn# 31 Patti)(ESH, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
10 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Roslyn O Silver by random lot for all further proceedings. Judge Neil V Wake no longer assigned to case. All future pleadings and papers shall bear the following case number: CV−06−1268−PHX−ROS. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 05/11/06. (DNH, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: In−Court hearing held on 5/12/2006. Status Hearing set for 5/17/2006 at 03:00 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 35 of 126

05/15/2006
05/15/2006
05/16/2006
05/17/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006 05/22/2006 05/22/2006 05/22/2006 05/24/2006 05/24/2006
05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006

11 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Nina Perales on behalf of plaintiffs Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, and Chicanos Por La Causa. (BAS, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
12 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 11 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order in the Alternative by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certification of Nina Perales in Support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Status Conference held on 5/17/2006. Oral argument set for 6/9/2006 at 08:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Jan Brewer. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on STATE OF ARIZONA. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
Notice of request for e−notices by Karen J. Hartman−Tellez. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
Notice of request for e−notices by David J. Bodney. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by M Colleen Connor on behalf of Karen Osborne (Connor, M) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by M Colleen Connor on behalf of Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Linda Haught Ortega, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez (Connor, M) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Alex Silverman on behalf of Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
20 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Motion to Consolidate and Transfer by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
21 Joinder re 20 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Motion to Consolidate and Transfer Joinder in Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for TRO and OSC by Movant The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C − G# 4 Exhibit Exhibit H−M)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by M Colleen Connor on behalf of Helen Purcell (Connor, M) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
23 Notice re of Agreement with Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Case by Maria M Gonzalez re 20 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Motion to Consolidate and Transfer (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Helen Purcell. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/25/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 36 of 126

05/25/2006 05/31/2006
06/01/2006
06/01/2006 06/05/2006 06/05/2006 06/05/2006
06/06/2006
06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006

25 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Karen Osborne. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order in the Alternative filed by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit Two# 3 Exhibit Three, Pt. One# 4 Exhibit Three, Pt. Two# 5 Exhibit Three, Pt. Three# 6 Exhibit Three, Pt. Four# 7 Exhibit Three, Pt. Five# 8 Exhibit Three, Pt. Six# 9 Exhibit Three, Pt. Seven# 10 Exhibit Three, Pt. Eight# 11 Exhibit Three, Pt. Nine# 12 Exhibit Three, Pt. Ten# 13 Exhibit Three, Pt. Eleven# 14 Exhibit Four)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
28 ORDER re 20 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Transfer by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Rosenbaum, David) filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. That any party opposing ITCA Plas' Motion to Consolidate shall do so no later than Noon on 6/2/06. FURTHER ORDERED that the expedited briefing schedule set forth on 5/17/06 remains intact. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Order in both cases to ensure that all parties receive notice. FURTHER ORDERED that should the matters be consolidated, all parties shall appear at the TRO hearing on 6/9/06 . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/31/06. (KMG, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
29 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
30 ORDER granting 29 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT; dft shall have until 6/19/06 to answer the complaint. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/2/06. (SBU) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order in the Alternative filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order in the Alternative filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
33 CONSOLIDATION ORDER − LEAD CASE (Member case: CV 06−1362−PCT−JAT) That the ITCA Plas' Motion to Consolidate (Doc.#20) is granted. All future filings in Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al., v. Brewer, Case No. CV 06−1362, shall be filed in CV 061268; FURTHER ORDERED that the ITCA Plas will ber permitted to participate in the expedited briefing schedule set forth on 5/17/06; FURTHER ORDERED that all parties shall appear at the TRO hearing on 6/9/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/6/06. (KMG, ). (Entered: 06/06/2006)
34 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Candace Owens. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
35 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Judy Dickerson. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
36 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Wendy John. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
37 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Yvonne Pearson. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
38 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Berta Manuz. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
39 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Shelly Baker. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
40 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Donna Hale. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 37 of 126

06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006
06/09/2006 06/12/2006 06/12/2006 06/12/2006 06/12/2006
06/13/2006
06/13/2006 06/13/2006

41 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on F Ann Rodriguez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Brad Nelson. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
43 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Gilberto Hoyos. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
44 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Laura Dean−Lytle. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
45 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Melinda Meek. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
46 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Suzie Sainz. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
47 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Lynn Constabile. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
48 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Patti Madrill. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
49 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Susan Hightower Marlar. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
50 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Daniel B Kohrman on behalf of The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
51 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 50 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Temporary Restraining Order Hearing held on 6/9/2006. Court takes the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
52 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Allen Tempert. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
53 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on LeNora Johnson. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
54 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Penny Pew. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
55 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Neil Bradley on behalf of plaintiffs Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, and Chicanos Por La Causa. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
56 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 55 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
57 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Ann Wayman−Trujillo. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
58 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Christine Rhodes. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 38 of 126

06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/16/2006
06/16/2006
06/19/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006
06/19/2006 06/20/2006
06/20/2006 06/20/2006
06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/21/2006
06/23/2006

59 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Thomas Schelling. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
60 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Joan McCall. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
61 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Linda Haught Ortega. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
62 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Dixie Mundy. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
63 County Defendants ANSWER to Complaint Gonzales, et al. by Helen Purcell.(Connor, M) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
Remark as to attorney Monica Saxena Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave Ste 400 Washington DC 20005 removed from case per attorney request; party represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis Ira Wilenchik on behalf of County Dfts(Wilenchik, Dennis) Modified on 7/5/2006 (LAD). DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO IDENTIFY CORRECT FILER. (Entered: 06/16/2006)
66 ANSWER to Complaint of Maria Gonzalez, et al. by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA.(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
67 ANSWER to Complaint of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al. by Jan Brewer.(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
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) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
69 ANSWER to Complaint Inter Tribal Council of Arizona by Helen Purcell.(Connor, M) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
70 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Maria M Gonzalez for proceedings held on 6/9/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
72 MOTION to Intervene by Yes on Proposition 200. (KMG, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
73 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 72 MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Defendant Yes on Proposition 200. (KMG, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (KMG, ). (Entered: 06/23/2006)
74 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Yes on Proposition 200. (KMG, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
75 ANSWER to Complaint by Yes on Proposition 200.(KMG, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
76 ANSWER to Complaint (CV 06−1362−PHX−JAT) by Yes on Proposition 200.(KMG, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
77 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by William Perry Pendley on behalf of Yes on Proposition 200. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
79 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Joel M Spector on behalf of Yes on Proposition 200. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
71 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Maria M Gonzalez for proceedings held on 6/9/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
78 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 77 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 39 of 126

06/23/2006
06/23/2006 06/26/2006
06/26/2006 06/26/2006
06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/28/2006 06/28/2006
06/28/2006 06/29/2006

(BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
80 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 79 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
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, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
82 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Modify Schedule for Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery by Friendly House, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
83 NOTICE of Deposition of Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
84 Notice re of Service of First Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Brewer and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Brewer from Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al. by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
85 ORDER − A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 6/28/2006 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Parties are to be prepared to discuss the discovery, briefing and hearing schedule. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/27/2006. (ROS, )Text order only − no pdf attached (Entered: 06/27/2006)
86 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Laurette Justman. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
87 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Kelly Dastrup. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
88 RESPONSE to Motion re 82 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Modify Schedule for Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery filed by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
89 ORDER − A Telephonic Conference is set for 6/28/2006 at 1:30 P.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 6/29/2006 at 9:30 A.M. (MST) Parties are to call Chambers approximately five (5) minutes prior to hearing time at (602)322−7520. Multiple parties calling from the same location are to conference call prior to calling Chambers. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/28/2006. (ROS, )text order only − no pdf attached (Entered: 06/28/2006)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Application re temporary restraining order during Proceedings held on 6/9/06 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: David M Lee. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
91 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Yes on Proposition 200 for proceedings held on 6/9/06 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 40 of 126

06/29/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006
07/05/2006 07/05/2006 07/05/2006
07/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/11/2006 07/12/2006 07/12/2006 07/12/2006

98 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Telephone Conference held on 6/29/2006. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
92 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
93 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. for proceedings held on 6/9/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
94 Notice re OF SERVICE OF FIRST SETS OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS FROM PLAINTIFFS INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL. by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
95 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 65 Notice of Appearance filed by County Dfts. Description of deficiency: Document reflects incorrect filer. (LAD) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
96 MOTION for Reconsideration /Clarification of Order, Document 81, by Yes on Proposition 200. (Spector, Joel) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
97 STIPULATION for Entry of Discovery and Briefing Schedule for Preliminary Injunction by Friendly House, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Maria M Gonzalez, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, STATE OF ARIZONA, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
99 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Clarification. If either Plaintiffs or Defendants wish to respond to the Motion to Intervene, the response is due July12, 2006. The reply by proposed intervenors is due July 17, 2006. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/06/06. (KCS) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
100 Notice re of Service of First Set of Request for Production of Documents to County Defendants Helen Purcell and Karen Osborne by Maria M Gonzalez (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
101 SCHEDULING ORDER: Written Discovery due by 7/17/2006. Pla shall submit briefing on the preliminary injunction issues by 8/3/06. Dfts shall file their Response by 8/11/06, and plas' Reply is due 8/18/06. FURTHER ORDERED that a Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for 8/30/06 at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/11/06. (KMG, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
102 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Maria M Gonzalez; served on Defendant Patty Hansen. (Perales, Nina) Modified on 7/13/2006 INCORRECT DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED, TEXT MODIFIED TO REMOVE "upon US Agency/Officer" FROM ENTRY(REW, ). (Entered: 07/12/2006)
103 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Diego M. Bernal by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing# 2 Proposed Order for Admission)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION to Intervene filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 41 of 126

07/13/2006 07/13/2006 07/13/2006
07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006
07/17/2006
07/17/2006 07/17/2006
07/19/2006 07/19/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006

League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
105 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Diego M. Bernal by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing# 2 Text of Proposed Order for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
107 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 102 Summons Returned Executed upon US Agency/Officer filed by Maria M Gonzalez. Description of deficiency: INCORRECT DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED. (Defendant served is not an US Agency/Officer) (REW, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
108 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 103 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, granting 105 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
109 Notice re Revised Notice of Deposition of Defendant Brewer and The Office of the Secretary of State by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
110 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION to Intervene filed by Yes on Proposition 200. (Spector, Joel) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
111 Notice re of Service of First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
112 Notice re Service by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants State of Arizona (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
113 Notice re Service by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to Defendants Purcell, Dean−Lytle, Osborne, and Hoyos (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
114 Notice re Service by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Plaintiffs' Request for Admission (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
115 Notice re Service by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Plaintiffs' First Request for Documents to Defendants Dean−Lytle and Hoyos (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
116 Notice re of Association by STATE OF ARIZONA (Richards, William) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 92 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Transfer filed by STATE OF ARIZONA. (Richards, William) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
118 Notice re Notice of Appearance and Notice of Withdrawal from Common Representation by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
119 NOTICE of Deposition of the Office of the Apache County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/21/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 42 of 126

07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/26/2006 07/26/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006

120 NOTICE of Deposition of the Office of the Maricopa County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
121 NOTICE of Deposition of the Office of the Navajo County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
122 NOTICE of Deposition of the Office of the Pima County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
123 Notice re Service re: Responses to Discovery by Jan Brewer (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
124 Notice re Notice of Service of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories Requested by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et. al. by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
125 NOTICE of Deposition of Maricopa County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
126 NOTICE of Deposition of Navajo County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
127 NOTICE of Deposition of Apache County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
128 NOTICE of Deposition of Coconino County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
129 NOTICE of Deposition of Pima County Recorder, filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
130 NOTICE of Deposition of F. Ann Rodriguez, filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
131 NOTICE of Deposition of Pima County Recorder, filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
132 Notice re Maricopa County Defendants' Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories and Documents Requested By Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Et. Al. by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
133 Notice re Maricopa County Defendants' Notice of Service of Documents Requested by Plaintiffs Gonzalez, Et.Al by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell (Wilenchik, Dennis)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 43 of 126

07/31/2006 08/01/2006 08/02/2006 08/02/2006 08/02/2006 08/03/2006 08/03/2006
08/03/2006
08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/04/2006

(Entered: 07/28/2006)
134 STIPULATION of Confidentiality by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
135 STIPULATION for Additional Time to File Expert Report and Briefing by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Additional Time to File Expert Report and Briefing)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
136 REQUEST re: Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
137 ORDER granting Stipulation 135 . Pla's expert report due: 8/3/06; Pla's Prelim Injunction brief due: 8/4/06; Dfts' Response due: 8/15/06; Pla's Reply due: 8/22/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/2/06. (MAP) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
138 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Further Requests for Admission by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Chicanos Por La Causa (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
139 Notice re Service of Responses to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission by Jan Brewer (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
140 MOTION to Strike and Replace Docket No. 134 by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
141 Notice re Notice of Service of Response to State of Arizona First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories to the Gonzalez Plaintiffs.pdf by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
142 CONSOLIDATION ORDER − LEAD CASE: IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Intervene 72 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Transfer and Consolidate 92 is granted. Case number CV 06−1575−PHX−EHC shall be transferred to this Court and consolidated with case number CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/2/06. (Attachments: # 1)(TLJ) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
143 Notice re Service of ITCA's Expert Report by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
144 Notice re Notice of Service by Helen Purcell to Gonzales Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Requests for Admissions (Connor, M) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
145 MOTION for Leave to File ITCA's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation re Preliminary Injunction Motion by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A ITCA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction# 2 Exhibit Exhibit List, Ex. 1−5# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 6−8# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 9−12# 5 Exhibit Exhibiti 13−18# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 19−24# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 25−32# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 33−39# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 40−44# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 45−50)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
146 Supplemental MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
147 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 145 MOTION for Leave to File ITCA's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation re Preliminary Injunction Motion by

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 44 of 126

08/08/2006
08/09/2006 08/09/2006
08/10/2006 08/11/2006
08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/15/2006 08/15/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006
08/16/2006

Plaintiff The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 52−58# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
148 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 145 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation. ITCA's Preliminary Injunction Motion must be no more than 40 pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ITCA shall file its Preliminary Injunction Motion by 8/8/06. All other dates remain in effect. . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/7/06. (LCF) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
150 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and 1−5# 2 Exhibit 6−8# 3 Exhibit 9−12# 4 Exhibit 13−18# 5 Exhibit 19−24# 6 Exhibit 25−32# 7 Exhibit 33−39# 8 Exhibit 40−44# 9 Exhibit 45−50# 10 Exhibit 51# 11 Exhibit 52−58)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
151 NOTICE of Deposition of R. Anthony Sissons, filed by Jan Brewer. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
152 NOTICE OF APPEAL − Interlocutory to 9th Circuit, as to 142 Consolidation Order − LEAD CASE ONLY!, by Yes on Proposition 200. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Civil Appeals Docketing Statement# 2 Supplement Docketing Statement Certificate of Service)(Spector, Joel) Modified on 8/15/2006 (DMT, ) TEXT MODIFIED TO ADD "INTERLOCUTORY". (Entered: 08/11/2006)
153 Representation Statement by Yes on Proposition 200 re 152 Notice of Appeal, (Spector, Joel) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
154 Appeal Document by Yes on Proposition 200 re 152 Notice of Appeal, Notice of No Transcripts (Spector, Joel) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
155 MOTION for Leave to File Leave to file Amici Curiae by Amicus Curiae. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Montgomery, Dan) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number PHX046996 re 152 Notice of Appeal, filed by Yes on Proposition 200, (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
156 STIPULATION Extension of Time for Defendants to File Responsive Briefs by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
157 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 152 Notice of Appeal, Interlocutory (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
CADS Sent re 152 Notice of Appeal, : Civil Appeals Docketing Statement sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
158 RESPONSE in Opposition re 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Helen Purcell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1 Affidavit# 3 Exhibit 2a Voter Registration# 4 Exhibit 2b Identification at Polls)(Connor, M) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
159 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit State's Response# 2 Exhibit 1 to Response# 3 Exhibit 2 to Response# 4 Exhibit 3 to Response# 5 Exhibit 4 to Response# 6 Exhibit 5 to Response# 7 Exhibit 6 to Response# 8 Exhibit 7 to Response# 9 Exhibit 8 to Response)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
160 RESPONSE to Motion re 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 45 of 126

08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006
08/24/2006 08/25/2006
08/25/2006 08/25/2006 08/25/2006 08/25/2006
08/25/2006

161 ORDER − A Preliminary/Permanent Injunction Hearing is set for 8/30/2006 and 8/31/2006 at 9:00A.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. This hearing is RESET to 8/30/2006 at 9:00A.M. and 8/31/2006 at 11:00A.M. THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY!! Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/17/2006. (ROS, )text order only − no pdf attached (Entered: 08/17/2006)
162 ORDER re 156 STIPULATION granting Extension of Time for Defendants to File Responsive Briefs by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) filed by Jan Brewer. Defendants may have to and including 8/16/06 to respond to plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs may have up to and including 8/23/06 to file reply briefs. . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/17/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
163 STIPULATION re 158 Response in Opposition to Motion, and Request for Extension of Time by Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Grant Extension of Time to File Response Briefs)(Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
164 MOTION for Leave to File ITCA's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Reply in Support of ITCA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction)# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
165 Ninth Circuit Case Number 06−16521 for 152 Notice of Appeal. (REW, ) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
166 MOTION for Leave to File Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index to Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 100# 3 Exhibit 101# 4 Exhibit 102# 5 Exhibit 103# 6 Exhibit 104# 7 Exhibit 105# 8 Exhibit 106# 9 Exhibit 107# 10 Exhibit 108# 11 Exhibit 109# 12 Exhibit 110# 13 Exhibit 111# 14 Exhibit 112# 15 Exhibit 113# 16 Exhibit Attachment A# 17 Exhibit Attachment B# 18 Exhibit Attachment C# 19 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 20 Exhibit Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
167 REPLY in Support re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Under the 14th & 24th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Memorandum in Support by Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
168 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce L Skolnik on behalf of Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Skolnik, Bruce) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
169 SUPPLEMENT of Citation to Supplemental Authority re 159 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Supplement Citation to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplemental Citation)(Skolnik, Bruce) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
170 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Carlos Becerra on behalf of plaintiffs Friendly House, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, and Chicanos Por La Causa. (BAS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
171 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 170 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 46 of 126

08/29/2006
08/29/2006
08/29/2006
08/29/2006
08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/30/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/05/2006

(BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
172 ORDER re 161 ORDER setting preliminary injunction hearing; ORDERED that the parties are to meet and confer regarding the content and schedule of the preliminary injunction hearing; the parties are to submit a joint status report to the Court by 3 p.m. on 8/29/06 setting forth the following: (1) a proposed schedule for the preliminary injunction hearing; (2) the identity of the proposed witnesses and the content of each witnesses testimony; and (3) the material facts that remain in dispute; FURTHER ORDERED witnesses will be allowed only if there are material issues of fact such as credibility issues; FURTHER ORDERED each side will be alloted one hour for oral argument. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/29/2006. (LAD) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
173 ORDER denying as moot 82 Motion for Extension of Time, denying 140 Motion to Strike, granting 155 Motion for Leave to File. Clerk of Court directed to file the brief attached as Exhibit 1 to Docket 155. Granting 159 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, granting 164 Motion for Leave to File . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/28/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
174 BRIEF re 146 Supplemental MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Under the 14th & 24th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Memorandum in Support, 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Protect Arizona Now, Washington Legal Foundation as amici curiae. (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
175 RESPONSE in Opposition re 146 Supplemental MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Under the 14th & 24th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Memorandum in Support, 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Secretary of State Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 exh.1 #(2) exh2 #(3) exh3 #(4) exh4 #(5) exh5 #(6) exh6 #(7) exh7 #(8) exh8)(DMT, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
176 REPLY in Support re 149 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ITCA Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (DMT, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
177 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 8/30/2006 and continued to 8/31/2006. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
181 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 8/31/2006. (Court Reporter David Lee.) (KFZ) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
264 Witness List by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc Plaintiffs(ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
265 Witness List by Gonzalez, Laughter, Navajo Nation. (ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
266 Exhibit List by Gonzalez, Laughter, Navajo Nation.(ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
267 Exhibit List by State of Arizona, Secretary of State. (ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
268 Exhibit List by State of Arizona, et al.(ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
269 Exhibit List by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Gonzalez.(ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
270 Exhibit List by Gonzalez, et al.(ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
179 Notice re Notice of Service of Answers to Second Set of Request for Admissions from Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 47 of 126

09/06/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006
09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006
09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006
09/13/2006 09/13/2006

Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
180 Notice re Service of Responses to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admission by Jan Brewer (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
182 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. for proceedings held on 8/30/2006 − 8/31/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
183 ORDER denying 146 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.; Denying 149 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.; Granting 166 Motion to Exceed Page Limits.; Denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.; FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite (06−1575; Doc. 2, 14) are DENIED.; FURTHER ORDERED the parties are to submit simultaneous briefing on whether the identification requirements for registration constitute a poll tax by 9/18/06. Simultaneous responses are due 9/25/06. No replies are allowed. FURTHER ORDERED the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs are to submit additional briefing on their Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims by 9/25/06. Defendants' response is due 10/2/06. The reply is due 10/6/06. A hearing for the Court to consider additional facts on the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims will be held 10/19/06 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Silver . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/11/06. (LCF) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
184 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit − Interlocutory, as to 183 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,Order on Motion for Leave to File, by Maria M Gonzalez. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement)(Perales, Nina) Modified on 9/12/2006 DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO ADD "INTERLOCUTORY" (REW, ). (Entered: 09/11/2006)
186 USCA Appeal Fees received $455 receipt number PHX 048016 re 184 Notice of Appeal, filed by Maria M Gonzalez (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
187 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES re 184 Notice of Appeal filed by Maria M Gonzalez. Description of deficiencies: (1) Incorrect document type selected. The correct event is Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory. The deficiency has been addressed by the Clerk. (2) Civil Appeals Docketing Statement is not to be filed electronically. Original and one copy to be filed in paper form. (counsel notified) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
Copy of CADS Sent re 184 Notice of Appeal, : Civil Appeals Docketing Statement sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (Counsel notified; original and one copy must be submitted for the Ninth Circuit) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
188 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 184 Notice of Interlcutory Appeal (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
189 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit as to 183 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,, by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Representation Statement)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
CADS Sent re 184 Notice of Appeal, Civil Appeals Docketing Statement sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (REW, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $455 receipt number PHX 048189 re 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory, filed by Hopi Tribe, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Steve M Gallardo, Arizona Advocacy Network, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (REW, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 48 of 126

09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006
09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/18/2006
09/18/2006 09/18/2006
09/18/2006
09/21/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006

190 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Maria M Gonzalez for proceedings held on 8/30/2006 − 8/31/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
CADS Sent re 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory, Civil Appeals Docketing Statement sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (REW, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
191 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory (REW, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
192 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation for proceedings held on 8/30/2006 − 8/31/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
193 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by STATE OF ARIZONA for proceedings held on August 30, 2006 through August 31, 2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
194 MOTION to Expedite Issuance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
200 TRANSCRIPT filed for hearing on Preliminary Injunction Hearing Day 1 for dates of 8/30/06 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: David M Lee. Re 152 Notice of Appeal,, 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory,, 184 Notice of Appeal, (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
201 TRANSCRIPT filed for hearing on Prelliminary Injunction Hearing Day 2 for dates of 8/31/06 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: David M Lee. Re 152 Notice of Appeal,, 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory,, 184 Notice of Appeal, (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
195 Notice re County Defendants' Non−Participation in Substantive Briefing by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Connor, M) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
196 MEMORANDUM re: Additional Briefing Requested by Court by Defendants Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
197 MEMORANDUM re: Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
198 MEMORANDUM re: ITCA Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief re Poll Tax by Plaintiffs The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 72)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
199 Ninth Circuit Case Number 06−16702 for 184 Notice of Appeal,. (DMT, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
202 Ninth Circuit Case Number 06−16706 for 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory,. (DMT, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
203 MOTION to Stay Court's Order Pending Appeal ITCA's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 49 of 126

09/25/2006 09/25/2006
09/25/2006 09/25/2006
09/26/2006 09/27/2006 09/28/2006
10/04/2006 10/04/2006
10/04/2006 10/06/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006
10/10/2006

204 RESPONSE by Defendant Helen Purcell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 and 2)(Connor, M) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
205 MOTION to Supplement Brief Regarding Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits to Supplemental Brief# 2 Exhibit Ex 120# 3 Exhibit Ex 121# 4 Exhibit Ex 122# 5 Exhibit Ex 123# 6 Exhibit Ex 124# 7 Exhibit Ex 125# 8 Exhibit Ex 126# 9 Exhibit Ex 127# 10 Exhibit Ex 128)(Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
206 MEMORANDUM re: Responsive Brief Regarding Poll Tax Claim by Defendants Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
207 RESPONSE In Opposition To Additional Briefing By The State Of Arizona And Arizona Secretary Of State by Plaintiffs The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
208 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Remaining Briefing by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
209 Notice re Notice of Filing of Affidavit in Support of ITCA's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. re 203 MOTION to Stay Court's Order Pending Appeal ITCA's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
210 ORDER granting re 208 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Remaining Briefing by Jan Brewer.Defendants may have to and including 10/4/06 to file a response to the additional briefing by the Navajo Nation plaintiffs. Navajo Nation plaintiffs may have to and including 10/11/06 for their reply. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/28/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
211 MOTION for Clarification by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
212 Notice re Response to Supplemental Brief of Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Connor, M) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
213 MEMORANDUM re: Responsive Brief Regarding Navajo Plaintiffs' Claims by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
214 MOTION for Expedited Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal and Request for Status Conference by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
215 RESPONSE to Motion re 211 MOTION for Clarification, 214 MOTION for Expedited Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal and Request for Status Conference filed by Jan Brewer. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
216 Notice re Withdrawal of Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation re 203 MOTION to Stay Court's Order Pending Appeal ITCA's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
217 ORDER granting 214 Expedited Motion Extending the Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal by 30 days. The Notice of Appeal is due 11/10/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/10/06. (REW, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 50 of 126

10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006
10/16/2006
10/17/2006 10/18/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006
10/24/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 10/25/2006 10/26/2006 10/26/2006

218 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Filing Navajo Nation Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
219 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (order). Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/11/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
220 Reply in Support of Supplemental Brief of Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter Regarding Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act by Defendants Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 129# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 130# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 131# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 132# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 133# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 134# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 135# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 136# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 137# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 138# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 139# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 140# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 141# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 142# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 143)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
221 ORDER of 9th Circuit, denying both motions for reconsideration. Briefiing schedule established previously shall remain in effect; appeal case number 06−16702, 06−16706, as to 152 Notice of Appeal, filed by Yes on Proposition 200,, 189 Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory, filed by Hopi Tribe,, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,, Steve M Gallardo,, Arizona Advocacy Network,, League of Women Voters of Arizona,, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona,, People For the American Way Foundation,, 184 Notice of Appeal, filed by Maria M Gonzalez, (DMT, ) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
222 NOTICE of Deposition of Agnes Laughter, filed by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
223 ORDER − A Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for 10/19/2006. This hearing is VACATED pending decision from the Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/18/2006. (ROS, )text order only − no pdf attached (Entered: 10/18/2006)
224 MOTION for to Reschedule Hearing on Navajo Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act Claims by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
225 ORDER that the supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing for the Navajo Nation's claims is set for 11/2/2006 09:00 AM to 4:00 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Parties to confer and submit a joint proposed schedule for the hearing by 10/27/06 at 12:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/23/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
226 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Navajo County Recorder and Navajo County Elections Director by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment list# 2 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Connor, M) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
227 MOTION to Vacate Hearing by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
228 RESPONSE to State's Motion to Vacate November 2, 2006 Hearing (Navajo Nation Plaintiffs') by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
229 ORDER that the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs are to file a response by 10/26/06 at noon to re 227 MOTION to Vacate Hearing by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Silverman, Peter) filed by Jan Brewer, . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/25/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
230 ORDER granting 226 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney M Colleen Connor, Kathleen Rapp and Dennis Ira Wilenchik terminated as to Dfts Justman and Dastrup. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/26/06. (LSP) Modified on 10/26/2006 (LSP) TO ADD, (cc 9CCA). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
231 ORDER the State of Arizona shall file a reply to 227 MOTION to Vacate Hearing by 10/27/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/26/06. (LSP) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 51 of 126

10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006
10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006
10/30/2006 10/31/2006 10/31/2006
11/01/2006
11/06/2006 11/06/2006
11/08/2006 11/29/2006

232 REPLY in Support re 227 MOTION to Vacate Hearing filed by Jan Brewer. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
233 Notice re Joint Proposed Schedule by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
234 Emergency MOTION for PURSUANT TO FRCP 34 TO PERMIT OBSERVERS AT POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit A−C# 3 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
235 RESPONSE to Motion re 234 Emergency MOTION for PURSUANT TO FRCP 34 TO PERMIT OBSERVERS AT POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY filed by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman. (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
236 RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Emergency MOTION for PURSUANT TO FRCP 34 TO PERMIT OBSERVERS AT POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY filed by Jan Brewer. (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
237 RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Emergency MOTION for PURSUANT TO FRCP 34 TO PERMIT OBSERVERS AT POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1 Memorandum of Agreement)(Connor, M) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
238 NOTICE of Appearance by Carrie Jane Brennan on behalf of Jan Brewer (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
239 ORDER granting 227 Motion to Vacate preliminary injunction hearing of 11/2/06. The hearing set for 11/2/06 is Vacated and Reset for 2/8/07 at 9:00 am.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/31/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
240 REPLY in Support re 234 Emergency MOTION for PURSUANT TO FRCP 34 TO PERMIT OBSERVERS AT POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
241 ORDER denying 234 Motion to permit observers. State of AZ and County defendants are directed to track the number of prospective voters that do not have appropriate identification and choose to leave the polling location rather than cast a conditional provisional ballot. Defendants must then turn over this information to the ITCA plaintiffs.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/1/06. (DMT, ) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
242 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Karl J Sandstrom on behalf of plaintiffs Arizona Advocacy Network and Maria M Gonzalez. (BAS, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
243 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 242 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
244 Notice re Withdrawal of Counsel by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
245 Notice re Notice of Service of Election Report Requested by ITCA Plaintiffs by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) Modified on 11/30/2006 (LCF, ).

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 52 of 126

11/30/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006 12/15/2006
12/20/2006 01/30/2007
01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007
02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007
02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007

DOCUMENT FILED WITH INCORRECT CASE NUMBERS. (Entered: 11/29/2006)
246 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 245 Other Notice filed by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. Description of deficiency: Incorrect case numbers. Attorney has been notified. (LCF) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
247 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ferguson on behalf of Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
248 Notice re Association by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
249 Transmitted Record on Appeal to 9th Circuit re 152 Notice of Appeal(06−16521), 184 Notice of Appeal(06−16702). Number of Volumes of Clerks Records: 8 − COPIES ONLY; Number of Transcripts: 3; Docket Numbers of Transcripts: #90, 200, 201; Number of Expandos: One. (LSP) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
250 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Record on Appeal from 9th Circuit re 152 Notice of Appeal, 184 Notice of Appeal, (SBU) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
251 ORDER re preliminary injunction hearing set for 2/8/07; ORDERED that the parties are to meet and confer regarding the content and schedule of the preliminary injunction hearing; the parties should attempt to stipulate regarding admission of evidence; the parties are to submit a joint status report to the Court by 5:00 p.m., 1/31/07, setting forth the following: (1) a proposed schedule for the preliminary injunction hearing; (2) the identity of the proposed witnesses and the content of each witness' testimony; and (3) the material facts that remain in dispute; Status Report due by 1/31/2007. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/30/2007. (LAD) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
252 STATUS REPORT Joint by Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
253 Notice re of Association by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
254 SUPPLEMENT to the Joint Status Report by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
255 ORDER denying as moot 194 Motion to Expedite; denying as moot 203 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 211 Motion for Clarification; denying as moot 224 Motion to Reschedule Hearing. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/06/07.(ESL) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
256 Notice re of Filing of Opening Statement by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plaintiffs Opening Statement)(Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
257 Notice re Notice of Filing Opening Statement by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Attachments: # 1 Staet Defendants' Opening Statement)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
258 Notice re of Corrected Page to Opening Statement by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation re 256 Other Notice (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
259 ORDER − A Preliminary/Permanent Injunction Hearing is set for 2/8/2007 at 9:00 A.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing will start one hour later at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/08/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
260 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 2/8/2007. The Court will take the matter under advisement pending supplemental briefing. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
271 Witness List by Gonzalez, Laughter, Navajo Nation. (ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
272 Exhibit List by State of Arizona. (ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 53 of 126

02/08/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 04/26/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007
06/01/2007 06/04/2007 06/05/2007
06/07/2007
06/12/2007

273 Exhibit List by Gonzalez, Laughter, Navajo Nation.. (ESL) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
261 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer for proceedings held on 2/8/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
262 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Agnes Laughter for proceedings held on 2/8/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
263 TRANSCRIPT of Preliminary Injunction Hearing − Day 3 − Proceedings held on 2/8/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
274 BRIEF Post Trial re Voting Rights Act by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
275 BRIEF State Defendants' Post−Hearing Brief by Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
276 BRIEF re 275 Brief (Non Appeal) Responsive Post Trial re Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
277 BRIEF in Response to Plaintiffs' Post−Hearing Brief by Defendant STATE OF ARIZONA filed by STATE OF ARIZONA. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
278 NOTICE of Appearance by Carrie Jane Brennan on behalf of Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
279 ORDER denying Navajo Nations' request for a preliminary injunction; all parties shall submit a joint statement by May 14th providing a schedule for the completion of this case. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/03/07. (ESL) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
280 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference is set for 8/3/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. All counsel to this action must advise the Court 3 days prior to this Conference if they plan to participate by telephone; FURTHER ORDERED that counsel/parties are directed to Rule 16 of the FRCP for the guidelines to be followed at this Conference. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/08/07. (ESL) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
281 MANDATE of 9th Circuit (Certified Copy), On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is AFFIRMED. Appeal case numbers 06−16521; 06−16702; 06−16706. (ESL) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
282 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Statement of Facts)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
283 MOTION for Summary Judgment Joinder Thereto by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
284 Notice re of Service of ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to County Defendants by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
285 STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 54 of 126

06/15/2007 07/09/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007
07/12/2007 07/12/2007
07/12/2007
07/12/2007
07/12/2007
07/18/2007

06/12/2007)
286 ORDER re 285 Stipulation, and good cause appearing, Plas shall have until 07/12/07 to file their Response to Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dfts shall have until 08/03/07 to file their Reply to Plas' Response. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/15/07. (ESL) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
287 Notice re Notice of Service of Production of Documents by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
288 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Defendants' Partial Summary Judgment Motion by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
289 Notice re Navajo County's Service of Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
290 Notice re Navajo County's Answers to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
291 ORDER denying 288 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/12/07.(ESL) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
292 RESPONSE to Motion re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
293 STATEMENT of Facts in Response to State's Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1, Part 1# 2 Exhibit Tab 1 Part 2# 3 Exhibit Tab 2# 4 Exhibit Tab 3# 5 Exhibit Tab 4# 6 Exhibit Tab 5# 7 Exhibit Tab 6# 8 Exhibit Tab 7# 9 Exhibit Tab 8# 10 Exhibit Tab 9# 11 Exhibit Tab 10# 12 Exhibit Tab 11# 13 Exhibit Tab 12# 14 Exhibit Tab 13)(Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
294 DECLARATION of Patricia Ferguson−Bohnee Pursuant to Rule 56(f) by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
295 RESPONSE in Opposition re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 283 MOTION for Summary Judgment Joinder Thereto filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
296 RESPONSE in Opposition re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 283 MOTION for Summary Judgment Joinder Thereto Response in Opposition to Statement of Facts and Supplemental Statement of Facts filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Karen J. Hartman−Tellez with Exhibits A−O# 2 Exhibit Exhibits P−S to Hartman−Tellez Declaration)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
297 RESPONSE to Motion re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 283 MOTION for Summary Judgment Joinder Thereto filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
298 STATEMENT of Response to Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
299 Notice re Notice of Service of Coconino County Defendants' Responses to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 55 of 126

07/20/2007 07/26/2007 07/30/2007
08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007
08/03/2007
08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007

Jean) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
300 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
301 Notice re Notice of Service by F Ann Rodriguez (Friar, Karen) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
302 Notice re Service of Documents Requested by Plaintiffs Gonzalez, et al. by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
303 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for for Summary Judgment by Jan Brewer, STATE OF ARIZONA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
304 ORDER that the scheduling conference set for 08/03/07 is VACATED and RESET for 8/16/2007 at 01:30 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/01/07. (ESL) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
305 ORDER granting Defendants' 303 Motion to Exceed Page limitation. Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed thirteen pages. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/01/07.(ESL) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
306 REPLY in Support re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit TABS A − C)(Bailey, Barbara) Modified on 8/9/2007 (LAD). DOCUMENT FILED WITH INCORRECT JUDGE INITIALS IN CASE NUMBER AS TO MEMBER CASES. (Entered: 08/03/2007)
307 STATEMENT of SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS STATE OF ARIZONA AND THE ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 306 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) Modified on 8/10/2007 (LAD).DOCUMENT FILED WITH INCORRECT JUDGE INITIALS IN CASE NUMBER AS TO MEMBER CASES. (Entered: 08/03/2007)
308 DECLARATION of SECOND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS STATE OF ARIZONA AND THE ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE re 282 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 307 Statement, 306 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit TAB 9)(Bailey, Barbara) Modified on 8/10/2007 (LAD). DOCUMENT FILED WITH INCORRECT JUDGE INITIALS IN CASE NUMBER AS TO MEMBER CASES. (Entered: 08/03/2007)
309 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter's Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosure Statement by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
310 Notice re Service by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. ITCA's Notice of Service of Discovery Papers (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
311 Notice re Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1) by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
312 Notice re of Service of Disclosure Statement by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 08/08/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 56 of 126

08/09/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/15/2007
08/16/2007 08/16/2007

313 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 306 Reply in Support of Motion filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. Description of deficiency: Incorrect Judge's initials listed in member case numbers. DO NOT REFILE. SEE ATTACHED FOR INSTRUCTIONS. (LAD) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
314 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 308 Declaration, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona, 307 Statement, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. Description of deficiency: DO NOT REFILE. DOCUMENTS DO NOT HAVE CORRECT JUDGE INITIALS AS TO MEMBER CASES. SEE ATTACHED. (LAD) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
315 MOTION to Expedite Consideration by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
316 Notice re Initial Disclosures by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
317 Joinder re 315 MOTION to Expedite Consideration ITCA Plaintiffs' Joinder In Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Consideration by Plaintiff The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
318 Notice re Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
319 STATEMENT of 13 County Defendants Regarding Discovery Dispute with Statements from Gonzalez Plaintiffs, ITCA Plaintiffs and Rule 7.2(j) Certifications by Plaintiffs Friendly House, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Amicus Parties Amicus Curiae, Protect Arizona Now, Washington Legal Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 13 County Defendants Rule 7.2(j) Certification# 4 Gonzalez Plaintiffs Rule 7.2(j) Certification# 5 ITCA Plaintiffs' Rule 7.2(j) Certification)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
320 RESPONSE to Motion re 315 MOTION to Expedite Consideration by Thirteen County Defendants filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1)(Connor, M) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
321 ORDER − A Scheduling Conference is set for 8/16/2007 at 1:30 P.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED and RESET to 8/17/2007 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/16/2007. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 57 of 126

08/16/2007 08/17/2007
08/17/2007
08/17/2007 08/22/2007 08/28/2007 08/28/2007 08/28/2007 08/28/2007
08/29/2007 08/29/2007
08/30/2007 09/04/2007

322 ORDER − A Scheduling Conference is set for 8/17/2007 at 2:00 P.M. An Order is forthcoming from this Court that will streamline remaining issues. This hearing is HEREBY VACATED to be RESET at a later time. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/16/2007. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
323 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Complaint by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Comparison of Complaint with Proposed Amended Complaint)# 2 Exhibit B (Proposed First Amended Complaint)# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
324 LODGED Proposed First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief re: 323 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
325 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
326 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Carlos Becerra by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 LRCiv.83.3(b) Compliance# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Becerra, Carlos) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
327 Notice re of Service of First Requests for Production to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
328 Notice re of Service of First Requests for Production to ITCA Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
329 Notice re of Service of First Requests for Production to Navajo Nation Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
330 ORDER granting Dft's 282 Motion for Summary Judgment. Granting 283 Motion for Summary Judgment Joinder. Granting 326 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The parties shall submit a revised case managment plan and proposed scheduling order by 09/14/07. A hearing on the parties' discovery dispute is set for 08/30/07 at 1:30pm. A rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 09/28/07 at 10:30am. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/28/07.(ESL) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
331 MOTION for Protective Order by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
332 LODGED Proposed Proposed Protective Order re: 331 MOTION for Protective Order. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulation of Confidentiality)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
333 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Discovery dispute hearing held on 8/30/2007. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
334 RESPONSE in Opposition re 323 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Complaint filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 58 of 126

09/04/2007 09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/06/2007 09/10/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007
09/11/2007
09/14/2007
09/17/2007

335 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. for proceedings held on 8/30/2007 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
336 Notice re Service of Amended Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
338 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Arizona Advocacy Network, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa for discovery dispute proceedings held on 8/30/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
339 TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Dispute Proceedings held on 8/30/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
337 Notice re Notice of Service of Amended Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
340 MOTION for Ruling For Approval of Proposed Preliminary Script Outline by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Sara) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
341 MOTION to Appoint Expert /State and Thirteen County Defendants' Motion for Appointment of Indpendent Expert and Approval of Final Script by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
342 Proposed Order re: 341 MOTION to Appoint Expert /State and Thirteen County Defendants' Motion for Appointment of Indpendent Expert and Approval of Final Script. Filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) Modified on 9/12/2007 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO REFLECT PROPOSED ORDER NOT A PROPOSED DOCUMENT (ESL). (Entered: 09/11/2007)
343 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Friendly House, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Maria M Gonzalez, Yes on Proposition 200, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa. Revised Proposed Case Management Plan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
344 Appeal Record Returned: 152 Notice of Appeal, 184 Notice of Appeal, Number of Volumes of Clerks Records: 8 − COPIES ONLY, Number of Transcripts: 3, Docket numbers of Transcripts:# 90, 200, 201, Number of Expandos: 1 (ESL) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 59 of 126

09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007 09/25/2007
09/26/2007 09/28/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007
10/01/2007
10/02/2007

345 ORDER denying Pla Gonzalez' 315 Motion to Expedite Consideration.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/20/07.(KMG) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
346 ORDER denying Pla Gonzalez' 331 Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Agreed Stipulation as moot. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/20/07.(KMG) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
347 Notice re of Service of Notice of Deposition by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
348 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Amended Notice of Deposition by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
349 RESPONSE in Opposition re 341 MOTION to Appoint Expert /State and Thirteen County Defendants' Motion for Appointment of Indpendent Expert and Approval of Final Script filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Bruce Hernandez)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
350 NOTICE of Deposition of DEBBIE LOPEZ, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
360 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver : Scheduling Conference held on 9/28/2007. Orders to follow. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(CLB) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
351 ORDER granting 323 Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall file Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 09/30/07.(ESL) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
352 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa.(ESL, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
353 ORDER denying as moot Gonzalez and ITCA Pla's 340 Motion for Approval of Proposed Preliminary Script Outline; and State and Thirteen Dfts' 341 Motion For Appointment of Independent Expert and Approval of Final Script. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 09/30/07.(ESL) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
354 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Robert A Kengle on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX062897 as to Robert A Kengle. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
355 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 354 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
356 Notice re of Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants State of Arizona First Request for Production of Documents by Friendly House, Jesus Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
357 Notice re of Service of ITCA Plaintiffs' Response to State Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 60 of 126

10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007
10/05/2007
10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007

358 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Monica R Saxena on behalf of the plaintiffs. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX062922 as to Monica Saxena. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
359 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 358 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
361 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Maria M Gonzalez, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
362 Notice re of Service of Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter Plaintiffs Respomse to State Defendants First Set of Request for Production of Documents by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
363 Notice re of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Common Cause by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
364 Notice re of Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Southwest Voter Registration Education Project by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
365 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Luciano Valencia by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
366 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Jesus M. Gonzalez by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
367 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Maria Gonzalez by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
368 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Naeem Abdul−Kareem by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
369 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Georgia Morrison Flores by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
370 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
371 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Project Vote by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
372 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Arizona Hispanic Community Forum by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
373 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 61 of 126

10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/16/2007
10/16/2007
10/16/2007
10/16/2007
10/16/2007

374 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Friendly House by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
375 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
376 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Arizona by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
377 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
378 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Arizona Advocacy Network by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
379 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff People for the American Way Foundation by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
380 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Steve Gallardo by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
381 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Hopi Tribe by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
382 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
383 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Agnes Laughter by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
384 Notice re Service of First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Navajo Nation by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
385 Notice re of Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Johnson and Kizer (Apache County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
386 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Baker and Hale (La Paz County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
387 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Haught Ortega and Mundy (Gila County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
388 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Wayman−Trujillo and Constabile (Yavapai County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
389 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Hightower Marler and Madrill (Yuma County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 62 of 126

10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007

Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
390 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Secretary of State and State of Arizona by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
391 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Rodriguez and Nelson by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
392 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Justman and McKee (Navajo County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
393 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Dean−Lytle and Hoyos (Pinal County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
394 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Manuz and Pearson (Greenlee County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
395 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Sainz and Meek (Santa Cruz County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
396 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Rhodes and Schelling by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
397 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to John and Dickerson (Graham County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 63 of 126

10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007
10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/25/2007

398 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Purcell and Osborne (Maricopa County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
399 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Owens and Hansen (Coconino County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
400 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to McCall and Tempert (Mohave County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
401 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : 1st, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
402 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/29/2008, Dispositive motions due by 3/14/2008, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/16/2008. An Interim Rule 16 Status Hearing set for 2/29/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Seven days prior to the Interim Hearing counsel are to prepare and file a Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/22/07. (ESL) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
403 APPLICATION re: of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of David Urias by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice)(Urias, David) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX063647 as to David Urias. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
404 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 401 Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
405 AMENDED ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 403 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
406 STIPULATION of Confidentiality by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 64 of 126

10/25/2007
10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007

Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Maria M Gonzalez, Yes on Proposition 200, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Amicus Curiae, Bernie Abeytia, Protect Arizona Now, Washington Legal Foundation, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Agreement to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
407 RESPONSE re 406 Stipulation,,,,, of Confidentiality for MALDEF Counsel by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
410 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Arizona Advocacy Network, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. for proceedings held on 9/28/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
412 TRANSCRIPT of Scheduling Conference Proceedings held on 9/28/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
408 ORDER after review of the Stipulation and Agreement to abide by Stipulation and Protective Order, the Stipulation and Agreement are accepted by the Court. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/30/07. (ESL) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
409 Notice re of Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation re 406 Stipulation,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
411 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. re 406 Stipulation,,,,, 408 Order, Set/Clear Flags (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Greene, Sara) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
413 RESPONSE in Opposition re 401 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : 1st, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
414 Notice re of Service of ITCA Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
415 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona for proceedings held on 08/29/2007 before Judge Silver. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
416 REQUEST re: First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Coconino County by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
417 Notice re of Filing First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 65 of 126

10/31/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007

(Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
418 Notice re Filing First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Coconino County by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
419 Notice re Service of Supplemental Response to State Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
420 Notice re Service of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
421 Notice re Service of Plaintiff AHCF's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
422 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Common Cause's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
423 Notice re Service of Plaintiff CPLC's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
424 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Friendly House's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
425 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Georgia Morrison−Flores' Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
426 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Jesus M. Gonzalez's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
427 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Maria Gonzalez's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 66 of 126

11/08/2007
11/08/2007
11/08/2007
11/09/2007 11/15/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007

Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
428 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Project Vote's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
429 Notice re Service of Plaintiff SVREP's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
430 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Valle del Sol's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
431 REPLY in Support re 401 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : 1st, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th Causes of Action of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
432 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
433 MOTION to Dismiss Party Agnes Laughter by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
434 MOTION to Dismiss Party Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
435 DECLARATION of Declaration of Counsel in Support of Motions to Dismiss re 434 MOTION to Dismiss Party Gonzalez Plaintiffs, 433 MOTION to Dismiss Party Agnes Laughter by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−13)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
436 Notice re FILING OF EXHIBITS by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 435 Declaration, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−13 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(B)(1))(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
437 Notice re Service of Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
438 Notice re Service by Judy Dickerson, Wendy John of Defendant Graham County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
439 Notice re Service by Shelly Baker, Donna J Hale of Defendant La Paz County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
440 Notice re Service of State Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 67 of 126

11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007 11/26/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007 11/29/2007
11/29/2007 11/30/2007
11/30/2007
12/03/2007

441 Notice re Service by Christine Rhodes, Judy Dickerson, Thomas Schelling, Wendy John of Defendants Cochise and Graham Counties' Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
442 Notice re First Supplemental Notice of Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
443 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants Maricopa, Pima and Yuma Counties' Response to Itca Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to County Defendants by Susan Hightower Marlar, Patti Madrill, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez (Connor, M) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
444 Notice re Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
445 Notice re Notice of Service by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen Notice of Service of Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' 3rd Set of Requests for Production (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
446 Notice re of Service by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
447 Notice re ITCA Plaintiffs' Notice of Service of Responses to First Set of Interrogatories by Defendants State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
448 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Yuma County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants Hightower Marler and Madrill by Susan Hightower Marlar (Connor, M) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
449 ORDER − A Status Conference is set for 2/29/2008 at 8:30 A.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing iS VACATED AND RESET to 2/29/2008 at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY!! A Joint Status report is due to be filed one week in advance of the hearing. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/29/2007. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
450 Notice re Service of Response to Request For Production by Christine Rhodes, Thomas Schelling re 396 Other Notice, (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
451 MOTION for Extension of Time Extension of Time to File A Portion of Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
452 LODGED Proposed Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time to File a Portion of Expert Disclosures re: 451 MOTION for Extension of Time Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) Modified on 1/30/2008 INCORRECT DOCUMENT EVENT SELECTED. EXCESS TEXT REMOVED. ATTORNEY NOTICED. (REW, ). (Entered: 11/30/2007)
453 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Pinal County's Response to ITCA Plaintffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to County Defendants by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/03/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 68 of 126

12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/05/2007
12/05/2007
12/05/2007
12/06/2007 12/06/2007 12/06/2007

454 Notice re Service by Berta Manuz, Yvonne Pearson of Defendant Greenlee County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
455 Notice re Service by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell of Defendant Maricopa County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
456 Notice re Service by Brad R Nelson, F Ann Rodriguez of Defendant Pima County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
457 Notice re Notice of Service of State Defendants' Response to Navajo Nation Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
458 Notice re Notice of Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
459 Notice re Service by Linda Haught Ortega, Dixie Mundy of Gila County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
460 Notice re Service by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo /Thirteen County Defendants' Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
461 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct re Scheduling Order by Consolidated Plaintiffs by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
462 Notice re Proposed Proposed Amended Scheduling Order re: 461 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct re Scheduling Order by Consolidated Plaintiffs. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) Modified on 12/6/2007 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED, DOCKET MODIFIED FROM LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT TO OTHER NOTICE.(ESL). (Entered: 12/05/2007)
463 Notice re Service by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Response to Navajo Nation Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
464 Notice re Service by Joan McCall, Allen Tempert of Mohave County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
465 Notice re Service by Lynn A Constabile, Ann Wayman−Trujillo of Yavapai County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 69 of 126

12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007
12/07/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/12/2007
12/14/2007 12/14/2007
12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007

466 Notice re Service by Joan McCall, Allen Tempert of Defendant Mohave County's Response to ITCA Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
467 RESPONSE to Motion re 461 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct re Scheduling Order by Consolidated Plaintiffs and Cross−Motion filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
468 DECLARATION of Barbara Bailey In Support of State and Thirteen County Defendants Motion to Modify the Case Schedule and Cross−Motion for the Modification of the Schedule re 467 Response to Motion, by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tabs 1−3)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
469 DECLARATION of Colleen Connor re 467 Response to Motion, by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
470 Notice re Service by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos of Defendant Pinal County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
471 Notice re Service by LeNora Johnson, Penny L Pew of Apache County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Connor, M) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
472 Notice re of Filing Agreements to Abide By Stipulation and Protective Order by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
473 Notice re Withdrawal of Counsel by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
474 Notice re SERVICE OF THE HOPI TRIBE'S RESPONSES TO STATE DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
475 Notice re of Service of Responses to First Set of Interrogatories By Defendants State of Arizona And The Arizona Secretary Of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
476 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to the Navajo County Defendants by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
477 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to the Coconino County Defendants by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
478 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
479 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories to the ITCA Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
480 REPLY to Response to Motion re 461 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct re Scheduling Order by Consolidated Plaintiffs filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Bernie

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 70 of 126

12/17/2007
12/17/2007
12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/19/2007 12/19/2007 12/19/2007 12/20/2007

Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
481 DECLARATION of Declaration of Nina Perales in Support of The Cons Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Their Motion to Modify Scheduling Order re 480 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 − Tabs 1−6)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
482 DECLARATION of Robert A. Kengle in Support of the Consolidated Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Their Motion to Modify Scheduling Order re 480 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
483 ORDER that Gonzalez Plas' 451 Motion to Extend Deadline for a Portion of their Expert Discolsures is denied as moot. That the Joint 461 Motion by Consolidated Plas to Modify Scheduling Order is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/17/07. (ESL) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
484 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: An Interim Rule 16 Status Hearing is scheduled for 2/29/2008 at 09:00 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Discovery due by 3/28/2008. Dispositive motions due by 4/4/2008. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/30/2008. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/17/07. (ESL, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
485 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
486 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Navajo Nation by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED Modified on 12/20/2007 (ESL). (Entered: 12/19/2007)
487 RESPONSE to Motion re 434 MOTION to Dismiss Party Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Nina Perales)(Perales, Nina) Modified on 12/20/2007 DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED (ESL). (Entered: 12/19/2007)
488 RESPONSE to Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
489 Notice re of Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to 13 County Defendants by Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 71 of 126

12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007

490 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories to Secretary of State and State of Arizona by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
491 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs Second Request for Production of Documents to Johnson and Kizer (Apache County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
492 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Owens and Hansen (Coconino County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
493 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Rhodes and Schelling (Cochise County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
494 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Baker and Hale (La Paz County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
495 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Haught Ortega and Mundy (Gila County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
496 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to John and Dickerson (Graham County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
497 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Manuz and Pearson (Greenlee County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
498 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to McCall and Tempert (Mohave County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 72 of 126

12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007

Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
499 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Justman and McKee (Navajo County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
500 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Sainz and Meek (Santa Cruz County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
501 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Wayman−Trujillo and Constabile (Yavapai County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
502 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Hightower Marler and Madrill (Yuma County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
503 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents to Purcell and Osborne (Maricopa County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
504 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents to Dean−Lytle and Hoyos (Pinal County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
505 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Secretary of State and State of Arizona by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
506 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents to Rodriguez and Nelson (Pima County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/20/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 73 of 126

12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/24/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007

507 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
508 Notice re ITCAS NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ITS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO STATE DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1, 2, 13 AND 14 by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
509 Notice re NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS TO ABIDE BY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
510 NOTICE of Deposition of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED. Modified on 12/26/2007 (ESL, ). (Entered: 12/21/2007)
511 Notice re NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES FROM THE PLAINTIFFS INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, ET AL. by State of Arizona (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 12/24/2007)
512 NOTICE of Deposition of Karen Osborne, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
513 NOTICE of Deposition of Helen Purcell, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
514 NOTICE of Deposition of Brad Nelson, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
515 NOTICE of Deposition of F. Ann Rodriguez, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
516 NOTICE of Deposition of Laura Dean−Lytle, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 74 of 126

12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008

517 NOTICE of Deposition of Gilberto Hoyos, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
518 NOTICE of Deposition of Lynn Constabile, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
519 NOTICE of Deposition of Ana Wayman−Trujillo, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
520 NOTICE of Deposition of Sue Stallworth, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
521 NOTICE of Deposition of Susan Marler, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
522 NOTICE of Deposition of Jan Brewer, Office of the Sec. of State, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
523 NOTICE of Deposition of State of Arizona, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
524 NOTICE of Deposition of Jan Brewer, Secretary of State, filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
525 Notice re Amended Notice of Deposition of State of Arizona by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
526 NOTICE of Deposition of Georgia Morrison Flores, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 75 of 126

01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008
01/07/2008

527 Notice re Service of Expert Report of Dr. F. Arturo Rosales by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
528 NOTICE of Deposition of The Office of the Maricopa County Recorder Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6), filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
529 Notice re Second Supplemental Notice of Filing Agreement to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
530 Notice re Service of Expert Report of Dr. Jorge Chapa by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
531 Notice re Notice of Service of Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter Plaintiffs' Expert Report of Dr. Rodolfo Espino III by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
532 Notice re Service of Expert Report of Dr. Louis R. Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
533 Notice re Service of Expert Report of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
534 Notice re Withdrawal of Notice of Deposition of Defendant Lynn Constabile (Yavapai County Director of Elections) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
535 Notice re Withdrawal of Notice of Deposition of Defendant Helen Purcell (Maricopa County Recorder) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
536 Notice re ITCA PLAINTIFFS' SERVICE OF EXPERT REPORTS OF BRUCE HERNANDEZ AND R. ANTHONY SISSONS by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Hartman, Karen) Modified on 1/9/2008 DOCUMENT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED, NO FOLLOW UP REQUIRED (ESL). (Entered: 01/07/2008)
537 Notice re Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant Ana Wayman Trujillo (Yavapai County Recorder) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 76 of 126

01/07/2008
01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/08/2008 01/10/2008 01/11/2008
01/11/2008 01/17/2008
01/17/2008
01/17/2008
01/18/2008

Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
538 STATEMENT of Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
539 REPLY in Support re 434 MOTION to Dismiss Party Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
540 DECLARATION of Second Declaration of Counsel re 539 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tabs 14−18)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
541 DECLARATION of Declaration of Karen Osborne re 539 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
542 REPLY in Support re 433 MOTION to Dismiss Party Agnes Laughter filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
543 ORDER: After review of the parties' submissions, the Court will allow Gonzalez plas to conduct the requested depositions. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/8/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
544 Notice re Notice of Service of Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter Plaintiffs Expert Report of Dr. Rodolfo Espino III by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ramos, Javier) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
545 Notice re Navajo County Defendants' Service of Answers to State Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c), ATTORNEY NOTICED, NO FOLLOW UP REQUIRED. Modified on 1/14/2008 (ESL). (Entered: 01/11/2008)
546 Notice re Service by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell of Maricopa County Defendants' First Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
547 Notice re Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant F. Ann Rodriguez (Pima County Recorder) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
548 Notice re Notice of Resumed Deposition of Defendant Karen Osborne, Director of Elections (Maricopa County) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
549 Notice re Notice of Discovery Dispute by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
550 Notice re ITCA's Service of Discovery Papers by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation ITCA's Notice of Service of Discovery Papers (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 77 of 126

01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008
01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008

551 Notice re of Service of Plaintiffs Navajo Nation's Answer to State's Second Set of Interrogatories by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
552 Notice re of Service of Plaintiffs Navajo Nation and Agnes Laughter's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation (Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
553 Notice re Service of Responses of the Arizona Advocacy Network to Second Set of Interrogatories by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
554 ORDER re Discovery issue in dispute. First, no conflict exists between Gonzalez Pla' request and Article VII, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution. Second, if, as County Defendants submit, they do not have custody or control of the uncounted provisional ballot envelopes, Gonzalez Pla may subpoena, as allowed by the rules, the appropriate entity. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 01/22/08. (ESL) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
555 Notice re Service of Responses of The Hopi Tribe to State Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
556 Notice re Service of Responses of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. to Second Set of Interrogatories by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
557 Notice re Service of Responses of the League of United Latin American Citizens to Second Set of Interrogatories by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
558 Notice re Service of Responses of the League of Women Voters of Arizona to Second Set of Interrogatories by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
559 Notice re Service of Responses of People for the American Way Foundation to State Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
560 Notice re Service of Responses of Rep. Steve Gallardo to Second Set of Interrogatories by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
561 Notice re Service by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos of Defendant Pinal County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
562 Notice re Service by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos of Defendant Pinal County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
563 Notice re Service of Response to Defendant State of Arizona 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Common Cause by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 78 of 126

01/22/2008
01/22/2008
01/22/2008
01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008

Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
564 Notice re Service of Response to Defendant State of Arizona 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Arizona Hispanic Community Forum by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
565 Notice re Service of Response to Defendant State of Arizona 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
566 Notice re Service of Response to Defendant State of Arizona 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Friendly House by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
567 Notice re Service by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell of Defendant Maricopa County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
568 Notice re Service by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell of Defendant Maricopa County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
569 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
570 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
571 Notice re Service by Melinda Meek, Suzie Sainz of Defendant Santa Cruz County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
572 Notice re Service by Melinda Meek, Suzie Sainz of Defendant Santa Cruz County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
573 Notice re Service by Brad R Nelson, F Ann Rodriguez of Defendant Pima County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
574 Notice re Service by Brad R Nelson, F Ann Rodriguez of Defendant Pima County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
575 Notice re Service by John McCall, Allen Tempert of Defendant Mohave County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
576 Notice re Service by John McCall, Allen Tempert of Defendant Mohave County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 79 of 126

01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/24/2008

577 Notice re Service by Susan Hightower Marlar, Patti Madrill of Defendant Yuma County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
578 Notice re Service by Susan Hightower Marlar, Patti Madrill of Yuma County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
579 Notice re Service by Lynn A Constabile, Ann Wayman−Trujillo of Defendant Yavapai County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
580 Notice re Service by Lynn A Constabile, Ann Wayman−Trujillo of Defendant Yavapai County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
581 Notice re Service by Shelly Baker, Donna J Hale of Defendant La Paz County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
582 Notice re Service by Shelly Baker, Donna J Hale of Defendant La Paz County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
583 Notice re Service by Berta Manuz, Yvonne Pearson of Defendant Greenlee County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
584 Notice re Service by Berta Manuz, Yvonne Pearson of Defendant Greenlee County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
585 Notice re Service by Steve Kizer, LeNora Johnson of Defendant Apache County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
586 Notice re Service by Steve Kizer, LeNora Johnson of Defendant Apache County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
587 Notice re Service by Linda Haught Ortega, Dixie Mundy of Defendant Gila County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
588 Notice re Service by Linda Haught Ortega, Dixie Mundy of Defendant Gila County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
589 Notice re Service by Christine Rhodes, Thomas Schelling of Defendant Cochise County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
590 Notice re Service by Christine Rhodes, Thomas Schelling of Defendant Cochise County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
591 Notice re Service by Judy Dickerson, Wendy John of Defendant Graham County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
592 Notice re Service by Judy Dickerson, Wendy John of Defendant Graham County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (Connor, M) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
593 ORDER − A Status Conference is set for 2/29/2008 at 9:00 A.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 3/21/2008 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. A Joint Status Report is due to be filed one week in advance of the hearing. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 01/24/2008. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 80 of 126

01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/04/2008
02/05/2008
02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008

PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
594 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Supplemental Response to Defendants State of Arizona's First Request for Production of Documents by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
595 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Pinal County Recorder Laura Dean−Lytle and Pinal County Elections Director Gilbert Hoyos by Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
596 Notice re Service of Coconino County's Answer to State's First Set of Interrogatories by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
597 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Chicanos por la Causa Responses to State Defendant's 2nd Set of Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
598 Notice re Service of Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Responses to State Defendant's 2nd Set of Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
599 Notice re 7.2 (j) Certification − Local Rule by John McCall, Steve Kizer, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dispute Certificate, # 2 Exhibit Scheduling Order)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
600 Notice re Joint Discovery Dispute Statement by John McCall, Steve Kizer, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate, # 2 Exhibit Order)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
601 OBJECTION to Subpoenas Served After The Deadline for Close of Fact Discovery by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
602 STATEMENT of Statement of Correction Regarding State Defendants' Objection to Subpoenas Served after the Deadline for Close of Fact Discovery re 601 Objection by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
603 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 81 of 126

02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008

(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
604 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Apache County Treasurer Katherine Arvisio by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
605 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Cochise County Treasurer Marsha Bonham by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
606 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Greenlee County Treasurer Patricia Hernandez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
607 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Mohave County Treasurer Lee Fabrizio by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
608 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Navajo County Treasurer Manny Hernandez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
609 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Santa Cruz County Treasurer Caesar Ramirez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
610 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Yavapai County Treasurer Ross Jacobs by Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
611 ORDER granting Dfts' 401 Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims: First, Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes. Gonzalez Plas' Sixth and Eleventh Causes of Action are dismissed WITHOUT prejudice and Gonzalez Plas' First, Third, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth Causes of Action are dismissed WITH prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/05/08. (ESL) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
612 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Pinal County Treasurer Dolores Doolittle by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
613 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S Jurkowitz on behalf of Beth Ford (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 82 of 126

02/06/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 02/07/2008
02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008
02/08/2008
02/08/2008
02/08/2008
02/11/2008

614 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Beth Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
615 RESPONSE re 601 Objection to Subpoenas by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
616 First MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
617 DECLARATION of Counsel (Third) re 616 First MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez PlaintiffsFirst MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tabs 19−21)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
618 Notice re Notice of Appearance and Notice of Withdrawal From Common Representation; and Notice of Limited Appearance by Dolores J Doolittle, Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
619 OBJECTION of Pinal County Treasurer to Subpoena Requiring Production of Materials by Objector Dolores J Doolittle. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
620 OBJECTION of Maricopa County Treasurer to Plaintiffs' Subpoena filed by Charles Hoskins. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
621 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Maricopa County Treasurer Charles Hoskins by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
622 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Coconino County Treasurer Bonny K. Lynn by Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
623 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Pima County Treasurer Beth Ford by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
624 RESPONSE in Opposition re 614 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
625 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of Sate 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Valle Del Sol by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 83 of 126

02/11/2008
02/11/2008
02/11/2008
02/11/2008
02/11/2008
02/11/2008 02/11/2008
02/12/2008 02/12/2008 02/13/2008 02/13/2008

626 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Protect Arizona Now, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
627 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Chicanos Por La Causa by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
628 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
629 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Project Vote by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
630 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Friendly House by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
631 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENA by Melinda Meek, Suzie Sainz. (Parra, Luis) DOCUMENT NOT INCOMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c) ATTORNEY NOTICED, NO FOLLOW UP REQUIRED. Modified on 2/12/2008 (ESL, ). (Entered: 02/11/2008)
632 Notice re Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State Second Set of Interrogatories to Common Cause by Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
633 Notice re Notice of Service of Supplemental Answers to State of Arizona Secretary of State's First Set of Interrogatories to Coconino County by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
634 OBJECTION to Plaintiffs' 610 Subpoena. (ESL) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
635 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth Andrew Angle on behalf of Jean Reynolds (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
636 REPLY to Response to Motion re 614 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Beth Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena dated 1−28−08, # 2 Exhibit Subpoena dated 2−7−08)(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/13/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 84 of 126

02/13/2008 02/13/2008 02/13/2008 02/13/2008
02/13/2008 02/14/2008
02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/19/2008
02/19/2008

637 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Requiring Production of Materials by Jean Reynolds. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
638 Notice re Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
639 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Request to Modify Expert Discovery Deadlines by Navajo Nation Plaintiffs and Defendant Arizona Secretary of State by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
640 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT TO MAIN DOCUMENT Proposed Order Re 639 Joint Stipulation and Request to Modify Expert Discovery Deadlines by Navajo Nation Plaintiffs and Defendant Arizona Secretary of State. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) Modified on 2/14/2008 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED, DOCKET MODIFIED FROM LODGED PROPOSED DOUCMENT TO ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO MAIN DOCUMENT(ESL, ). (Entered: 02/13/2008)
641 Notice re Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
642 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended to add − The Dfts shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703,704, or 705 in Case No. CV06−1575 no later than February 29, 2008. The Plas shall disclose any rebuttal in Case No. CV06−1575 no later than March 21, 2008. In CV 06−1575, all expert discovery shall be completed by March 28, 2008. (see attached pdf for details). Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/14/08. (SAT) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
643 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael William McCarthy on behalf of Patricia Hernandez (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
644 MOTION to Quash Subpoena in a civil case by Patricia Hernandez. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
645 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. Amendment to 638 Other Notice Coconino County Treasurer's Notice of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
646 OBJECTION /La Paz County Treasurer's Objection to Plaintiffs' Subpoena. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
647 NOTICE of Deposition of DR. RICHARD ENGSTROM, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
648 NOTICE of Deposition of DR. F. ARTURO ROSALES, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
649 NOTICE of Deposition of DR. RODOLFO ESPINO, III, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
650 NOTICE of Deposition of DR. LOUIS R. LANIER, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
651 MOTION/Application to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Pinal County Recorder and Pinal County Elections Director by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos (Connor, M) INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM OTHER NOTICE TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW Modified on 2/20/2008 (ESL). (Entered: 02/19/2008)
652 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 651 Motion to Withdraw [Proposed] Order Granting Dennis Wilenchik, Kathleen Rapp, and Colleen Connor Leave to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Pinal County Recorder and Pinal County Elections Director by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Connor, M) DOCKET TEXT MODIFED TO ADD DOCUMENT LINKAGE Modified on 2/20/2008 (ESL, ). (Entered: 02/19/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 85 of 126

02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008
02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/21/2008
02/21/2008
02/21/2008
02/21/2008
02/21/2008

653 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey Zax to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
654 NOTICE of Deposition of Dr. Jorge Chapa, filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
655 RESPONSE re 646 Objection, 644 MOTION to Quash Subpoena in a civil case, 634 Objection, 631 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENA, 637 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Requiring Production of Materials by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
656 Notice re Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Second Set of Supplemental Answers to First Set of Interrogatories From Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Et. Al. by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
657 Notice re Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
658 ORDER granting 651 Dennis I. Wilenchick and Kathleen Rapp, Wilenchik and Barness, P.C. and Colleen Connor, Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Dfts Pinal County Recorder Laura Dean−Lytle and Pinal County Elections Director Gilberto Hoyos. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/20/08.(ESL) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
659 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Third Set of Interrogatories to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
660 Notice re Amended Notice of Deposition of Dr. Jorge Chapa by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
661 ORDER The county treasurers shall produce the requested copies of the outside of envelopes containing conditional provisional ballots that were never counted within two weeks of the date of this Order. The discovery deadlines is extended by two weeks from the date of this Order for the limited purpose of allowing production of the subpoenaed documents. Documents 614 , 631 , 637 , and 644 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/21/08. (ESL) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
662 Notice re of Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Santa Cruz County Treasurer Caesar Ramirez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
663 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Yavapai County Treasurer Ross Jacobs by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
664 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Navajo County Treasurer Manny Hernandez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
665 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Pinal County Treasurer Dolores Doolittle by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 86 of 126

02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008

Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
666 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Pima County Treasurer Beth Ford by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
667 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Mohave County Treasurer Lee Fabrizio by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
668 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Coconino County Treasurer Bonny K. Lynn by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
669 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Cochise County Treasurer Marsha Bonham by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
670 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Apache County Treasurer Katherine Arvisio by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
671 Notice re Navajo County Defendants' Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
672 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Greenlee County Treasurer Patricia Hernandez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
673 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Gila County Treasurer Debora Savage by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
674 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Graham County Treasurer Jean Reynolds by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
675 Notice re Pinal County's Notice of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories by Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 87 of 126

02/22/2008
02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/26/2008
02/26/2008
02/26/2008 02/28/2008
02/29/2008 02/29/2008 02/29/2008 03/03/2008 03/05/2008 03/05/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008

676 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to La Paz County Treasurer Ellen Solper by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
677 RESPONSE Pinal County's Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
678 Notice re Pinal County Treasurer's Notice of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Dolores J Doolittle (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
679 RESPONSE to Motion re 616 First MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez PlaintiffsFirst MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Diego Bernal)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
680 Notice re Deposition of Dr. Jeffrey Zax by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
681 Notice re Amended Notice of Deposition of Dr. Rodolfo Espino III by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 649 Notice of Deposition (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
682 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Yuma County Treasurer Karen Fritz by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
683 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jean Reynolds of Graham County Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
684 Notice re of Service of Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey Zax on Behalf of Defendant Arizona Secretary of State Janice Brewer by Jan Brewer (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
685 Notice re Coconino County Treasurer's Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
686 Notice re Notice of Service of Response to Subpoena by Ross Jacobs Yavapai County Treasurer (Stoxen, Thomas) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
687 Notice re Service of Response to Subpoena by Patricia Hernandez (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
688 Notice re Pinal County Treasurer's Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Dolores J Doolittle (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
689 Notice re Service by Beth Ford (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
690 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Maricopa County Treasurer Charles Hoskins by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 88 of 126

03/06/2008
03/06/2008
03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008
03/06/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/11/2008
03/11/2008
03/11/2008

Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
691 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to Graham County Treasurer Jean Reynolds by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
692 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Party Discovery to La Paz County Treasurer Ellen Solper by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
693 Notice re Coconino County Defendants' Notice of Service of Supplemental Answers to ITCA Plaintiffs' Second Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
694 Notice re of Service of Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Subpoena by Charles Hoskins (White, Bruce) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
695 REPLY in Support re 616 First MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez PlaintiffsFirst MOTION to Supplement the Record In Support of State Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) (Lack of Standing) Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
696 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara A. Bailey re 695 Reply in Support of Motion, by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
697 Notice re First Notice of Discovery and Settlement by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Maria M Gonzalez, State of Arizona, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation re 642 Scheduling Order, (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
698 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re State Defendants' Withdrawal of Notice of Deposition of Dr. Rodolfo Espino III by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 649 Notice of Deposition (Bailey, Barbara) Modified on 3/11/2008 (DMT, ).INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM OTHER NOTICE TO WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT. (Entered: 03/10/2008)
699 Notice re State Defendants' Withdrawal of Notice of Deposition of Dr. Jorge Chapa by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 654 Notice of Deposition (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
700 NOTICE of Appearance by Barbara Anne Bailey on behalf of Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
701 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
702 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Jorge Chapa by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
703 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Rodolfo Espino by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 89 of 126

03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/12/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008

Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
704 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
705 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
706 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. F. Arturo Rosales by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
707 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
708 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
709 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
710 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
711 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
712 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re 647 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
713 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re 650 Notice of Deposition by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 90 of 126

03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008 03/20/2008
03/20/2008
03/21/2008

714 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven A LaMar on behalf of Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
715 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
716 STATUS REPORT by Consolidated Plaintiffs by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Maria M Gonzalez, Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
717 STATUS REPORT Coconino County Defendants' Status Report by Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
718 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Joint Status Report by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (O'Grady, Mary) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
719 STIPULATION re 642 Scheduling Order, and Request to Modify Expert Discovery Deadlines by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
720 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
721 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Discovery due by 4/4/2008; Dispositive Motions due 04/04/08; Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due 05/30/08. An Interim Rule 16 Status Hearing is scheduled for 03/21/08 at 11:00am. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 03/20/08. (Note: see attached pdf for full details)(ESL) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
722 MOTION for Leave to File to File Surreply to Defs.' Motion to Supp. the Record by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
723 LODGED Proposed Surreply to Defs. Motion to Supp. the Record re: 722 MOTION for Leave to File to File Surreply to Defs.' Motion to Supp. the Record. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
724 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO MAIN DOCUMENT Proposed Proposed Order re: 722 MOTION for Leave to File to File Surreply to Defs.' Motion to Supp. the Record. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED, DOCKET MODIFIED FROM LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT TO ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO MAIN DOUCMENT Modified on 3/21/2008 (ESL). (Entered: 03/20/2008)
725 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Status Hearing held on 3/21/2008. Granting Dfts' 616 Motion to Supplement and Pla's 722 Motion to File a surreply. Order to Issue; taking all remaining motions under advisement. Counsel to

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 91 of 126

03/24/2008 03/24/2008 03/24/2008
03/24/2008 03/24/2008 03/24/2008
03/24/2008
03/24/2008
03/24/2008
03/25/2008

submit a final amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order in accordance with the dates established at this hearing by 03/28/08. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.) (ESL) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
726 ORDER granting the State's 616 Motion to Supplement the Record; granting Pla's 722 Motion for Leave to File a Sur−reply. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 03/24/08.(ESL) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
727 Sur−Reply re 616 Motion to Supplement the Record, filed by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Note: Filed per order 726 ) (ESL) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
728 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Protect Arizona Now, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. for proceedings held on March 21, 2008 before Judge Roslyn Silver. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
729 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
730 Notice re of Service of State Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
731 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
732 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
733 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Response to Second Set of Requests for Production by the State Defendants by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
734 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Response to Third Set of Interrogatories by the State Defendants by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
735 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Status Conference held on 3/21/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 92 of 126

03/25/2008 03/25/2008 03/27/2008
03/27/2008
03/27/2008 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 04/07/2008
04/07/2008
04/07/2008
04/15/2008

through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/15/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/23/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
736 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
737 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona for proceedings held on 03/21/2008 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
738 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
739 ORDER − A Status Conference is set for 3/28/2008 at 10:00 A.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 8/29/2008 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. A Joint Status Report is due to be filed one week in advance of the hearing. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 03/27/2008. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
740 FINAL AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/4/2008. Dispositive motions due by 6/6/2008. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/15/2008. Trial to begin on 07/29/08 Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/27/08. (Note: see attached pdf for full details.(ESL, ) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
741 STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Claims of People for the American Way Foundation by People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Sara) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
742 ORDER − A Status Hearing is set for 08/29/2008 at 9:30 A.M. It is ordered this hearing is VACATED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/01/2008. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
743 ORDER that PFAWF's claims in Case No. CV06−1575−PHX−ROS are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/01/08. (ESL) Modified on 4/9/2008 (LJS). Modified text to reflect case was dismissed without prejudice not with prejudice. (Entered: 04/01/2008)
744 Notice re of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Steve M Gallardo, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
745 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Reports of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
746 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
747 Notice re Service of Third Party Deposition of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 93 of 126

04/15/2008
04/18/2008 04/21/2008 04/28/2008
05/01/2008
05/05/2008
05/05/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008
05/12/2008 05/12/2008

Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
748 Notice re Amended Notice of Third Party Deposition of USCIS Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
749 STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Pending Approval of Changes to Procedures by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
750 ORDER that State Dfts' 433 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) directed to Agnes Laughter is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/18/08.(ESL, ) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
751 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Third Supplemental Expert Report of Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
752 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
753 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreements by A. Gerlicher & K. Baughman)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
754 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Pending Approval of Changes to Polling Place Procedures by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
755 ORDER Parties are to submit briefs by 5/13/08. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/6/08. (LSP) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
756 Notice re Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreements by J. Barton and R. Barnes)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
757 Notice re of Service of Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey Zax by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
758 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Fourth Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 94 of 126

05/12/2008
05/13/2008 05/13/2008 05/13/2008 05/13/2008
05/13/2008
05/13/2008
05/14/2008 05/14/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/20/2008

Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
759 Notice re Service of First Supplement of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
760 Notice re Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
761 BRIEF re 755 Order Impact of Crawford v. Marion Decision by Plaintiffs Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
762 BRIEF re 755 Order Brief by Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State Re: The Impact of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
763 BRIEF re 755 Order ITCA Plaintiffs' Brief Regarding Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
764 Joinder re 762 Brief (Non Appeal) On Impact of Crawford by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
765 BRIEF re 755 Order to Submit Briefs on the Impact of Crawford by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
766 Joinder re 761 Brief (Non Appeal), 763 Brief (Non Appeal), Brief (Non Appeal), Brief (Non Appeal) Defendant Coconino County's Joinder in ITCA and Navajo Nations' Briefs on Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by Defendants Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
767 Joinder in State Defendants' Brief Re: The Impact of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
768 ORDER: Bench Trial set for 7/1/2008 08:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Dispositive motions due by 6/6/2008. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 6/16/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/30/2008 02:30 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. All previous hearing and trial dates are vacated. See Order for further deadlines. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/19/08. (DNH) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
769 STIPULATION Agreement to Extend the Timeframe of the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Dismiss by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation. (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
770 Notice re Service of Second Supplement to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Pursaunt to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 95 of 126

05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/23/2008 05/27/2008
05/27/2008
05/28/2008 05/28/2008

Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
771 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiff ACORN'S First Supplemental Response to Defendants State of Arizona's First Request for Production by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
772 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiff Chicanos por la Causa's 1st Supplemental Response to Defendants State of Arizona's 1st Request for Production by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
773 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiff Chicanos por la Causa's 1st Supplemental Answers to Defendants State of Arizona's 1st Set of Interrogatories by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
774 Notice re of Preclearance of Revised Procedures and Request for Entry of Dismissal by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation re 749 Stipulation of Dismissal (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
775 ORDER granting 749 STIPULATION of Dismissal − Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Pending Approval of Changes to Procedures by. Case No. CV−06−1575−PHX−ROS is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So long as the Revised Procedures remain in force and are effectively implemented, no action that challenges Proposition 200, A.R.S. § 16−579, or the Revised Procedures on their face or as applied may be brought by Plaintiffs or any of them against Defendants or any of them and any such action shall be subject to dismissal. The parties agree that each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs incurred in this action. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/27/08. (DNH) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
776 ORDER granting 754 Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Pending Approval of Changes to Polling Place Procedures. ITCA and Hopi Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice as to the Procedures and the polling place identification requirementsof A.R.S. § 16−579 only. This Order does not dismiss any claims or allegations set forth in the Complaint challenging the proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration. As long as the Revised Procedures remain in force and are effectively implemented at the polls, the ITCA and Hopi Plaintiffs shall not re−file any claims dismissed by this Order or file any other action or complaint against the State Defendants that challenges the Revised Procedures or the polling place identification requirements of A.R.S. § 16−579, on their face or as applied. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/27/08. (DNH) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
777 Notice re Service of Third Supplemental to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (a)(1) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
778 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Jorge Chapa by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 96 of 126

05/28/2008
05/29/2008 05/30/2008
05/30/2008
06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008
06/05/2008 06/05/2008
06/06/2008 06/06/2008

Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
779 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Second Rebuttal Expert Reports by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
780 Notice re of Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Debbie Lopez by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 434 MOTION to Dismiss Party Gonzalez Plaintiffs (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
781 MOTION to Continue by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
782 First MOTION to Amend/Correct re Dkt. 768 Scheduling Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
783 ORDER denying 781 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/02/08.(DNH) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
784 ORDER denying 782 Motion to Extension. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/02/08.(DNH) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
785 Notice re Change of Email Address by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc (Sparks, Joe) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
786 Notice re ITCA Plaintiffs' Final Pretrial Disclosure Statement by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
787 Notice re Pretrial Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Gonzalez Witness List, # 2 Gonzalez Exhibit List)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
788 Notice re Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State's Final Pretrial Disclosures by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Witness List, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit List)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
789 Notice re of Rule 26(3) Disclosure by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
790 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to ITCA Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
791 STATEMENT of Separate Statement of Facts re 790 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to ITCA Plaintiffs by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Bailey, Barbara)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 97 of 126

06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008

(Entered: 06/06/2008)
792 DECLARATION of Declaration of Counsel re 791 Statement, 790 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to ITCA Plaintiffs by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tabs 1−6)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
793 First MOTION for Summary Judgment resubmiited w/proposed order by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
794 Notice re Service of Fourth Supplemental to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
795 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Richard Engstrom by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
796 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
797 Notice re Service of Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
798 Notice re Service of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Fifth Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Louis Lanier by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
799 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
800 STATEMENT of Separate Statement of Facts re 799 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
801 DECLARATION of Declaration of Counsel by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
802 DECLARATION of Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Zax by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
803 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum by Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell. (Connor, M) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
804 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Karen Osborne, Helen Purcell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Connor, M) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 98 of 126

06/09/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/11/2008 06/13/2008
06/13/2008 06/13/2008
06/13/2008 06/13/2008
06/14/2008
06/14/2008

805 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas David Espiritu on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX072139 as to Nicholas David Espiritu. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
806 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 805 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
807 Joinder of Defendants Gilbert Hoyos and Laura Dean−Lytle in the Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs by State Defendants and Memorandum in Support Thereof and the Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment by Defendant Maricopa County by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
808 First MOTION for to File Non−Electronic Exhibits in Support of Consolidated Response to Motions for Summary Judgment and Additional Facts by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
809 RESPONSE re 791 Statement ITCA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS BY DEFENDANT ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
810 DECLARATION re 809 Response, DECLARATION OF KAREN J. HARTMAN−TELLEZ by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 20 PART 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 through 20 PART 2, # 3 Exhibit 21 through 40 PART 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits 21 through 40 PART 2)(Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
811 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 810 Declaration, Exhibits 41 through 53 PART 1 by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 41 through 53 PART 2, # 2 Exhibit 54 through 58, # 3 Exhibit 59 through 66, # 4 Exhibit 67 through 69)(Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
812 RESPONSE in Opposition re 790 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to ITCA Plaintiffs RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIRECTED TO THE ITCA PLAINTIFFS BY DEFENDANT ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
813 RESPONSE in Opposition re 799 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs, 803 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Consolidated Response filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/14/2008)
814 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Motions for Summary Judgment by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 99 of 126

06/14/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008

Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/14/2008)
815 RESPONSE re 800 Statement, 804 Statement by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/14/2008)
816 ORDER granting 808 Motion to File Exhibits Non−Electronically FURTHER ORDERED allowing Gonzalez Plaintiffs to file under separate cover non−electronic exhibits to Gonzalez Plaintiffs Consolidated Factual Response FURTHER ORDERED that Gonzalez Plaintiffs will deliver a hard copy and CDs of the exhibits to this Courts chambers on 6/16/08 FURTHER ORDERED that Gonzalez Plaintiffs will deliver CDs of the exhibits to counsel for the other parties on 6/16/08. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/16/08.(MAP) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
817 MOTION in Limine re: Acorn Survey Forms by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
818 MOTION in Limine re: motion in limine re: pending criminal cases by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
819 MOTION in Limine Regarding Untimely Disclosures by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit Two)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
820 MOTION in Limine plaintiff expert opinions by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
821 MOTION in Limine Regarding Late Disclosure of Witnesses by Shelly Baker, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
822 MOTION in Limine re: deposition testimony of Arturo Rosales and Agnes Laughter by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 100 of 126

06/16/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/18/2008

Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
823 MOTION in Limine Regarding Exclusion of Untimely Evidence by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
824 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, John McCall, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Steve Kizer, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Maria M Gonzalez, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Laurette Justman, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A part 1, # 2 Exhibit A part 2, # 3 Exhibit A part 3, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
825 MOTION in Limine re: Strike Exhibits by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G, # 2 Exhibit H− Part 1, # 3 Exhibit H− Part 2, # 4 Exhibit H− Part 3)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
826 ORDER granting 814 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/17/08.(MAP) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
827 MOTION for Leave to File supplement motion in limine regarding untimely disclosures by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
828 LODGED Proposed re: 827 MOTION for Leave to File supplement motion in limine regarding untimely disclosures. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Candace Owens, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
829 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Re: Acorn Survey Forms by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 101 of 126

06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008
06/18/2008
06/18/2008 06/18/2008
06/18/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008
06/18/2008 06/19/2008

830 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding Pending Criminal Investigations by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
831 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Disclosures by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
832 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Re: Plaintiffs Expert Opinions by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
833 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Re: Deposition Testimony of Arturo Rosales and Agnes Laughter by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
834 Joinder in State Defendants' and County Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Disclosures by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
835 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Marisol L. Perez by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perez, Marisol) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
836 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Marisa Bono by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bono, Marisa) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 200, receipt number PHX072479 as to Marisa Bono, Marisol L Perez. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
837 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 835 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 836 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
838 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and Conclusions of Law by Twelve County Defendants, Defendant Pinal County and by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
839 OBJECTION Re Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Objections to Exhibits and Depositions by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
840 Joinder to State's Objecitons to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Exhibits and Depositions by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
841 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
842 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 102 of 126

06/20/2008
06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008

Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
843 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Proposed Findings of Fact by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
844 LODGED Proposed Amended Proposed Findings of Fact re: 843 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Proposed Findings of Fact. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
845 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED Defendants' 827 Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/20/08. (SAT) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
846 SUPPLEMENT to 823 MOTION in Limine Regarding Exclusion of Untimely Evidence by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(SAT) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
847 ORDER − On consideration of Gonzalez Plaintiffs' 843 Motion for Leave to File Amended Proposed Findings of Fact, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gonzalez Plaintiffs may file an Amended Proposed Findings of Fact. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/20/08. (SAT) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
848 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (Amended) by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (SAT) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
849 Joinder in the State and County Defendants' Supplement to Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Disclosures by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
850 Joinder in the State Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Objections to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Exhibits and Depositions by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
851 MOTION to Strike re Portions of ITCA's Factual Submission in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
852 REPLY in Support re 790 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to ITCA Plaintiffs filed by Jan Brewer. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
853 REPLY in Support re 803 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Regarding Defendant's Joinder To State's Reply and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 103 of 126

06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008
06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008
06/23/2008 06/24/2008
06/24/2008

Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
854 MOTION to Strike re Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Factual Submissions in Resposne to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
855 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Exceed Page Limits by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
856 REPLY in Support re 799 MOTION for Summary Judgment Directed to Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
857 Joinder re 854 MOTION to Strike re Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Factual Submissions in Resposne to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State Defendants' Joinder To State Defendants' Motion To Strike by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
858 ORDER that plas shall file a response to dfts' motions to strike ( 851 and 854 ) by 6/24/08. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/23/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
859 ORDER granting dft's 855 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/23/2008.(LAD) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
860 ORDER terminating 819 Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Disclosures. (See order for details). Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/23/2008.(LAD) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
861 Joinder in the State Defendants' Reply in Support of State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to the Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
862 OBJECTION re 825 MOTION in Limine re: Strike Exhibits Defendants' Objection to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
863 RESPONSE in Opposition re 822 MOTION in Limine re: deposition testimony of Arturo Rosales and Agnes Laughter filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
864 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for AND TO FILE CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
865 LODGED Proposed Response to Motions in Limine re: 864 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for AND TO FILE CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 104 of 126

06/24/2008 06/24/2008
06/24/2008 06/25/2008
06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008

granted. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
866 ORDER granting 864 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and to File Consolidated Response. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/24/08.(MAP) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
867 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE to Motions in Limine: 822 MOTION in Limine re: deposition testimony of Arturo Rosales and Agnes Laughter; 818 MOTION in Limine re: motion in limine re: pending criminal cases; 820 MOTION in Limine plaintiff expert opinions; 817 MOTION in Limine re: Acorn Survey Forms; 823 MOTION in Limine re Exclusion of Untimely Evidence; 821 MOTION in Limine re Late Disclosure of Witnesses; 825 MOTION in Limine re: Strike Exhibits; 819 MOTION in Limine re Untimely Disclosures filed by Jesus M Gonzalez, Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A, #(2) Exhibit B, #(3) Exhibit C, #(4) Exhibit D, #(5) Exhibit E)(MAP) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
868 RESPONSE in Opposition re 851 MOTION to Strike re Portions of ITCA's Factual Submission in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
869 MOTION for Leave to File Correct Document and Respond to Motion to Strike by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
870 LODGED Proposed Corrected Response to Motions for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit corrected statement of facts, # 2 Exhibit corrected exhibit list)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
871 DECLARATION of of Nina Perales in support of Motion for Leave to File Corrected Documents and Response to Motion to Strike by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
872 DECLARATION of of John Amaya in Support of Motion for Leave to File Corrected Documents and Respond to Motion to Strike by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
873 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits in Non−Electronic Form by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
874 REPLY in Support re 854 MOTION to Strike re Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Factual Submissions in Resposne to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
875 Notice re Waiver of Appearance at Trial by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
876 ORDER re 851 MOTION to Strike re Portions of ITCA's Factual Submission: ORDERED that dfts shall file a reply by 10:00 a.m. on 6/27/08. In that reply, they shall address, among other things, whether plas' expert reports are unreliable under Fed.R.Evid. 703. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/26/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
877 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Witness List by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 105 of 126

06/26/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008
06/27/2008
06/27/2008 06/30/2008 06/30/2008 06/30/2008
06/30/2008 06/30/2008

878 LODGED Proposed Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Amended Witness List re: 877 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Witness List. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maria M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
879 REPLY in Support re 851 MOTION to Strike re Portions of ITCA's Factual Submission in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Jan Brewer. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
880 DECLARATION of Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Zax in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike ITCA Plaintiffs' Factual Submission re 879 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
881 ORDER that Dfts shall file a list detailing the specific bases of its objections to Plas' facts and exhibits by 12:00 p.m. on 06/30/08. Plaintiffs shall file a response by 12:00 p.m. on 07/02/08. Dfts shall file a reply by 12:00 p.m. on 07/03/08. The Court's decision on the motion for summary judgment will follow, and, assuming the motion is denied: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the trial will begin at 8:30 a.m. on 07/08/08. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Final Pretrial Conference, set for June 30, 2008, is VACATED, and will not be rescheduled. Bench Trial set for 7/8/2008 08:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/27/08. (DNH) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
882 OBJECTION re 877 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Witness List Defendants' Objection To Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Witness List by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letters)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
883 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 434 Motion to Dismiss Party. Maria Gonzalez, Naeem Abdul−Kareem and Luciano Valencia are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/27/08.(DNH) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
884 ORDER by 12:00 p.m. on 07/03/08, Plaintiffs shall: (1) identify whether each cause of action above is a facial or as−applied challenge; (2) if as−applied, identify to which Plaintiff(s) it is applied; and (3) provide specific citation to the complaint for each of the above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by 5:00 p.m. on 07/03/08, Defendants may file a response. No reply shall be allowed.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/30/08. (DNH) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
885 Notice re Of Specific Objections to Plaintiff Exhibits and Statements of Asserted Fact on Summary Judgment by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona re 881 Order, Set Hearings, Terminate Hearings,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1 Part 1, # 2 Errata Tab 1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Tab 2)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
886 Joinder To State's Objections to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Exhibits To Motion For Summary Judgment by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Gilberto Hoyos, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
887 Joinder to State Defendants' Notice of Specific Objections to Plaintiff Exhibits and Statements of Asserted Fact on Summary Judgment by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
888 MOTION for Leave to File Response in Oppositon to Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of ITCA's Summary Judgment Evidence by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 106 of 126

06/30/2008
06/30/2008 06/30/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/02/2008 07/02/2008
07/02/2008
07/02/2008

889 LODGED Proposed Gonzalez Pls Response in Opposition to Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of ITCA's Pls Summary Judgment Evidence re: 888 MOTION for Leave to File Response in Oppositon to Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of ITCA's Summary Judgment Evidence. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C−D)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
890 MOTION for Sanctions against Yuma County Defendants in the Form of Adverse Inference for Spoliation of Evidence by Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
891 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 890 MOTION for Sanctions against Yuma County Defendants in the Form of Adverse Inference for Spoliation of Evidence Exhibits by Plaintiff Maria M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−7, # 2 Exhibit 8, # 3 Exhibit 9, # 4 Exhibit 10−12, # 5 Exhibit 13−15, # 6 Exhibit 16a, # 7 Exhibit 16b−18)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
892 ORDER granting 888 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/01/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
893 ORDER that Defendants shall file a response to 890 Plaintiff's MOTION for Sanctions against Yuma County Defendants in the Form of Adverse Inference for Spoliation of Evidence. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/01/08. (DNH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
894 ORDER denying 869 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/01/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
895 ORDER denying 890 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/01/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
896 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED Doc 895 dated 7/1/2008 in relation to Doc 890 Motion for Sanctions is VACATED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/01/2008. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
900 GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 879 Reply in Support of Motion 851 to Strike Portions of ITCA's Factual Submisission by (DNH) Modified on 7/3/2008 to Correct Docket text Modified on 7/3/2008 (DNH). (Entered: 07/02/2008)
897 ORDER that Order 894 is VACATED FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File 869 shall be reinstated FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions 890 shall be reinstated. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/1/08. (MAP) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
898 RESPONSE re 885 Other Notice, Defendants' Notice of Specific Objections by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
899 RESPONSE in Opposition re 851 MOTION to Strike re Portions of ITCA's Factual Submission in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Notice of Defendants' Specific Objections filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
901 RESPONSE to Motion re 890 MOTION for Sanctions against Yuma County Defendants in the Form of Adverse Inference for Spoliation of Evidence Yuma County Defendants' Response to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Motion For Sanctions filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 107 of 126

07/02/2008
07/02/2008
07/03/2008 07/03/2008
07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008
07/03/2008 07/03/2008
07/03/2008 07/03/2008

Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit RFP Document)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
902 STIPULATION BY GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS AND COCONINO COUNTY DEFENDANTS by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
903 STIPULATION BY GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS AND NAVAJO COUNTY DEFENDANTS by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
904 Notice re Notice Regarding Specific Legal Challenges by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
905 Notice re Remaining Claims by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
906 OBJECTION re 902 Stipulation, between Gonzalez Plaintiffs and Coconino County Defendants by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
907 OBJECTION re 903 Stipulation, between Gonzalez Plaintiffs and Navajo County Defendants by Defendant State of Arizona. (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
908 Notice re of Reply In Support of Notice of Specific Objections by Jan Brewer (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 3)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
909 Notice re of Reply in Support of Specific Objections to Gonzalez Plaintiffs Exhibits by Jan Brewer, Allen Tempert re 885 Other Notice, (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
910 STIPULATION Re Authenticity and Admissibility of Trial Exhibits by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
911 OBJECTION to Stipulation Re Authenticity And Admissibility of Trial Exhibits by Defendant Jan Brewer. (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
912 STIPULATION re Authenticity and Admissibility of Trial Exhibits by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Candace Owens, Patty Hansen. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
913 BRIEF re 884 Order, re Position of Defendants on Facial vs. As−Applied Challenges Asserted by Gonzalez and ITCA Plaintiffs by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
914 ORDER that all parties shall seek to introduce all evidence upon which they reply in making their case on the merits regardless of whether it was introduced at the preliminary injunction hearing. The Court will decide at the time if the evidence is admissible. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/3/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 07/03/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 108 of 126

07/03/2008 07/03/2008
07/03/2008
07/03/2008
07/07/2008 07/07/2008 07/07/2008 07/07/2008 07/07/2008 07/08/2008
07/08/2008

915 Notice re of Objection to Stipulation re Authenticity and Admissibility of Trial Exhibits by Jan Brewer re 912 Stipulation, (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
916 Joinder re 911 Objection, 907 Objection Twelve County Defendants' Joinder To State Defendants' Objection To Stipulation Re Authenticity and Admissibility Of Trial Exhibits by Defendants John McCall, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
917 Joinder re 913 Brief (Non Appeal) Twelve County Defendants' Joinder To State Defendants' Position On Facial VS. As−Applied Challenges Asserted By Gonzalez Plaintiffs by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
918 Joinder re 911 Objection, 907 Objection Twelve County Defendants' Joinder To State Defendants' Reply In Support of Specific Objections To Gonzalez Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Exhibits by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, State of Arizona, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
919 TEXT ONLY Minute Order− The Bench Trial set for 7/8/2008 at 8:30 AM has been RESET for 7/9/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. This is a change in date AND time. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
920 MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: to Administer Oath to Subpoenaed Witnesses by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
921 Joinder to State Defendants' Reply in Support of Notice of Specific Objections to Gonzalez Plaintiff Exhibits and Statements of Asserted Fact on Summary Judgment by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
922 Joinder to State Defendants' Position on Facial vs. As−Applied Challenges Asserted by Gonzalez and ITCA Plaintiffs by Defendants Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. (Roll, Chris) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
923 ORDER denying 920 Motion for Hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any subpoenas previously issued and served in this matter remain in effect and are answerable at the new trial date and the party who served the subpoena should advise the witnesses of the new trial date. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/7/08.(CLB) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
924 MOTION to Quash by Defendants Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Connor, M) Modified on 7/8/2008 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "OBJECTION" TO "MOTION". (Entered: 07/08/2008)
925 MOTION for Leave to Introduce Testimony by Hearing Transcript by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 109 of 126

07/08/2008 07/08/2008 07/08/2008
07/08/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008

07/08/2008)
926 TEXT ONLY Minute Order − IT IS ORDERED the Bench Trial set for 7/9/2008 at 9:30 AM has been RESET for 7/9/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. THIS IS A CHANGE IN TIME ONLY! IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any subpoenas previously issued and served in this matter remain in effect and are answerable at the new trial time and the party who served the subpoena should advise the witnesses of the new trial time. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
927 Notice re Submission of Revised Witness List and Notice of Erratum Re List of Trial Counsel by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
928 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED Dfts' 924 Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The subpoenas for Helen Purcell and Ann Rodriguez are quashed. However, Dfts shall work with Plas to try to stipulate to their relevant testimony. FURTHER ORDERED Plas' 925 Motion for Leave to Introduce Testimony by Hearing Transcript is GRANTED provided that Dfts do not object when the transcript testimony is offered at trial or cannot establish prejudice from its introduction. FURTHER ORDERED Plas' 890 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED Plas' 877 Motion to File Amended Witness List is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED Plas' 873 Motion to File Exhibits Non− Electronically is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED Plas' 869 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Document is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 817 Motion in Limine re: Acorn Survey Forms is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 818 Motion in Limine re: Pending Criminal Cases is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 820 Motion in Limine re: Plas' Expert Opinions is DENIED unless the expert offered untimely disclosed new opinions. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 821 Motion in Limine re: Late Disclosure of Witnesses is GRANTED. Plas' explanation of the late disclosure was insufficient to excuse their lateness. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 822 Motion in Limine re: Agnes Laughter and Arturo Rosales is DENIED as to Agnes Laughter as long as she is not testifying in person. The Court notes Plas have withdrawn the deposition of Arturo Rosales. FURTHER ORDERED Dfts' 823 and doc #846 Motions in Limine re: Untimely Evidence are DENIED. IT IS ORDERED Plas' 825 Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (1) "list of individuals about whom USCIS requested information regarding voter registration and voting history": GRANTED; (2) "list of individuals whose voter registrations were cancelled upon notification by the jury commissioner that the individuals were convicted felons": DENIED; (3) "list of the number of voter registration forms submitted by Petition Partners and rate of acceptability": GRANTED; and (4) "court records of the following cases involving election−related crimes": GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART(a) exhibits related to Rouse, to convicted felons, and to persons accused but not convicted are GRANTED; (b) exhibits related to persons that were convicted or pled guilty to "presentment of false instrument" are DENIED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/8/08. (SAT) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
929 MOTION for Admit Deposition Testimony and Declarations by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 part1, # 3 Exhibit 2 part 2, # 4 Exhibit 3 part 1, # 5 Exhibit 3 part 2, # 6 Exhibit 3 part 3, # 7 Exhibit 3 part 4, # 8 Exhibit 4 and 5, # 9 Exhibit 6 part 1, # 10 Exhibit 6 part 2, # 11 Exhibit 6 part 3, # 12 Exhibit 7 part 1, # 13 Exhibit 7 part 2, # 14 Exhibit 7 part 3, # 15 Exhibit 8 part 1, # 16 Exhibit 8 part 2, # 17 Exhibit 8 part 3, # 18 Exhibit 9 part 1, # 19 Exhibit 9 part 2, # 20 Exhibit 10−13, # 21 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
930 Notice re Agreement to Postpone Subpoenas by Jesus M Gonzalez (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
931 MOTION for Reconsideration re ORDER EXCLUDING TRIAL WITNESSES by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 110 of 126

07/09/2008 07/09/2008
07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/10/2008
07/10/2008

Diego) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
932 ORDER (re 929 , 931 ) that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs motions by 12:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08. (MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
933 STIPULATION Gonzalez Plaintiffs' and Twelve County Defendants' Stipulation re Authenticity and Withdrawal of Subpoenas by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Susan Hightower Marler, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John, Bernie Abeytia, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
934 RESPONSE to Motion re 929 MOTION for Admit Deposition Testimony and Declarations filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
935 RESPONSE to Motion re 931 MOTION for Reconsideration re ORDER EXCLUDING TRIAL WITNESSES filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
936 ORDER that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 790 , 799 and 803 are denied without prejudice and may be subject to reurging at the end ofthe trial as Rule 52(c) motions. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
937 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 929 Motion to Admit Depositions and Declarations. Morrison−Flores deposition is admissible, but her declarations are not. Quinn and Ratliffs deposition are admissible. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
938 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 851 Motion to Strike Gonzalez Plaintiffs Factual Submissions in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
939 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 854 Motion to Strike ITCA Plaintiffs Factual Submissions in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
940 ORDER granting in part 931 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will allow deposition testimony from Quinn and Ratliff. See Order for Full Details. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/9/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
942 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial begun on 7/9/2008. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.)(CLB) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
941 Notice re Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Advisory to the Court by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
943 Notice re of Filing Agreements to Abide by Stipulation and Protective Order by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreement to Abide by Stipulation and Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 111 of 126

07/10/2008
07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008
07/11/2008
07/11/2008
07/11/2008
07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/15/2008
07/15/2008

944 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona for proceedings held on 7/9/2008, 7/10/2008 before Judge Silver. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
945 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial (Day 2) held on 7/10/2008. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.)(MAP) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
946 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona for proceedings held on July 9−10, 2008 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
947 STIPULATION by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
948 STIPULATION by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
949 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 1 held on 7/9/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Laurie A Adams. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/1/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
951 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Trial to the Court held on 7/10/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/1/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
950 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
952 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
953 Notice re Withdrawal by Jesus M Gonzalez re 947 Stipulation, 948 Stipulation, (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
954 Notice re Supplemental Material re Lay Witnesses by Jesus M Gonzalez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 and A−L)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
955 MOTION for Admit Exhibits by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
956 MOTION for Admission of Stipulated Exhibits by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
957 OBJECTION to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Questioned Lay Witnesses filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Susan Hightower Marler, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, LeNora Johnson, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
958 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona for

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 112 of 126

07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/16/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008

proceedings held on 7/15/2008 before Judge Silver. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
959 MOTION for Admission of State Produced Exhibits by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
960 MOTION for Admission of Exhibits Produced by Coconino and Navajo Counties by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
967 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial (Day 3) held on 7/15/2008. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(CLB) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
961 MOTION for Replacement of Docket Nos. 955 and 956 by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
962 LODGED Proposed corrected motion re: 955 MOTION for Admit Exhibits. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
963 LODGED Proposed corrected motion re: 956 MOTION for Admission of Stipulated Exhibits. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
964 NOTICE of Change of Address by Neil Bradley (Bradley, Neil) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
965 MOTION for Reconsideration re Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Strike and Motion to Admit Exhibits Into Evidence by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
966 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits Into Evidence by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
968 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona for proceedings held on July 15−16, 2008 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (O'Grady, Mary) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
969 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona for proceedings held on 7/16/2008 before Judge Silver. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
970 MOTION for Admission of exhibits that are public records or have had foundation established by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
975 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial (Day 4)held on 7/16/2008. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(CLB) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
971 RESPONSE to Motion re 965 MOTION for Reconsideration re Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Strike and Motion to Admit Exhibits Into Evidence filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
972 ORDER granting 961 Motion for Replacement. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/17/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
973 MOTION to Admit Exhibits into Evidence by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Motion replacing 955 ) (DNH) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 113 of 126

07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008
07/18/2008 07/18/2008
07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008

974 MOTION to Admit Stipulated Exhibits into Evidence by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Motion replacing 956 ) (DNH) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
976 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona for proceedings held on 7/17/2008 before Judge Silver. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
977 Notice re Withdrawal of Motions by Jesus M Gonzalez (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
978 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial (Day 5) held on 7/17/2008. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(CLB) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
980 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 3 held on 7/15/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/7/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/18/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/15/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
979 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona for proceedings held on July 17−18, 2008 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
981 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
982 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Bench Trial (Day 6) completed on 7/18/2008. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(CLB) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
983 ORDER That the Notice of Withdrawal 978 is granted. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated motion for admission of exhibits on 7/18/08, and Defendants shall file a response on 7/21/08. FURTHER ORDERED terminating the fiollowing motions: 960 ; 965 ; 966 ; 970 ; 973 ; and 974 . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/18/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
984 ORDER granting 959 Motion to Admit State−Produced Exhibits into Evidence FURTHER ORDERED that the following Gonzalez Plaintiffs trial exhibits are entered into evidence: See Order for List of Exhibits. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/18/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
985 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 5 A.M. Session held on 7/17/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Candy L Potter. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/8/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/18/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/16/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
986 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
987 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Exhibits for Defendants' Motion to Admit Trial Exhibits)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
988 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 987 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits by Defendants Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
989 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 114 of 126

07/18/2008 990 MOTION for Admission of Exhibits not objected to by County and State Defendants by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 991 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al (DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 992 Exhibit List by Defendants State of Arizona, et al. (DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 993 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs − Gonzalez, et al.(DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 994 Witness List by Defendants − Jan Brewer, et al (DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 995 Witness List by Plaintiffs − Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al(DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 996 Witness List by Plaintiffs − Gonzalez, et al (DNH) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 997 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Maricopa County by State of Arizona for proceedings held on July 15−16, 2008 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Connor, M) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008

998 MOTION for Admission of ITCA Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008

999 MOTION to Seal Document Trial Exhibits by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008

1000

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona for proceedings held on 7/18/08 before Judge Silver. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 1001 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/21/2008

1002

ORDER granting 989 Motion for Admission of Trial Exhibits. Trial exhibits 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1123, 1124, 1128, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1144, 1145, 1148, 1149, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1191*, 1193, 1198, 1202, 1203, 1205, 1207, 1208, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1343a−1343q, 1346, 1347 and 1351 are admitted. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/18/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008 1003 ORDER granting 999 Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits. FURTHER the uncounted conditional provisional ballots attached to Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 967 and 968 are admitted into evidence under seal. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/21/08.(MAP) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008 1004 RESPONSE to Motion re 998 MOTION for Admission of ITCA Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits filed by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart with Objections)(Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008

1005

ORDER granting 990 Motion Admit Exhibits Not Objected To. The following Gonzalez Plaintiffs' trial exhibits are entered into evidence: 8, 241, 252, 278, 319, 321, 404, 405, 445, 446, 447, 450, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606,609, 627, 647, 330, 218, 245, 246, 204, 9, 42, 210, 214, 215, 218, 219, 221, 223, 225, 241, 243, 246, 247, 249, 252, 257, 258, 263, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, 274, 276, 280, 281, 282, 284, 292, 294, 337, 410, 417, 436, 446, 447, 472, 502, 515, 518, 631, 632, 635, 123, 226, 442, 248, 251, 253, 303, 318, 443, 444, 453, 454, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 451, 452, 624, 625, 626, 622, 623, 406, 486, 240, 152, 14, 98, 420, 314, 24, 25, 39, 100, 101, 108, 114, 131, 316, 500, 511, 562, 584, 585, 586, 588, 620, 670,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 115 of 126

700, 702, 715, 718, 960. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/21/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008 1006 RESPONSE to Motion re 1001 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1 − Chart)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008 1007 MOTION for admission of deposition testimony by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/21/2008

1008

RESPONSE in Opposition re 987 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/22/2008

1009

STIPULATION to Admit Deposition Designations by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Project Vote, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

07/22/2008

1010

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 4 held on 7/16/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/12/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/22/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/20/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

07/22/2008 1011 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

07/22/2008

1012

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 5 held on 7/17/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/12/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/22/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/20/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

07/22/2008 1013 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

07/23/2008 1014 ORDER granting 1009 Stipulation: The depositions listed in this order are admitted into the trial record. See Order for list. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/22/08. (DNH) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

07/23/2008 1015 ORDER denying as moot 1007 Motion for Admission of Deposition Testimony. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/22/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

07/23/2008

1016

MOTION for Clarification by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Project Vote, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

07/24/2008 1017 ORDER granting 1016 Motion for Clarification. The Court hereby clarifies that the deposition designations of Georgia Morrison−Flores, Gerri Ratliff and Michael Quinn were admitted into the trial record.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/24/08.(DNH) (Entered: 07/24/2008)

07/25/2008

1018

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 3 AMENDED held on 7/15/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/15/2008.

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 116 of 126

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008 1019 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

1020

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Bench Trial Day 6 held on 7/18/08 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/15/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008 1021 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

1022

TRIAL BRIEF Twelve County Defendants' Closing Argument by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Jan Brewer, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, LeNora Johnson, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008 1023 TRIAL BRIEF Closing Argument by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Bailey, Barbara) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

1024

TRIAL BRIEF Post Trial Brief and Notice of Filing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008 1025 Proposed Findings of Fact by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

1026

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Post Trial Memorandum by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

1027

LODGED Proposed Post Trial Memorandum re: 1026 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Post Trial Memorandum. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Georgia Morrison Flores, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Valle Del Sol, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/28/2008

1028

ORDER − The Court considered Gonzalez Plaintiffs' 1026 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit in their Post−Trial Memorandum. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gonzalez Plaintiffs' post−trial memorandum that was filed as a lodged proposed document shall be entered with the Court. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/28/08. (SAT) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

07/28/2008 1029 GONZALEZ Plaintiffs' POST−TRIAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (SAT) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

07/29/2008 1030 Proposed Findings of Fact by Jesus M Gonzalez, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 07/29/2008)

07/30/2008

1031

RESPONSE to Motion re 1026 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Post Trial Memorandum Twelve County Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Post−trial Memorandum filed by Shelly Baker, Berta Manuz, Christine Rhodes, Lynn A Constabile, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Susan Hightower Marlar, Linda Haught Ortega, Patti Madrill, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Brad R Nelson, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz,

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 117 of 126

Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo, Wendy John. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

07/30/2008 1032 TRIAL BRIEF RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' CLOSING ARGUMENTS by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

07/30/2008 1033 BRIEF re 1023 Trial Brief Consolidated Response to Closing Arguments by State and County Defendants by Plaintiff Jesus M Gonzalez filed by Jesus M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

07/30/2008 1034 TRIAL BRIEF Post−Trial Response by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Hartman, Karen) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

07/31/2008

1035

Notice re Plaintiffs' Joint Advisory to the Court regarding cases in which Jeffrey Zax has testified by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/31/2008)

08/01/2008

1036

MOTION to Amend/Correct re Post−Trial Mem. by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit Strike/Underline Copy, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 08/01/2008)

08/01/2008

1037

LODGED Proposed Corrected Post−Trial Mem. re: 1036 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Post−Trial Mem.. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 08/01/2008)

08/01/2008 1038 RESPONSE to Motion re 1036 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Post−Trial Mem. filed by Jan Brewer, State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Brennan, Carrie) (Entered: 08/01/2008)

08/04/2008

1039

REPLY in Support re 1036 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Post−Trial Mem. filed by Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−I)(Bernal, Diego) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/20/2008 1040 ORDER granting Gonzalez Plas' 1036 Motion to Amend Post−Trial Brief. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/20/08.(ESL) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

08/20/2008 1041 ORDER: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on behalf of the Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be terminated. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/20/08. (ESL) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

08/20/2008 1042 CLERK'S JUDGMENT that pursuant to the Court's order filed 08/20/08, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to takenothing, and complaint and action are dismissed. (ESL) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

09/04/2008 1043 Joint MOTION to Reopen Case to Reflect Admission of Exhibits by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Jesus M Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 118 of 126

09/08/2008 1044 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1001 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits by Jesus M Gonzalez. FURTHER ORDERED the ruling on each specific exhibit is as follows: (See Order for detailed list) Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 09/08/08. (DNH) (Entered: 09/08/2008)

09/16/2008

1045

NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit re 1041 ORDER, 1042 Judgment, by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Project Vote, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Maria M Gonzalez, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 09700000000002224965. (Perales, Nina) Modified on 9/18/2008 (SAT). DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO ADD DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/18/2008 1046 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 1045 Notice of Appeal (SAT) (Entered: 09/18/2008)

09/19/2008

1047

NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit re 1041 Order, 1042 Judgment, by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 09700000000002237488. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement)(Hartman, Karen) Modified on 9/19/2008 (SAT). DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO ADD DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 09/19/2008)

09/19/2008 1048 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 1047 Notice of Appeal (SAT) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

09/22/2008

CADS Sent re 1047 Notice of Appeal: Civil Appeals docketing sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (DNH) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

09/25/2008 1049 Ninth Circuit Case Number 08−17094 for 1045 Notice of Appeal. (DNH) (Entered: 09/25/2008)

09/29/2008 1050 Ninth Circuit Case Number 08−17094 for 1045 Notice of Appeal. (LSP) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1051 ORDER that the ITCA Plas' 998 MOTION for Admission of Trial Exhibits is DENIED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 09/30/08. (ESL/ll) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1052 Ninth Circuit Case Number 08−17115 for 1047 Notice of Appeal. (LSP) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

10/02/2008 1053 Ninth Circuit Case Number 08−17115 for 1047 Notice of Appeal. (LSP) (Entered: 10/02/2008)

10/23/2008 1054 ORDER denying as moot 1043 Motion to Reopen Case to Reflect Admission of Exhibits. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/23/08.(DMT, ) (Entered: 10/23/2008)

12/08/2008

1055

ORDER of 9th Circuit, appeal case number 08−17094 and 08−17115, as to 1045 Notice of Appeal, and 1047 Notice of Appeal. Appelants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. Opening brief in 08−17094 due 01/20/09 answering brief due 02/19/09; optional reply brief due 14 days after service of the ansering brief. (ESL) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

02/03/2009

1056

ORDER of 9th Circuit, as to 1045 Notice of Appeal and 1047 Notice of Appeal, appeal case numbers 08−17094 and 08−17115. The unopposed motion for leave to file opening brief out of time is granted. The opening brief in no. 08−17094 already received is ordered filed. The answering brief for no. 08−17094 is due 03/02/09. The optional reply brief for no. 08−17094 is due 14 days after service of the answering brief for no. 08−17094.(ESL) (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/25/2009 1057 ORDER of 9th Circuit that Appellees' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file an answering brief for no. 08−17094 is granted. The answering brief in no. 08−17094 is due 3/23/09 re appeal case number 08−17094 and 08−17115, as to 1045

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 119 of 126

Notice of Appeal and 1047 Notice of Appeal.(TLJ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

03/04/2009 1058 ORDER of 9th Circuit, remaining briefing schedule reset; re appeal case number 08−17094 and 08−17115, as to 1045 Notice of Appeal and 1047 Notice of Appeal. (cc: BAS) (LSP) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

04/10/2009

1059

ORDER of 9th Circuit, appeal case number 08−17094; 08−17115, as to 1045 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jesus M Gonzalez, et al. and 1047 Notice of Appeal, filed by League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, et al.. Appellants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief for no. 08−17094 is granted. The reply brief for no. 08−17094 is due 04/13/09. Court records do not currently reflect that the district court has issued the certificate of record. Appellant shall monitor the issuance of the certificate of record. (ESL) (Entered: 04/10/2009)

05/12/2009 1060 ORDER of 9th Circuit, appeal case number 08−17094; 08−17115, that appellants' unopposed motion for leave to file a late reply is granted. The reply brief already received is ordered filed as to 1045 Notice of Appeal and 1047 Notice of Appeal. (See document for details). (LAD) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

05/15/2009

1061

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Friendly House, Georgia Morrison Flores, Common Cause, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/20/2009 1062 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 1045 Notice of Appeal, 1047 Notice of Appeal (KMG) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

11/09/2010

1063

NOTICE re Withdrawal of Counsel by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/12/2010 1064 ORDER of USCA, Because a consideration of the relevant factors establishes that Appellants are not entitled to injunctive relief, Appellants' emergency motion is denied, as to 1045 Notice of Appeal(KMG) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

07/21/2011 1065 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Thomas Matthew Collins (Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

06/29/2012 1066 MANDATE of USCA, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court, re 08−17094 and 08−17115 1045 Notice of Appeal, and 1047 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion, # 2 NDA)(KMG) *Modified to add omitted text on 10/23/2012* (REW). (Entered: 06/29/2012)

07/05/2012

1067

ORDER re 1066 USCA Mandate: ORDERED that no later than July 9, 2012, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating what further proceedings, if any, should occur in this Court. If the parties believe further proceedings are necessary, they shall propose specific deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/5/12. (SJF) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/06/2012 1068 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Thomas Lee Hudson. (Hudson, Thomas) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

07/06/2012 1069 NOTICE re Withdrawal of Counsel by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

07/09/2012 1070 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Jason S. Moore appearing for Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman. Attorney Lance B Payette terminated. . (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 07/09/2012)

07/09/2012 1071 *JOINT STATUS REPORT AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY ORDER by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kengle, Robert) *Modified to add motion type on 7/10/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 07/09/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 120 of 126

07/10/2012 1072 *MOTION for Withdrawal of Counsel by Maria M Gonzalez. (Urias, David) *Modified to add motion type on 7/10/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 07/10/2012)

07/11/2012

1073

ORDER that effective as of this date, Defendants shall not reject Federal Forms from those who seek to register to vote for the reason that they have not provided proof of citizenship. See PDF document for details. In the event that this Court's final judgment issues before the Supreme Court's disposition of the Defendants' petition for certiorari, any application for attorneys' fees shall be due within thirty days following the Supreme Court's determination. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order, to address the matters raised by the Parties in their briefs filed pursuant to this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/11/12. (LSP) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/13/2012

1074

BRIEF re 1073 Order,, by Plaintiffs Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Maria M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/13/2012 1075 BRIEF re 1073 Order,, ITCA Plaintiffs' Brief on Remedy by Plaintiff Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/19/2012 1076 *RESPONSE to 1074 and 1075 Plaintiffs' Request for Additional Injunctive Relief and Brief on Remedy by Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Collins, Thomas) *Modified to add document numbers on 7/20/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 07/19/2012)

07/24/2012 1077 NOTICE re Withdrawal of Counsel by Agnes Laughter, Navajo Nation . (Dworkin, Judith) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012 1078 NOTICE re Withdrawal of Counsel by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Blustein). (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012 1079 NOTICE re Withdrawal of Counsel by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Saxena). (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012 1080 REPLY re 1076 Response ITCA Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on Remedy by Plaintiff Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012

1081

REPLY re 1074 Brief (Non Appeal), 1076 Response, 1073 Order,, by Plaintiffs Naeem Abdul−Kareem, Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Maria M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Luciano Valencia, Valle Del Sol. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

08/06/2012 1082 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED no later than August 8, 2012 the parties shall file a joint proposed order or competing proposals as outlined in this order. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/3/12. (CLB) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/07/2012 1083 MOTION for Extension of Time TO ADDRESS COURTS AUGUST 6, 2012 ORDER by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/08/2012

1084

RESPONSE to Motion re 1083 MOTION for Extension of Time TO ADDRESS COURTS AUGUST 6, 2012 ORDER filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Georgia Morrison Flores, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/08/2012 1085 RESPONSE to Motion re 1083 MOTION for Extension of Time TO ADDRESS COURTS AUGUST 6, 2012 ORDER Joining 1084 filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/08/2012 1086 ORDER granting 1083 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 8/8/2012.(ROS) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 121 of 126

08/13/2012 1087 NOTICE re of Filing and Advisory to the Court by Jesus M Gonzalez re 1082 Order to Submit Proposed Remedial Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Remedial Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/13/2012)

08/13/2012

1088

MOTION for Reconsideration of Portions of August 6, 2012 Order and Memorandum in Support of Proposed Order by Arizona, State of, Shelly Baker, Janice K Brewer, Lynn A Constabile, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Wendy John, Steve Kizer, Patti Madrill, Berta Manuz, Susan Hightower Marlar, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Brad R Nelson, Linda Haught Ortega, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, Christine Rhodes, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Osborne Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Stender Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 08/13/2012)

08/14/2012 1089 *NOTICE of Errata re 1087 NOTICE of Filing and Advisory to the Court by Plaintiff Jesus M Gonzalez. (Perales, Nina) *Modified to add document number on 8/14/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/14/2012

1090

*AMENDED DOCUMENT re 1087 Notice of Filing Proposed Remedial Order. Filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Advocacy Network, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Steve M Gallardo, Jesus M Gonzalez, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Debbie Lopez, People For the American Way Foundation, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) *Modified to correct event type and to add document number on 8/14/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/14/2012 1091 NOTICE re OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated . (Bodney, David) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/15/2012 1092 *NOTICE of Attorney Substitution, Derek D. Rapier is substituted in place of Michael McCarthy by Berta Manuz. (McCarthy, Michael) *Modified to correct event type on 8/15/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012 1093 ORDER denying as moot 1071 Motion for Entry of Preliminary Order; denying 1072 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; and denying 1088 Motion for Reconsideration. See PDF document for details. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/15/12.(LSP) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

09/28/2012

1094

* MOTION Interim Approval of Changes to Election Procedures Manual and MOTION for Empaneling of Three Judge Panel by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order for panel)(Collins, Thomas). Added MOTION on 10/1/2012 (REW). (Entered: 09/28/2012)

10/01/2012

1095

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1094 Motion Interim Approval − IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion for Interim Approval 1094 no later than noon on October 2, 2012. The State of Arizona shall file its reply no later than noon on October 3, 2012. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/02/2012 1096 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re 1094 MOTION Interim Approval of Changes to Election Procedures Manual MOTION for Empaneling of Three Judge Panel filed by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/02/2012

1097

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1094 MOTION Interim Approval of Changes to Election Procedures Manual MOTION for Empaneling of Three Judge Panel filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/03/2012 1098 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1094 MOTION Interim Approval of Changes to Election Procedures Manual MOTION for Empaneling of Three Judge Panel filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 122 of 126

10/09/2012 1099 NOTICE re of Section 5 Preclearance by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter)(Collins, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/10/2012 1100 ORDER denying as moot 1094 Motion for Interim Approval. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/10/12.(CLB) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/19/2012 1101 WRIT OF CERTIORARI Granted by US Supreme Court re: 08−17094 and 08−17115 1045 Notice of Appeal, 1047 Notice of Appeal. (REW) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

01/22/2013

1102

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, People For the American Way Foundation, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol for proceedings held on 5/12/2006 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver.. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

02/20/2013 1103 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by William P Ring. (Ring, William) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/21/2013

1104

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Application for TRO Hearing Proceedings held on 5/12/2006, before Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. Court Reporter Merilyn A. Sanchez. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 3/14/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/25/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2013. (VAR) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

07/01/2013 1105 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Michele Lee Forney. (Forney, Michele) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

07/08/2013

1106

MOTION for Extension of Time for Briefing Schedule for Attorneys Fees and Costs by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/10/2013 1107 ORDER granting 1106 Motion for Briefing Schedule (See Order for details). Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/10/13.(CLB) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

07/19/2013 1108 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Briefing Schedule by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 07/19/2013)

07/22/2013 1109 MANDATE of US Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Ninth Circuit re: Ninth Circuit 08−17094 and 08−17115, Supreme Court 12−71 1045 , 1047 Notices of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Supreme Court Mandate, # 2 Letter, # 3 Opinion, # 4 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(REW) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

07/22/2013 1110 ORDER no later than July 26, 2013 the parties shall file a joint proposed final judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time 1108 is GRANTED (See Order for details). Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/22/13.(CLB) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

07/26/2013 1111 MOTION to Continue Joint Proposed Form of Judgment by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Forney, Michele) (Entered: 07/26/2013)

08/01/2013 1112 ORDER granting Defendants' 1111 Motion to Continue Deadline. The deadline for the parties to submit their joint proposed form of judgment is extended to 8/2/2013. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/31/13.(CLB) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

08/02/2013

1113

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Final Judgment by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 123 of 126

08/12/2013 1114 ORDER granting 1113 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline; the deadline for the parties to submit their joint proposed final judgment is extended to August 23, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/9/13.(LSP) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

08/16/2013

1115

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Karolina J Lyznik on behalf of plaintiffs Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Advocacy Network, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Steve M Gallardo, Jesus M Gonzalez, Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, Agnes Laughter, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Debbie Lopez, Navajo Nation, People For the American Way Foundation, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and Valle Del Sol. (BAS) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX137075 as to Karolina J Lyznik. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013

1116

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 1115 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/23/2013

1117

NOTICE re Lodging Proposed Form of Judgment by Arizona, State of, Shelly Baker, Janice K Brewer, Lynn A Constabile, Kelly Dastrup, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Charles Hoskins, Gilberto Hoyos, Wendy John, LeNora Johnson, Laurette Justman, Steve Kizer, Patti Madrill, Berta Manuz, Susan Hightower Marlar, Joan McCall, John McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Linda Haught Ortega, Karen Osborne, Candace Owens, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, Christine Rhodes, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Forney, Michele) (Entered: 08/23/2013)

08/23/2013

1118

*NOTICE re Lodging Proposed Final Judgment by all Plaintiffs including but not limited to Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Perales, Nina) *Modified to correct filers on 8/26/2013 (LSP). (Entered: 08/23/2013)

08/23/2013

1119

*MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit 2, by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) *Modified to remove incorrect link on 8/26/2013 (SSU). (Entered: 08/23/2013)

08/23/2013

1120

*Filed at Doc. 1122 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs' Advisory Regarding Proposed Final Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if 1119 Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 8/26/2013 (SSU). *Modified on 9/11/2013 (MAP)*. (Entered: 08/23/2013)

09/11/2013 1121 ORDER granting 1119 Motion to Seal. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/11/13.(MAP) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/11/2013 1122 Sealed Exhibit to 1118 filed by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol (MAP) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 124 of 126

09/11/2013

1123

FINAL JUDGMENT it is ordered and adjudged that Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief. Defendants are permanently enjoined from implementing A.R.S. §§ 16 166(F)−(J) with respect to individuals applying to register to vote in elections for Federal office using the Federal Form. Defendants shall make the Federal Form available through all reasonable channels. See PDF document for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/11/13. (LSP) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/25/2013

1124

NOTICE re Attorney Name Change by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol . (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

10/11/2013

1125

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses by Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/11/2013

1126

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

11/06/2013

1127

NOTICE re of Withdrawal of Counsel by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol . (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 11/06/2013)

11/12/2013

1128

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1125 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses by Plaintiffs Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Affidavit Exhibit B, # 3 Affidavit Exhibit C, # 4 Affidavit Exhibit D, # 5 Affidavit Exhibit E, # 6 Affidavit Exhibit F, # 7 Affidavit Exhibit G, # 8 Affidavit Exhibit H)(Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/12/2013

1129

*AMENDED MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Memorandum in Support by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Summary of Rates and Totals for Counsel for Gonzalez Plaintiffs, # 2 Exhibit B − Statement of Consultation for District Court Fees, # 3 Exhibit C − Fee Agreement, # 4 Exhibit D − Task−Based Itemized Statements of Attorney's Fees, # 5 Exhibit E − Receipts and Itemized Expenses, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of Nina Perales, # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Karl Sandstrom, # 8 Affidavit Declaration of Jose De Jesus Rivera)(Perales, Nina) *Modified to correct event type on 11/13/2013 (LSP). (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/13/2013

1130

*MOTION to Supplement Documentation Re: 1128 ITCA Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of 1125 Motion for Attorneys Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses by Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kengle, Robert) *Modified to add document numbers on 11/14/2013 (LSP). (Entered: 11/13/2013)

11/13/2013

1131

Additional Attachments to Main Document re 1129 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Memorandum in Support Proposed Order by Plaintiffs Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 11/13/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 125 of 126

11/14/2013 1132 RESPONSE to Motion re 1129 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Memorandum in Support filed by Kelly Dastrup, Laurette Justman. (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 11/14/2013)

11/19/2013 1133 *NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Geraldine Roll appearing for Laura Dean−Lytle, Gilberto Hoyos. Attorney Nicole Weber terminated. . (Roll, Geraldine) *Modified to correct event type on 11/19/2013 (LSP). (Entered: 11/19/2013)

11/25/2013 1134 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply from Defendants re Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Applications by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Forney, Michele) (Entered: 11/25/2013)

12/16/2013

1135

ORDER granting 1134 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 1129 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Defendants State of Arizona, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and the Fifteen Arizona Counties shall have to and including March 4, 2014 to respond to Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Applications. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/13/13.(LSP) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

03/03/2014 1136 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Applications by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Extension of Time)(Forney, Michele) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/04/2014

1137

RESPONSE to Motion re: 1129 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Memorandum in Support RESPONSE OF 13 COUNTIES TO GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED APPLICATIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES filed by Shelly Baker, Lynn A Constabile, Sadie Dalton, Laura Dean−Lytle, Judy Dickerson, Donna J Hale, Patty Hansen, Gilberto Hoyos, Wendy John, LeNora Johnson, Steve Kizer, Patti Madrill, Berta Manuz, Susan Hightower Marlar, Susan Hightower Marler, Joan McCall, Melinda Meek, Dixie Mundy, Brad R Nelson, Linda Haught Ortega, Karen Osborne, Yvonne Pearson, Penny L Pew, Helen Purcell, Christine Rhodes, F Ann Rodriguez, Suzie Sainz, Thomas Schelling, Allen Tempert, Ann Wayman−Trujillo. (Connor, M) (Entered: 03/04/2014)

03/05/2014 1138 ORDER granting 1136 State Defendants' Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Responses to Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Applications. The deadline for State Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Attorney Fee Applications is extended to March 28, 2014. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/5/14.(CLB) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/13/2014

1139

*MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to 1137 13 Counties' Response to 1129 Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs by Bernie Abeytia, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated, Common Cause, Georgia Morrison Flores, Friendly House, Jesus M Gonzalez, Debbie Lopez, Project Vote, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Gozalez Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time for Reply)(Perales, Nina) *Modified to add document numbers on 3/14/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 03/13/2014)

03/17/2014 1140 ORDER granting Gonzalez Plaintiffs' unopposed 1139 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Reply is due 4/7/2014. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/17/14.(CLB) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/28/2014

1141

Joint MOTION Entry of Order Resolving ITCA Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses by Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M Gallardo, Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kengle, Robert) (Entered: 03/28/2014)

03/28/2014 1142 Joint MOTION Entry of Order Resolving Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Expenses re: 1129 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Memorandum in Support by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Forney, Michele) (Entered: 03/28/2014)

03/31/2014 1143 ORDER granting 1125 Motion for Attorney Fees and granting 1141 Joint Motion for Entry of Order. Defendant Secretary of State Ken Bennett shall pay Plaintiff Inter Tribal Council of Arizona et al. attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $1,300,000.00. Post−judgment interest shall accrue on the foregoing

Case: 2:06-cv-1268 As of: 03/21/2018 03:04 PM MST 126 of 126
amount at the rate of 0.14% per annum, commencing on the date of entry of this Order, until such time as the foregoing amount is paid to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting 1130 Motion to Supplement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting 1129 Motion for Attorney Fees and granting 1142 Motion for Entry of Order. The State Defendants shall pay the Gonzalez Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $640,000.00. Post−judgment interest shall accrue on the foregoing amount at the rate of 0.14% per annum, commencing on the date of entry of this Order, until such time as the foregoing amount is paid to Gonzalez Plaintiffs. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/31/14.(LSP) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

 
 2006 WL 3627297 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
Maria M. GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., Defendants.
Nos. CV 06–1268–PHX, CV 06–1362–PHX, CV 06– 1575–PHX. | Sept. 11, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Carlos Becerra, Maldef, Diego M. Bernal, Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense And, San Antonio, TX, Daniel R Ortega, Jr., Roush Mccracken Guerrero Miller & Ortega, David Jeremy Bodney, Karen J Hartman, Steptoe & Johnson Llp, Sara S. Greene, Thomas Lee Hudson, David B. Rosenbaum, Osborn Maledon Pa, Phoenix, AZ, Karl J. Sandstrom, Perkins Coie Llp, Benjamin Jay Blustein, Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Elliot M. Mincberg, People for the American Way Foundation, Washington, DC, Neil Bradley, Aclu Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, GA, Joe P. Sparks, Sparks Tehan & Ryley Pc, Judith M. Dworkin, Marvin S. Cohen, Patricia Ferguson, Sacks Tierney Pa, Scottsdale, AZ, Dana Lee Bobroff, Brenna L. Clani, Navajo Nation Department of Justice, Window Rock, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Dennis Ira Wilenchik, Wilenchik & Bartness Pc, Mary Ruth O’Grady, Carrie Jane Brennan, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Bruce L. Skolnik, Office of the Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, Jean E. Wilcox, Flagstaff, AZ, Lance B. Payette, Navajo County Attorney, Holbrook, AZ, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
ROSLYN O. SILVER, United States District Judge.
*1 Each group of Plaintiffs in the three consolidated cases filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court held a two-day hearing on August 30 and August 31, 2006. On September 11, 2006, the Court issued a short order denying the request for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 183) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a),

the following are the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.1
I. Proposition 200 Passed in 2004, Proposition 200 made two changes to Arizona law relevant to the requests for a preliminary injunction. First, individuals wishing to register to vote must present identification at the time they register. Second, individuals must present identification when they wish to cast their vote at a polling location on election day. Proposition 200 allows for different types of identification depending on whether an individual is registering to vote or verifying identity on election day.
A. Identification for Registration After passage of Proposition 200, individuals wishing to register to vote must present “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship” at the time they register. Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 16–166. Satisfactory evidence of citizenship includes one of the following: “[t]he number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996”; “[a] legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate”; “[a] legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport”; “[a] presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization”; “[o]ther documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”; or “[t]he applicant’s bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.” Id. If an individual does not present such evidence, his or her registration will be rejected, often with instructions how the registration should be resubmitted. (Doc. 175, Ex. 1, p. 30) (deposition of Karen Osborne stating rejected registrations are sent back to applicant with instructions on how to cure deficiencies and a stamped envelope for return to County Recorder).
B. Identification for Voting Registered voters wishing to vote in-person on election day must present some form of identification to the poll workers. A.R.S. § 16–579. Proposition 200 provides a list of acceptable forms of identification and the Secretary of State has promulgated regulations setting forth the specific types of identification that are acceptable. Id. (Doc. 150, Ex. 3.) A voter may present either one form of
1

identification with her photograph, name, and address, or two forms of identification that bear her name and address. A voter may present one of the following: a valid driver license; nonoperating identification license; tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or some other federal, state, or local government issued identification. Id. (Doc. 150 Ex. 3) If a voter does not have or does not wish to present one of the forms listed above, two of the following types of identification may be presented: utility bill; bank or credit union statement; vehicle registration; Indian census card; property tax statement; tribal enrollment card; vehicle insurance card; recorder’s certificate; or federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county recorder. (Doc. 150 Ex. 3) Certain counties have also chosen to accept “election material” as a form of non-photographic identification. Such “election material” is “Official Election Mail” that includes the voter’s name and address and is sent, free of charge, to registered voters. (Doc. 150 Ex. 18)
C. Early Voting *2 Arizona has maintained an extensive early voting process. A.R.S. §§ 16–541–542. By law, “[a]ny election called pursuant to the laws of [Arizona] shall provide for early voting.” A.R.S. § 541(A). Every registered voter is eligible to vote by early ballot. Id. Without the identification for voting at the polls, a registered voter may request an early ballot, complete the ballot, and then return the ballot through the mail or drop it off at a polling place. A.R.S. § 16–548. (8/30/06 Transcript pp. 106–107) An early ballot may also be dropped off at any polling place up through election day. Id. Counties also allow for inperson early voting at certain polling places.2 No identification is required of early voters that wish to vote in-person and language assistance is available at certain early voting locations. (Transcript pp. 105–106)
II. Procedural History Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of both the registration and in-person voting identification requirements in advance of this Fall’s elections. Registration for the primary election closed on August 14, 2006, early voting began on August 10, 2006, and the election itself was held on September 12, 2006. It is already too late for a preliminary injunction to affect the primary election. Registration for the November 7, 2006 election closed on October 9, 2006 and early voting began October 5, 2006. (Doc. 175 Ex. 4) In light of these deadlines, the timing of each of the cases is relevant to the

preliminary injunction issue. The relatively late filing of these three lawsuits, and the rejection by certain Plaintiffs of the Court’s expedited briefing and hearing schedule, undermines Plaintiffs’ claims that immediate relief is mandated. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir.1985) (“Plaintiff’s long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.”).
A. Gonzalez, et al. v. State of Arizona et al., 06–1268 Maria M. Gonzalez, et al. (“Gonzalez Plaintiffs”), filed their complaint on May 9, 2006, requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that same day. (Case 06–1268, Doc. 1, 3, 7) The Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed on May 16, 2006 an alternative application for a temporary restraining order focusing on a statutory argument. (Doc. 13) The Court held a status hearing on May 17, 2006 and set an expedited briefing schedule for the temporary restraining order issue. (Doc. 26) Oral argument solely on this issue was held on June 9, 2006. (Doc. 64) The Court denied the temporary restraining order ten days later. (Doc. 68) In the order denying the temporary restraining order, the Court set forth an expedited briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction. (Doc. 68)
One week after the briefing schedule was set, Plaintiffs submitted a request for a three week extension of all deadlines. (Doc. 82) Defendants objected to any extension, arguing that an extension would “leave insufficient time to resolve the legal issues and deal with election administration concerns prior to the primary election and perhaps the general election.” (Doc. 88) The Court held a status conference to resolve the appropriate dates, expressing concern whether a decision could be issued before the elections. After hearing from both sides, the Court directed the parties to meet and propose mutually agreeable dates. (Doc. 98) The parties eventually agreed on a new schedule, setting the due date for the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ brief four weeks later than originally set by the Court. (Doc. 97) The Court entered an Order adopting the parties’ proposed dates. (Doc. 101) The parties later sought additional extensions. (Doc. 135, 156, 163)
B. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al. v. Jan Brewer, et al., 06–1362 *3 The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al. (“ITCA Plaintiffs”), filed their complaint on May 26, 2006 but did not file a separate motion or application for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction at
2

the time the complaint was filed. (Case 06–1362, Doc. 1) The ITCA Plaintiffs sought consolidation with the Gonzalez case and consolidation was granted on June 6. (Doc. 13)
B. Navajo Nation, et al. v. Jan Brewer et al., 06–1575 The Navajo Nation, et al. (“Navajo Nation Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction on June 20, 2006. (Case 06–1575, Doc. 1) On June 30, Defendant Jan Brewer requested that this case be consolidated with the Gonzalez case. (06–1268, Doc. 92) The Navajo Nation Plaintiffs opposed the consolidation request, arguing that unique factual and legal issues were present such that consolidation would not be proper. (06– 1575, Doc. 15) On July 17, the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite hearing on their preliminary injunction request. (Doc. 14) According to that motion, the Court needed to provide relief prior to the primary election scheduled for September 12, 2006. The case was ordered consolidated on August 4. (Doc. 25)
Taken together, the three groups of Plaintiffs filed suit approximately eighteen months after Proposition 200 became effective and only four months before the primary election and six months before the general election. (Doc. 175 p. 2 n. 1) When the Court set an expedited briefing schedule, Plaintiffs objected to the schedule and requested additional time. These delays raise serious questions regarding Plaintiffs’ need and desire for immediate injunctive relief.
III. Standard for Preliminary Injunction The Ninth Circuit has been unable to settle on a single test for determining if a preliminary injunction should issue. “A preliminary injunction is appropriate where plaintiffs demonstrate either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [their] favor.” Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.2003) (quotation omitted). The public interest must also be considered when evaluating certain preliminary injunction requests. Id. In cases involving the public interest, such as those impacting elections, the preliminary injunction test has been formulated to require Plaintiffs to “establish (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff[s] if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff[s], and (4) advancement of the public interest.” Id. This test “creates a continuum: the less certain the

district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits, the more plaintiffs must convince the district court that the public interest and balance of hardships tip in their favor.” Id.
*4 The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, recognized that a request for a preliminary injunction in a case involving state elections is unique. Observing that “a federal court cannot lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election,” the court recognized that “election cases are different from ordinary injunction cases. Interference with impending elections is extraordinary and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented.” Id. at 918 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs needed to make a particularly strong showing that they were entitled to injunctive relief.
IV. Plaintiffs’ Arguments All three Plaintiffs groups assert that Proposition 200 acts as an unconstitutional poll tax, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and impedes the fundamental right to vote. The Navajo Nation Plaintiffs raise claims pursuant to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. And the ITCA and Gonzalez Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 200 conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the “NVRA”), the argument that was rejected by the Court in the Order denying the request for a temporary restraining order. After consideration of the parties’ filings, the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, and the additional briefing requested on the poll tax issue, the Court finds that “[P]laintiffs have shown a possibility of success on the merits” of some of their arguments but the Court “cannot say that at this stage they have shown a strong likelihood.” Southwest, 344 F.3d at 919. Also, the balance of hardships and the public interest tips in favor of Defendants.
A. Poll Tax Plaintiffs assert that Proposition 200 constitutes a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That Amendment states, in relevant part,
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the
3

United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
The parties agree that the most instructive case is Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965). There the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Virginia’s system. At the time, a Virginia statute required the payment of a $1.50 annual poll tax. Potential voters not wishing to pay the poll tax could file a certificate of residency each election year. According to Harman, the Twenty-fourth Amendment “nullifies sophisticated as well as simpleminded modes of impairing the right guaranteed.” Id. at 540–541. Therefore, the Court determined that Virginia’s system would be invalid if it “impos[ed] a material requirement solely upon those who refuse[d] to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax.” Id. at 541. The Court concluded that the residency certificate was a “cumbersome procedure” and held that “the requirement imposed upon the voter who refuses to pay the poll tax constitutes an abridgment of his right to vote by reason of failure to pay the poll tax.” Id. at 542.
*5 The issue in Harman was not that the state was imposing certain procedural hurdles to voting, such as certificates of residency, but that the system explicitly included a poll tax. Id . at 538 (“[I]t is important to emphasize that the question presented is not whether it would be within a State’s power to abolish entirely the poll tax and require all voters—state and federal—to file annually a certificate of residence.”). In the present case, the parties agree that there is no explicit poll tax at issue. The only issue is whether requiring forms of identification should be classified as a poll tax under the reasoning in Harman. The types of identification required by Proposition 200 are different depending on whether an individual is registering to vote or simply providing identification at the polls. Registration and pollidentification requirements are addressed separately.
1. Registration Identification Obtaining proper forms of identification for purposes of registering to vote will cost potential voters between 10 and 100 dollars. (Doc. 149 p. 13) These amounts represent the price of obtaining a birth certificate, drivers license, or passport. The cost of certain of these forms is not within Defendants’ control.3 From statistics submitted by the ITCA Plaintiffs, the vast majority of eligible voters already possess a useable form of identification such that no additional fee will be required to register to vote. (Doc. 150 Ex. 21) (showing that approximately 98% of eligible individuals already possess adequate forms of

identification). The Court has reservations regarding the reliability of these statistics and no other reliable evidence was presented regarding the number, if any, of eligible individuals that wish to register to vote and must obtain new forms of identification. It is undisputed that some individuals will have to obtain a form of identification, but that requirement cannot be considered a poll tax. (Doc. 150 Ex. 33, 34)
The constructive poll tax at issue here does not fit within the traditional definition of a poll tax. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “poll tax” as a “fixed tax levied on each person within a jurisdiction.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1498 (8th ed.2004) (emphasis added); see also United States v. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234, 239 (W.D.Tex.1966) (“The poll tax is imposed on all residents of the State....”). The poll tax here will not have to be paid by approximately 98% of potential voters who already possess appropriate identification. The poll tax is only indirectly connected to the right to vote. Rather than paying a fee to be eligible to vote, Arizona voters must pay a fee for the issuance of a form of identification. Arizona does not bar from voting individuals who have not paid any voting fee to Arizona or completed any Arizona specific voting paperwork.4 Finally, Proposition 200 could impose some burdens on the limited class of individuals that do not currently possess appropriate identification but “[e]lection laws will invariable impose some burden upon individual voters.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992). States have always “retain[ed] the power to regulate their own elections.” Id. Arizona has chosen to require individuals prove they are eligible to participate in elections. Defining the fees some voters must pay to prove their eligibility (via proper identification) as “poll taxes” “would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently.”5 Id. Plaintiffs have not shown a strong likelihood of success on this issue.
2. Identification at the Polls *6 Proposition 200 allows for a wide variety of forms of identification at the polls. Some of those forms, such as “Official Election Mail,” are sent to prospective voters free of charge. Certain counties, including Coconino County, plan on sending out two pieces of election mail. Thus, certain voters will receive, free of charge, the requisite two forms of identification for identification at the polls. (Transcript p. 100) Again, the Court was not presented with sufficiently reliable information regarding the number of voters that do not have adequate forms of identification and will not be receiving, free of charge, adequate forms of identification prior to the elections. Also, the wide variety of acceptable forms of
4

identification renders the connection between a poll tax and these forms of identification even more attenuated than the registration identification requirements. Finally, registered individuals who do not wish to present identification at the polls have the option of participating in early voting. No identification is required of early voters and early voting is open to all registered voters. Early voters may vote by mail, or if they prefer to vote inperson they may go to an early-voting polling location. Plaintiffs have not shown a strong likelihood of success on the issue of identification at the polls constituting a poll tax.

Protection Clause; voters with some financial means undoubtedly have an easier time traveling to the polls than poorer individuals. If states were barred from having any policies that impose a disproportionate burden on voters based on their wealth, every election conducted in the United States would be conducted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This is not a finding the Court will make. The State is not distinguishing among voters based on wealth, rather it is distinguishing between individuals that are able to prove their eligibility to vote and those that are not.7 Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on this issue.

B. Equal Protection A case involving Virginia’s poll tax is also the basis for Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection argument. Because the Twenty-fourth Amendment is addressed to federal elections, Virginia’s poll tax for state elections was not automatically barred by the adoption of that Amendment. Harman, 380 U.S. at 540 (“Upon adoption of the Amendment, of course, no State could condition the federal franchise upon payment of a poll tax.”) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court turned to the Equal Protection clause to resolve the constitutionality of the poll tax for state elections.
In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Court found “that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.” Id. at 666. That holding is premised on the finding that “the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.” Id. at 668 (emphasis added). Accordingly, here Plaintiffs argue that the costs in obtaining proper identification result in making the affluence of the voter a relevant factor. Proposition 200 makes the affluence of the voter a relevant factor only in the same manner that a variety of other requirements do so as well.
The State of Arizona seeks to enforce the basic voter qualification of citizenship. The state does so by requiring individuals verify their identity when registering to vote and when voting in person.6 These verification requirements understandably impose some cost on voters. The State of Arizona operates a limited number of polling locations. Travel to and from these polling locations imposes some cost on voters. A strict interpretation of Plaintiffs’ argument would mean that requiring individuals to travel to the polls violates the Equal

C. Fundamental Right to Vote *7 All Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 200 infringes on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties agree that the appropriate framework for evaluating this claim comes from Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). There the Supreme Court specifically rejected the idea that “any burden upon the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny.” Id. at 433. Instead of strict scrutiny, “[a] court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.” Id. at 434. If a restriction is determined to be “severe,” the restriction “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Id. (quotations omitted). If, however, “a state election law provision imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the restrictions.” Id. (quotations omitted).
Supreme Court cases establish that there is “ ‘[n]o bright line separat[ing] permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements.’ “ Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 359 (1997)). Often, “courts are required to make ‘hard judgments’ given the interests involved.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has observed that “[c]ourts will uphold as ‘not severe’ restrictions that are generally applicable, even-handed, politically neutral, and which protect the reliability and integrity of the election process.” Id. Also, regulations promoting traditional goals, such as “accurate and complete voter registration” do not qualify as severe. Hussey v. City of Portland, 64 F.3d 1260, 1265 (9th
5

Cir.1995).
Assessing the severity of the restrictions in this case requires an intense factual inquiry. Plaintiffs presented some evidence that hundreds, possibly thousands, of individuals will not be able to secure the requisite identification to enable them to vote. But at best these numbers represent less than 3% of the voting population, and it is not clear what percentage of these individuals wish to vote but are actually unable to obtain identification. Also, “ ‘there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest.’ “ Rubin, 308 F.3d at 1014 (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974)). Proposition 200 is a “generally applicable” attempt at protecting the “reliability and integrity of the election process.” Id. While not wishing to downplay the burden on certain individuals, Plaintiffs have not established that Proposition 200 represents a “severe” burden. Because Plaintiffs have not proven the burden is “severe,” the State of Arizona’s interest in ensuring the integrity of elections is sufficient to justify Proposition 200. Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on this issue.
D. Voting Rights Act *8 The Navajo Nation Plaintiffs make two statutory arguments not made by the other two groups of Plaintiffs.8 The first statutory argument is based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which states
No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.... 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). This section allows disparate impact claims. See Smith v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 594 (9th Cir.1997) (“Section 2 requires proof only of a discriminatory result, not of discriminatory intent.”). Because disparate impact claims are cognizable, if Plaintiffs can show that Navajos will suffer disproportionate harm under Proposition 200, a preliminary injunction may be appropriate. “In determining whether a challenged voting practice violates § 2, the district court must examine the totality of the circumstances and determine, based upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality ... whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This examination is intensely fact-based and localized.” Smith v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and

Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.1997) (citations and quotations omitted). There are a variety of factors a court may use when evaluating the totality of circumstances. Id. at 594 n. 6 (listing factors contained in Senate Report). The Court was not presented with adequate evidence on any of these factors to enable an appropriate evaluation. Accordingly, the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success.
E. Civil Rights Act The other statutory argument made only by the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs involves two subsections of the Civil Rights Act: 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B). Subsection (A) provides
No person acting under color of law shall in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote....
Subsection (B) provides no person acting under color of law may
deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.
Relief does not appear appropriate under either of these subsections.
The Navajo Nation Plaintiffs argue that subsection (A) is implicated because Navajos tend to vote at the polls on election day and different standards are applied to early voters and voters at the polls.9 Early voting “is an inherently different procedure from voting in person, requiring a state which allows both in-person and absentee voting to apply different ‘standards, practices, or
6

procedures’ to these two groups of voters.” Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 1:05–CV–0634–SEB– VSS, 2006 WL 1005037, at *47 (S.D. Ind. April 14, 2006). It is not a violation of subsection (A) for a state to apply different standards to two inherently different procedures. Further, the Navajos have not sufficiently dealt with the reality that Navajos can appear, without identification, at the polls and present a previously completed early ballot. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on this issue.
*9 The second statutory argument is that subsection (B) prohibits Defendants from preventing someone from voting based on an “error or omission” that is “not material” for determining voter eligibility. Presenting “identification in order to prove one’s identity is by definition not an ‘error or omission on any record or paper’ and, therefore, § 197 1(a)(2)(B) does not apply to this case.” Common Cause/Georgia League of Women Voters of Georgia, Inc. v. Billups, No. CIVA 4:05CV0201 HLM, 2006 WL 2089771, at *65 (N.D.Ga. July 14, 2006). Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on this issue.
F. NVRA The Court addressed Plaintiffs’ arguments pursuant to the NVRA in the Order denying the request for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs have not presented any convincing reason for the Court to reverse its prior ruling. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.
G. Balance of Hardships Proposition 200 has been in effect since January 2005 and elections have been held after its adoption. Since its initiation, Defendants have invested “enormous resources” in preparing to apply Proposition 200 to this Fall’s elections. See Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 919 (9th Cir.2003) (observing state of California and its citizens had already invested “enormous resources” in upcoming election). In July 2005, the State revised the voter registration forms to highlight Proposition 200’s identification requirements. (Doc. 158 Ex. 1) Elections workers throughout the state have “undergone extensive training ... to ensure consistent application of the proof of citizenship for voter registration and identification at the polls.” (Id.) This training includes “classroom-type training of more than 7,000 boardworkers.” (Id.) In March 2006, the Maricopa County Recorder launched a public awareness campaign aimed at educating the public regarding Proposition 200’s

requirements. Maricopa County has sent a new voter registration card to each registered voter and that mailing includes information regarding Proposition 200’s requirements. (Id.) An injunction would force Defendants to change their registration and voting procedures, retrain all poll workers, and attempt to communicate with eligible voters regarding the changes. This would undoubtedly cause confusion among election officials, boardworkers, and voters.10 The balance of hardships tips in favor of Defendants.
Plaintiffs have not shown a strong likelihood of success and the balance of hardships tips in favor of Defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Expedite (Doc. 194) is DENIED AS MOOT.
ORDER
This case consists of three consolidated actions. Each group of Plaintiffs has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court held a two-day hearing on August 30 and August 31, 2006. Election cases are different from ordinary injunction cases. “Interference with impending elections is extraordinary and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented.” Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 919 (9th Cir.2003). In cases involving the public interest, such as cases impacting elections, the preliminary injunction test has been formulated to require Plaintiffs to “establish (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff[s] if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff[s], and (4) advancement of the public interest.” Id. at 917–18. Plaintiffs have not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of hardships favors the Defendants, and the public interest would not be advanced by granting the injunction. The Motions for Preliminary Injunction will be denied. Detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law will follow.
*10 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Preliminary Injunction (06–1268: Doc. 7, 146, 149) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite (06–1575: Doc. 2, 14) are DENIED.
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Exceed Page Limits (06–1268: Doc. 166) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are to submit simultaneous briefing on whether the identification requirements for registration constitute a poll tax by September 18, 2006. Simultaneous responses are due September 25, 2006. No replies are allowed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs are to submit additional briefing on their Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims by September 25, 2006. Defendants’ response is due October 2, 2006. The reply is due October 6, 2006. A hearing for the Court to consider additional facts on the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims will be held October 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
	  

Footnotes

1

The parties subsequently filed notices of appeal. (Doc. 184, 189) “Ninth Circuit law follows the general rule that a party’s filing a

notice of appeal ... divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed.” Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d

1446, 1450 (Fed.Cir.1988). But the Court has jurisdiction to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law because doing so will aid

appellate review. See id. (district court retained jurisdiction to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law because it would aid

appellate review).

2

The Coconino County Recorder was asked about this process on cross-examination. (The following comes from the Realtime

transcript.)

Q. And can you describe the process that the voter goes through when he or she shows up at your office to vote at the early

voting site?

A. Yes. If you’re talking about if—if you’re talking about the county elections office, that’s one thing. It may be somewhere

else, like we have a branch in Tuba City, so I’ll use the county elections office. They come in, they identify who they are.

They sign in. They’re given a ballot to vote. They’re shown, you know, there is both sides, giving some instructions. They are

pointed over to the Votermatic to complete that ballot, to seal it, to sign it, and return it to us.

Q. So in effect, it’s almost identical to what the voter goes through at the polling place?

A. Except there is no ID asked for.

Q. No identification?

A. No identification is asked for per statute. The idea is it’s an early ballot, because we check the signature, so no ID is asked

for.

Q. So to vote early at one of these voting sites, a voter could show up, assuming there are no challenges, 33 days before the

election—

A. That’s correct.

Q. Vote a ballot, and not have to produce identification?

A. That’s correct, because the ballots are all turned in back to us with their signatures on them, to compare to the rolls before

they are determined if that ballot counts or doesn’t count.

(8/30/06 Transcript pp. 106–107)

3

For example, Defendants have no control over the cost of federal forms of identification.

4

Some individuals who do not pay any fee to the State of Arizona or complete any paperwork for the State will be eligible to vote.

A .R. S. § 28–3165(J) (providing that persons aged 65 or older and disabled persons are entitled to identification at no cost); (Doc.

150 Ex. 3) (allowing federal forms of identification).

5

In addition to the fees for obtaining the state-issued identification, Plaintiffs also claim that Arizona is assessing a poll tax through

the “copying fees,” “gas costs,” and “bureaucratic hurdles” associated with obtaining a state-issued identification. (Doc. 198 p. 11)

This is unrealistic. Were Plaintiffs’ arguments accepted, Arizona would not be allowed to implement any identification

requirement because there would inevitably be some second-level costs, such as “bureaucratic hurdles,” present in such a scheme.

Finding second-level costs constitute poll taxes would cripple Arizona’s ability to conduct elections, not the intent of the Twenty-

fourth amendment.

6

Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that Proposition 200 was unnecessary and unwise. This is not an issue for the Court to decide. See

F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993) (“Whether embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment or inferred

from the Fifth, equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.”).

7

Again, the many opportunities to vote available, such as voting by mail, substantially reduces the burden on voters without the

means to travel to the polls.

8

8

The Navajo Nation Plaintiffs do not attack the identification for registration aspects of Proposition 200; they only take issue with

the identification at the polls requirements. The Court ordered additional briefing on the Navajo Nation Plaintiffs’ statutory claims.

Because the statutory claims are “intensely fact-based and localized,” a more detailed order addressing these claims will be issued

after the conclusion of the hearing scheduled for October 19, 2006. Smith v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist., 109 F.3d

586, 591 (9th Cir.1997) (citations and quotations omitted).

9

It is not clear that the Voting Rights Act applies to this non-race based claim. See Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 1:05–

CV–0634–SEB–VSS, 2006 WL 1005037, at *47 n. 106 (S.D. Ind. April 14, 2006) (citing cases establishing Voting Rights Act

aimed at eliminating racial discrimination). The Court will assume that it does for purposes of this Order.

10 Coconino County was the only county that presented credible evidence that the burdens might be overcome. But Coconino County did not address the significant burdens that might result were Proposition 200 enjoined but later found valid. In that event, counties would have to go through voter lists and remove individuals that did not comply with Proposition 200 at the time they registered.

	  

9

 
 485 F.3d 1041 United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Maria M. GONZALEZ; Bernie Abeytia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos por La Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Luciano Valencia; Valle del Sol; The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United
Latin American Citizens Arizona; League of Women Voters of Arizona; People for the American Way Foundation; Hopi Tribe, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v.
State of ARIZONA; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz,
Greenlee County Recorder; Lynn Constable, Yavapai County Election Director; Kelly Dastrup, Navajo County Election Director; Laura Dean–
Lytle, Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, La
Paz County Election Director; Susan Hightower Marlar, Yuma County Recorder; Gilberto Hoyos, Pinal County Election Director; Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder; Lenora Johnson, Apache
County Recorder; Patti Madrill, Yuma County Election Director; Joan McCall, Mohave County
Recorder; Melinda Meek, Santa Cruz County Election Director; Suzie Sainz, Santa Cruz County
Recorder; Thomas Schelling, Cochise County Election Director; Allen Tempert, Mohave County Election Director; Ann Wayman–Trujillo, Yavapai County Recorder; Wendy John, Graham County
Recorder; Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder; Patty Hansen, Coconino County
Election Director; Christine Rhodes, Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, Gila County Recorder; Dixie Mundy, Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, Greenlee County Election Director; Penny Pew, Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell;
F. Ann Rodriguez, Pima County Recorder, Defendants, and
Yes on Proposition 200, Defendant–Intervenor– Appellant.
Maria M. Gonzalez; Bernie Abeytia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos por La

Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education
Project; Luciano Valencia; Valle del Sol, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and
The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; League
of Women Voters of Arizona; People for the American Way Foundation; Hopi Tribe, Plaintiffs,
v. State of Arizona; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz, Greenlee County Recorder; Lynn Constable, Yavapai County Election Director; Kelly Dastrup, Navajo County Election Director; Laura Dean– Lytle, Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, La Paz County Election Director; Susan Hightower Marlar, Yuma County Recorder; Gilberto Hoyos, Pinal County Election Director; Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder; Lenora Johnson, Apache County Recorder; Patti Madrill, Yuma County Election Director; Joan McCall, Mohave County Recorder; Melinda Meek, Santa Cruz County Election Director; Suzie Sainz, Santa Cruz County Recorder; Thomas Schelling, Cochise County Election Director; Allen Tempert, Mohave County Election Director; Ann Wayman–Trujillo, Yavapai County Recorder; Wendy John, Graham County Recorder; Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder; Patty Hansen, Coconino County Election Director; Christine Rhodes, Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, Gila County Recorder; Dixie Mundy, Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, Greenlee County Election Director; Penny Pew, Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, Pima County Recorder, Defendants–Appellees,
and Yes on Proposition 200, Defendant–Intervenor.
Maria M. Gonzalez; Bernie Abeytia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos por La Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Luciano Valencia; Valle del Sol, Plaintiffs,
and The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; League
of Women Voters of Arizona; People for the
1

American Way Foundation; Hopi Tribe, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v.
State of Arizona; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz,
Greenlee County Recorder; Lynn Constable, Yavapai County Election Director; Kelly Dastrup, Navajo County Election Director; Laura Dean–
Lytle, Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, La
Paz County Election Director; Susan Hightower Marlar, Yuma County Recorder; Gilberto Hoyos, Pinal County Election Director; Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder; Lenora Johnson, Apache
County Recorder; Patti Madrill, Yuma County Election Director; Joan McCall, Mohave County
Recorder; Melinda Meek, Santa Cruz County Election Director; Suzie Sainz, Santa Cruz County
Recorder; Thomas Schelling, Cochise County Election Director; Allen Tempert, Mohave County Election Director; Ann Wayman–Trujillo, Yavapai County Recorder; Wendy John, Graham County
Recorder; Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder; Patty Hansen, Coconino County
Election Director; Christine Rhodes, Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, Gila County Recorder; Dixie Mundy, Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, Greenlee County Election Director; Penny Pew, Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, Pima County Recorder, Defendants–Appellees,
and Yes on Proposition 200, Defendant–Intervenor.
Nos. 06–16521, 06–16702, 06–16706. | Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 2007. | Filed April 20, 2007.
Synopsis Background: Arizona residents, Indian tribes, and community organizations filed action challenging validity of proposition requiring all persons wishing to register to vote for first time in Arizona to present proof of citizenship. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roslyn O. Silver, J., denied citizen group’s motion to intervene, 2006 WL 2246365, and denied preliminary injunctive relief, 2006 WL 3627297. Appeals were taken.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Schroeder, Chief Judge, held that:
[1] proposition did not amount to an unconstitutional poll tax in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment;
[2] plaintiffs failed to demonstrate proposition imposed severe burden on Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental right to vote;
[3] plaintiffs failed to demonstrate proposition imposed a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens;
[4] National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) did not prohibit documentation requirements;
[5] balance of hardships favored denying motion for preliminary injunction; and
[6] citizen group failed to demonstrate that State and its officials would not adequately represent group’s interests.
Affirmed.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1045 Joel M. Spector, Lakewood, CO, for defendantintervener/appellant Yes on Proposition 200.
Nina Perales, San Antonio, TX, for plaintiffsappellees/appellants Gonzalez, et al.
Thomas L. Hudson, Phoenix, Arizona, for ITCA plaintiffs.
*1046 Mary O’Grady, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, for defendants/appellees, State of Arizona, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV–06–01268–ROS.
Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, JOHN T. NOONAN, Circuit Judge, and GEORGE P. SCHIAVELLI,* District Judge.
Opinion
SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
This litigation involves Proposition 200, enacted pursuant to Arizona voter initiative in 2004. The Proposition
2

amended Arizona law to require persons wishing to register to vote for the first time in Arizona to present proof of citizenship, and to require all Arizona voters to present identification when they vote in person at the polls.
Plaintiffs are Arizona residents, Indian tribes and various community organizations. They filed this action in district court, challenging the validity of the Proposition on six asserted grounds: (1) that it is an unconstitutional poll tax, in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposes a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens; (3) that it impedes the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental right to vote; (4) that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a); (5) that it violates the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a)(2)(A) and (B); and (6) that it violates the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. (“NVRA”).
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 2006, seeking an injunction, pending trial, against the operation of both the registration and the voting provisions of the Proposition. On September 11, 2006, the district court denied a preliminary injunction. Shortly before the November 2006 general election, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal and also sought, from a motions panel of this Court, an emergency interlocutory injunction. Time was of the essence to plaintiffs because the 2006 general election was imminent. A regular two-judge motions panel of this court granted the requested relief and, in a brief order, enjoined enforcement of the Proposition’s provisions.
On the application of the State and four counties, the Supreme Court vacated the emergency injunction because the motions panel gave no reasons for its action. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006). The Supreme Court explained that, because the motions panel had not provided any reasoning, it could not determine whether the panel had given appropriate deference to the district court’s denial of the requested relief. Id. at 5. In a separate opinion, Justice Stevens stressed that the case would benefit from the development of a full record regarding both the scope of voter disenfranchisement resulting from enforcement of the Proposition and the “prevalence and character” of the ostensible voter fraud that the Proposition was intended to counter. Id. at 5–6 (opinion of Stevens, J., concurring).
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s opinion, plaintiffs chose not to continue to seek injunctive relief with respect to the *1047 in-person voting identification requirement.

Before us now, on the same underlying record that was before the motions panel, is plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect only to the voter registration requirement. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief with respect to this requirement, because the limited record before us does not establish that the balance of hardships and likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims justify an injunction at this stage of the proceedings. The litigation remains pending in the district court. There, final resolution of the scope of any appropriate permanent relief can be determined on the basis of a fully developed record, and well before the next general election in 2008.
BACKGROUND
Voters approved Proposition 200 in the 2004 general election, and it was enacted on December 8, 2004. See A.R.S. § 16–166. In relevant part, Proposition 200 amended Arizona law to direct registering voters to “submit evidence of United States citizenship with the application and the registrar [to] reject the application if no evidence of citizenship is attached.” A.R.S. § 16– 152(A)(23). “Satisfactory evidence of citizenship” may be shown by including, with the voter registration form, any of the following: the number of an Arizona driver’s license or non-operating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 (the date Arizona began requiring proof of lawful presence in the United States to obtain a license); a legible copy of a birth certificate; a legible copy of a United States passport; United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization; “other documents or methods of proof that [may be] established pursuant to” federal immigration law. A.R.S. § 16–166(F). The law applies to voters registered in Arizona before its effective date only if they seek to change registration from one county to another. A.R.S. § 16–166(G).
The 2006 election was the first general election to which Proposition 200 applied. Plaintiffs filed their challenges to it on May 9, 2006 and immediately moved for a preliminary injunction against both the proof of citizenship requirement and the in-person voter identification requirement. On September 11, 2006, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion but did not issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at that time.
Plaintiffs appealed the denial to this Court and the Clerk set a briefing schedule that concluded on November 21, 2006—two weeks after the 2006 general election.
3

Plaintiffs therefore requested an injunction pending appeal that, pursuant to this Court’s rules then in effect, was heard by a two-judge motions panel. See 9th Cir. R. 3–3 (2006). On October 5, 2006, the motions panel issued an order granting plaintiffs’ emergency request for an injunction pending appeal, retaining the briefing schedule, and stating: “The court enjoins implementation of Proposition 200’s voting identification requirement in connection with Arizona’s November 7, 2006 general election; and enjoins Proposition 200’s registration proof of citizenship requirements so that voters can register before the October 9, 2006 registration deadline. This injunction shall remain in effect pending disposition of the merits of these appeals.” Order in Nos. 06–16702, 06– 16706 (filed Oct. 5, 2006), at 1–2.
Four days later, the motions panel denied defendants’ request for reconsideration. The district court had not yet entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The State and four counties then sought relief from the injunction in the *1048 United States Supreme Court. On October 12, 2006, while review by the Supreme Court was still pending, the district court issued the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law explaining its denial of the preliminary injunction. The Findings stated that, although plaintiffs had shown some likelihood of success on the merits of some of their claims, the court could not conclude “at this stage [that] they have shown a strong likelihood of success” on any of the claims. It further concluded that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of defendants, the state and counties that were all fully prepared to enforce the Proposition’s provisions.
On October 20, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in which it construed the State’s filing as a petition for certiorari, granted the petition, and vacated the motions panel’s injunction. See Purcell, 127 S.Ct. at 5. The opinion did not affect plaintiffs’ underlying appeal of the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, which remained pending in this Court. Following the Supreme Court’s order vacating the emergency injunction pending appeal, the parties proceeded to brief the merits of the appeal. Plaintiffs-appellants at that point elected to limit their appeal to the registration identification requirement. The voter identification requirement therefore is not before us.
Because appellants moved for a preliminary injunction before any evidentiary proceedings could occur, the information in the record regarding Proposition 200’s effect on voter registration is not extensive. It contains affidavits from four individuals who claim the new law burdens their right to vote. All four lack a driver’s license, a birth certificate or any other document sufficient to register to vote. It also indicates that, between 1996 and

the present, as many as 232 non-citizens tried to register to vote and that the State prosecuted ten of those 232 alleged non-citizens. The record is silent, however, as to how many non-citizens illegally registered to vote without detection, and also as to how many Arizona citizens lack all of the documents for registration the State will accept. According to data extrapolated from population estimates and voter registration rolls, voter registration in Arizona appears to have declined since January 2005, but this data provides no enlightenment as to the extent or cause of the registration decline.
In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the district court found that, while plaintiffs had shown “a possibility of success” on the merits of some of their claims, they had not shown a strong likelihood of success on any of them. Indeed, the district court expressed its “reservations regarding the reliability” of some of the record evidence and noted that it had “no other reliable evidence” with which to compare it. Furthermore, in concluding that the balance of the hardships tipped sharply in favor of defendants, the district court found that plaintiffs’ delay in filing their complaint undermined the contention that immediate relief was necessary. It also emphasized that the State had invested significant time and effort in preparing to enforce the new requirements and that an order reinstituting the prior procedures likely would confuse voters.
ANALYSIS
Appellants here make four arguments to support a grant of injunctive relief, all of which the district court rejected. We deal with each in turn.
I. Poll Tax [1] Appellants contend that Proposition 200’s registration identification requirement amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment because some Arizona citizens *1049 possess none of the documents sufficient for successful registration. As a result, appellants say, these citizens will be required to spend money to obtain documents necessary to register to vote and, therefore, are being taxed to vote.
[2] The Twenty-fourth Amendment proscribes any denial or abridgement of the right to vote for “failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” U.S. Const. amend. XXIV. The Amendment was passed in order to combat the “disenfranchisement of the poor[,]” which was the
4

intention of the early poll taxes. Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 539, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 14 L.Ed.2d 50 (1965). Appellants assert that Proposition 200 effects exactly this result in Ariand thus is unconstitutional.
Arizona’s new law, however, is not like the system found unconstitutional in Harman. That case examined a Virginia provision that required voters to pay a poll tax, but allowed those who were unwilling or unable to pay the tax to file a certificate of residency. Id. at 530–31, 85 S.Ct. 1177. The Supreme Court struck down the Virginia system specifically because it was premised on the requirement that some voters pay a poll tax. Id. The Court emphasized that the issue was not whether Virginia could require all voters to file a certificate of residency each year, but that voters were required to file such certificate only if they refused to pay a poll tax. Id. at 542, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Thus, their right to vote was “abridged ... by reason of failure to pay the poll tax.” Id.
Here, voters do not have to choose between paying a poll tax and providing proof of citizenship when they register to vote. They have only to provide the proof of citizenship. Nor does Arizona’s new law “make[ ] the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.” Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966) (holding that a state may not condition voting in state elections on payment of a tax). Plaintiffs have demonstrated little likelihood of success of proving that Arizona’s registration identification requirement is a poll tax.
II. Severe Burden on the Fundamental Right to Vote [3] [4] Appellants argue that Proposition 200 imposes an undue burden on the right to vote in Arizona and the State therefore was required to demonstrate to the district court that the law would survive strict scrutiny. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992). In Burdick, the Supreme Court determined that laws that burden the right to vote only incidentally need not be strictly scrutinized. Id. at 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059. Only “severe” restrictions “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Id. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059. State election laws that impose “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions ... [on] the rights of voters” need be supported only by “important regulatory interest[s].” Id.
Burdick upheld a Hawaii prohibition on write-in candidates against a challenge that the ban severely burdened voters’ right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Appellants have not demonstrated that Proposition

200’s identification requirement imposes any more severe burden. In this Circuit, courts “uphold as ‘not severe’ restrictions that are generally applicable, even-handed, politically neutral, and which protect the reliability and integrity of the election process.” Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir.2002). Proposition 200 applies to all Arizonans. At this stage of the proceedings, appellants have not shown that it is anything other than an even-handed and politically neutral law.
*1050 The evidence that Arizona citizens may be burdened by the new law consists of four declarations from individuals who are not parties to the litigation. These declarants object that obtaining the documentation sufficient to register would be “a burden.” Because the vast majority of Arizona citizens in all likelihood already possess at least one of the documents sufficient for registration, whether the law severely burdens anyone, as the district court observed, is an “intense[ly] factual inquiry [,]” requiring development of a full record. Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, Nos. CV–06–1268, –1362, – 1575, slip op. at 9 (Oct. 11, 2006). We therefore agree with the district court that, at this stage in the proceedings, appellants have not raised serious questions going to the merits of this argument.
III. Disproportionate Burden on Naturalized Citizens [5] Appellants argue that Proposition 200 imposes a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens because it singles them out for more onerous documentation rules. Unlike native-born citizens, appellants contend, naturalized citizens who do not have a driver’s or nonoperating identification license, or a passport, must present naturalization information to the county recorder to register to vote. These citizens may not submit photocopies of their naturalization certificates, as nativeborn citizens may do with birth certificates, because naturalization certificates may not be photocopied without lawful authority. Compare A.R.S. § 16–166(F)(2) with A.R.S. § 16–166(F)(4). This limitation, appellants argue, amounts to a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The record before us, however, contains no affidavits or declarations from naturalized citizens. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which this requirement may burden or inconvenience any such citizen. Furthermore, the statute appears to permit naturalized citizens to use the number of the certificate of naturalization on their registration forms. A.R.S. § 16–166(F)(4). Appellants present statistics suggesting that use of this number may result in the return of some registration forms for correction, which requires naturalized citizens to submit
5

registration forms twice. There is no evidence in the record, however, to support this conclusion. Therefore, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on this point.
IV. Violation of the NVRA [6] Appellants next claim that Proposition 200 is preempted by the NVRA because, they say, the NVRA prohibits states from requiring that registrants submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The NVRA mandates that states either “accept and use the mail voter registration form prescribed by the Federal Election Commission[,]” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–4(a)(1), or, in the alternative, “develop and use [their own] form,” as long as the latter conforms to the federal guidelines. Id. at § 1973gg–7(b).
The NVRA also prohibits states from requiring that the form be notarized or otherwise formally authenticated. Id. Appellants interpret this as a proscription against states requiring documentary proof of citizenship. The language of the statute does not prohibit documentation requirements. Indeed, the statute permits states to “require[ ] such identifying information ... as is necessary to enable ... election official[s] to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” Id. at § 1973gg–7(b)(1). The NVRA clearly conditions eligibility to vote on United States citizenship. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg, 1973gg–7(b)(2)(A). Read together, these two provisions plainly *1051 allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote. Thus, again plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this claim.
V. The Balance of Hardships [7] Appellants finally urge that the district court erred in finding that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of appellees. In cases impacting elections, if a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief does not show a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the court examines whether the plaintiff will be irreparably harmed by denial of an injunction, whether or not the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and whether the public interest will be advanced by injunctive relief. Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he less certain the district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits” of the claims, the greater the burden on the plaintiff to “convince [it] that the public interest and the balance of hardships tips in [plaintiffs’] favor.” Id.

[8] The district court determined that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of defendants-appellees because plaintiffs-appellants waited well over a year to file suit and the State was irretrievably committed to enforcing the new law. The district court said that by the time plaintiffs filed suit, on May 9, 2006, the State had “invested enormous resources in preparing to apply Proposition 200[,]” and reinstituting the prior procedures “would undoubtedly cause confusion among election officials, boardworkers, and voters.” Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, Nos. CV 06–1268, –1362, –1575, slip op. at 16– 17 (Oct. 12, 2006). In claiming that the balance of hardships and the public interest favor injunctive relief, appellants present the same evidence the district court found insufficient to raise serious questions on the merits of their claims. This evidence does not support the conclusion that the balance of hardships favors appellants.
Because the record before us shows neither that appellants raise serious questions going to the merits of their arguments nor that the balance of hardships tips in their favor, we agree with the district court that injunctive relief at this stage of the proceedings is not warranted.
VI. Intervention by “Yes on Proposition 200” [9] Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a party is entitled to intervene where “(1) the intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a ‘significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action’; (3) ‘the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest’; and (4) ‘the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.’ ” Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted)).
[10] Here, the citizen group that put forth significant effort to ensure the passage of Proposition 200, Yes on Proposition 200 (“Intervenor”), is not a party to this action. It sought permission from the district court to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b), and also argued that it met the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The district court ruled that Intervenor did not meet all of Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements and also refused to grant it permission to intervene. Intervenor appeals only the district court’s ruling regarding Rule 24(a)(2).
*1052 [11] In its denial, the district court found that Intervenor satisfied the first three parts of the Rule 24(a)(2) test, but that it had failed to show that “the
6

existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Where “the government is acting on behalf of a constituency it represents,” as it is here, this court assumes that the government will adequately represent that constituency. Prete, 438 F.3d at 956; see also Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.2003). In order to overcome this presumption, the would-be intervenor must make a “very compelling showing” that the government will not adequately represent its interest. Id. at 1086.
Intervenor contends that the district court relied on the wrong precedent in requiring it to make a “very compelling showing.” It urges that the court should have followed Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir.1983), rather than Prete. But Sagebrush Rebellion is not analogous to this case.
Sagebrush Rebellion turns on the lack of any real

adversarial relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. That is not the situation here. Nothing in the record before us suggests that defendants are unwilling or unable to defend Proposition 200. Indeed, they have done so at every level of the federal courts. The district court applied the correct precedent and did not err in denying Yes on Proposition 200’s motion to intervene as of right.
The order of the district court denying preliminary injunctive relief and denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED.
Parallel Citations
07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4255, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5459
	  

Footnotes

*

The Honorable George P. Schiavelli, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

7

 
 624 F.3d 1162 United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Maria M. GONZALEZ,; Luciano Valencia; The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; League of Women Voters of Arizona; People for the American Way Foundation; Hopi Tribe, Plaintiffs,
and Bernie Abeytia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos Por La Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Valle Del Sol;
Project Vote, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v.
State of ARIZONA; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz,
Greenlee County Recorder; Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder; Lynn Constable, Yavapai County Election Director; Kelly Dastrup, Navajo County Election Director; Laura Dean– Lytle, Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, La Paz County Election Director; Susan Hightower Marlar, Yuma County Recorder; Gilberto Hoyos, Pinal County Election Director; Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder; Patty Hansen, Coconino County Election Director; Christine Rhodes, Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, Gila County Recorder; Dixie Mundy, Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, Greenlee County Election Director; Penny Pew, Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, Pima County Recorder, Defendants–Appellees, Maria M. Gonzalez; Bernie Abeytia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos Por La Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Luciano Valencia; Valle Del Sol; People for the American Way Foundation; Project Vote,
Plaintiffs, and
The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; League
of Women Voters of Arizona; Hopi Tribe, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v. State of Arizona; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz, Greenlee County Recorder; Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder; Patty Hansen, Coconino County Election Director; Kelly Dastrup, Navajo County Election Director; Lynn Constable, Yavapai County Election Director; Laura Dean– Lytle, Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, La Paz County Election Director; Susan Hightower Marlar, Yuma County Recorder; Gilberto Hoyos, Pinal County Election Director; Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder; Christine Rhodes, Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, Gila County Recorder; Dixie Mundy, Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, Greenlee County Election Director; Penny Pew, Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, Pima County Recorder, Defendants–Appellees,
Nos. 08–17094, 08–17115. | Argued and Submitted Oct. 20, 2009. | Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Synopsis Background: Arizona residents and Indian tribes filed actions challenging validity of proposition requiring prospective voters in Arizona to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and requiring registered voters to present proof of identification in order to cast ballot at polls. Actions were consolidated. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roslyn O. Silver, J., entered judgment in state’s favor, and plaintiffs appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Ikuta, Circuit Judge, held that:
[1] Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship was superseded by National Voter Registration Act (NVRA);
[2] law of the case doctrine did not bar panel from reconsidering issue following remand from earlier decision;
[3] requirement that voters provide proof of identification
1

before voting at polls did not violate Voting Rights Act (VRA); and
[4] requirement that voters show identification at polls was not poll tax.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Kozinski, Chief Judge, dissented in large part and filed opinion.
West Codenotes
Preempted A.R.S. §§ 16–152(A)(23), 16–166(F)
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1167 Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Jesus M. Gonzalez, et al.
Jon M. Greenbaum, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs/Appellants Inter Tribal Council, et al.
Karen J. Hartman–Tellez, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs/Appellants Inter–Tribal Council, et al.
*1168 Joe P. Sparks, The Sparks Law Firm, P.C., Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff/Appellant Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Barbara A. Bailey, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants/Appellees State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
Mary R. O’Grady, Solicitor General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants/Appellees State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
Dennis Wilenchik, Wilenchik and Bartness, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants/Appellees Shelly Baker, La Paz County Recorder, et al.
Sam Hirsch, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amicus Curiae The League of Women Voters of the United States.
Kali N. Bracey, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amicus Curiae The League of Women Voters of the United States.
Jessica Ring Amunson, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amicus Curiae The

League of Women Voters of the United States.
Barnaby W. Zall, Weinberg & Jacobs, LLP, Rockville, MD, on behalf of Amicus Curiae American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Charles E. Borden, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amicus Curiae National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.
Joel M. Spector, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation.
William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation.
Michael J. Reitz, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Olympia, WA, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Brian D. Netter, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amici Curiae Congressman Robert A. Brady, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Congressman Charles A. Gonzalez, Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, and Congressman Jose E. Serrano.
Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Amici Curiae Protect Arizona Now, Washington Legal Foundation, and Allied Educational Foundation.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 2:06–cv–01268–ROS, 06–cv– 01362–PCT–JAT, 06–cv–01575–PHX–EHC.
Before: SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice,*ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judge.
Opinion
Opinion by Judge IKUTA; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI.
OPINION
2

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Proposition 200 requires prospective voters in Arizona to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16–152, 16–166, and requires registered voters to present proof of identification in order to cast a ballot at the polls, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16– 579. This appeal raises the questions whether Proposition 200 violates the Voting Rights Act § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments of the Constitution, or is void as inconsistent with the National Voter *1169 Registration Act (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. We hold that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s voter registration procedures, and that Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement for registration is therefore invalid. We reject the remainder of Appellants’ arguments.
I
On November 2, 2004, Arizona voters passed a state initiative, Proposition 200, which (upon proclamation of the Governor) enacted various revisions to the state’s election laws. Among other changes, Proposition 200 amended the procedures for voter registration and for checking voters’ identification at polling places in both state and federal elections. With respect to voter registration procedures, Proposition 200 amended two state statutes. First, it added the following requirement to section 16–152 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which lists the contents of the state voter registration form:
The form used for the registration of electors shall contain ... [a] statement that the applicant shall submit evidence of United States citizenship with the application and that the registrar shall reject the application if no evidence of citizenship is attached. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–152(A)(23). Second, it amended section 16–166 of the Arizona Revised Statutes to state that: “The County Recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship,” and defined satisfactory evidence of citizenship to include a driver’s license or similar identification license issued by a motor vehicle agency, a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documents or other specified immigration documents, or specified cards relating to Native American tribal status. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–166(F).1

Proposition 200 also addressed identification procedures at polling places. Specifically, Proposition 200 amended section 16–579 of the Arizona Revised Statutes to provide that voters “shall present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–579(A) (2004). The Secretary of State, acting under statutory authority, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–452(A), (B), promulgated a procedure specifying *1170 the “forms of identification” accepted under the statute, which included photograph-bearing documents such as driver’s licenses and non-photograph-bearing documents such as utility bills or bank statements. In 2009, the state legislature amended section 16–579 to codify that procedure.2
Shortly after Proposition 200’s passage, various plaintiffs filed a complaint against Arizona to prevent the implementation of these changes. Two groups of plaintiffs are relevant to this appeal. Jesus Gonzalez, representing individual Arizona residents and organizational plaintiffs, claimed that Proposition 200 violated the NVRA (to the extent the Arizona enactment regulated federal registration procedures), was a poll tax under the Twentyfourth Amendment, burdened naturalized citizens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and disparately impacted Latino voters and diluted Latino voting power in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), a non-profit organization representing twenty Arizona tribes, filed a complaint along with various other organizations,3 the Hopi Tribe, and Representative Steve Gallardo from the Arizona State House of Representatives.4 Like Gonzalez, ITCA claimed that Proposition 200 violated the NVRA (to the extent it regulated federal registration procedures), and constituted a poll tax under the Twenty-fourth Amendment. ITCA also separately claimed that Proposition 200 was a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court consolidated Gonzalez and ITCA’s complaints.
Gonzalez and ITCA moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin application of *1171 Proposition 200’s requirements in the 2006 general election, Gonzalez v. Arizona (Gonzalez I ), 485 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir.2007). The district court denied their motion, but a motions panel of this court reversed and granted the injunction pending disposition of the merits on appeal. Id. The Supreme Court vacated the injunction, and remanded for clarification whether this court had given due deference to the district court’s findings of fact. Id. at 1048; see Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006). On remand, Gonzalez and ITCA chose to pursue injunctive relief with respect only to
3

Proposition 200’s registration requirement. Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1048. The Gonzalez I panel thereafter affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, holding that Proposition 200’s registration requirement was not a poll tax, id. at 1049, and was not a violation of the NVRA, id. at 1050–51. The district court subsequently granted Arizona’s motion for summary judgment, relying on Gonzalez I to rule that Proposition 200 was not an unconstitutional poll tax and was not invalid as conflicting with the NVRA. After trial, the district court resolved all other claims in favor of Arizona, holding that Proposition 200 did not violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not discriminate against naturalized citizens or burden the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
On appeal, Gonzalez and ITCA challenge the district court’s rulings on the NVRA and the Twenty-fourth Amendment. In addition, ITCA claims that Proposition 200 is an invalid poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Gonzalez challenges the district court’s decisions on both the Voting Rights Act claim and the equal protection challenge for discrimination based on national origin and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote. We consider each of these claims in turn.
II
We begin with Gonzalez’s claim that Proposition 200’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement for registration is superseded by the NVRA’s comprehensive procedure for registering voters in federal elections. Gonzalez argues that the NVRA preempts Arizona law under both the Supremacy Clause and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In response, Arizona relies on the Supremacy Clause’s “presumption against preemption,” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996), to argue that the NVRA did not expressly or impliedly preempt state voter registration laws. Before addressing the parties’ arguments, we first consider whether the framework of the Elections Clause or the Supremacy Clause guides our analysis here.
A
[1] The Elections Clause establishes a unique relationship between the state and federal governments. It provides:

The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. In a nutshell, the Elections Clause gives state governments initial responsibility to regulate the mechanics of national elections, “but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997).
The history of the Elections Clause reveals the reasoning behind this unusual delegation of power. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had full authority *1172 to maintain, appoint, or recall congressional delegates.5 At the Philadelphia Convention, delegates expressed concern that, if left unfettered, states could use this power to frustrate the creation of the national government, most obviously by neglecting to hold federal elections.6 The Framers decided that Congress should be given the authority to oversee the states’ procedures related to national elections as a safeguard against potential state abuse. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 808–09, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995); see also The Federalist No. 59 (Alexander Hamilton) (Ron P. Fairfield 1981 ed., 2d ed.) (explaining that “[n]othing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy”). Over the protest of some Southern delegates,7 the Framers approved language giving Congress power to “make or alter” the states’ regulations. See 5 Elliot’s Debates 401– 02 (statement of James Madison). As subsequently modified to give Congress supervisory power, this language became the Elections Clause.8
[2] As indicated by this historical context, the Elections Clause empowers both the federal and state governments to enact laws governing the mechanics of federal elections. By its plain language, the Clause delegates default authority to the states to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting national elections in the first instance. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. The states would not possess this authority but for the Clause: As the Supreme Court has noted, the authority to regulate national elections “aris [es] from the Constitution itself,” and is therefore “not a reserved power of the States.” U.S. Term Limits, 514 U.S. at 805, 115 S.Ct. 1842. Because federal elections did not come into being until the federal
4

government was formed, individual states have no inherent or preexisting authority over this domain. See id. at 804–05, 115 S.Ct. 1842.
[3] While the states have default responsibility over the mechanics of federal elections, because Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” passed by the state, U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, power over federal election procedures has been described by the Supreme *1173 Court as ultimately “committed to the exclusive control of Congress.” Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 554, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946).9 Accordingly, “the power of Congress over the subject is paramount. It may be exercised as and when Congress sees fit to exercise it. When exercised, the action of Congress, so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them.” Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 384, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879); see also Foster, 522 U.S. at 69, 118 S.Ct. 464.
[4] [5] Not only does the Elections Clause grant Congress authority to supersede state election laws, but we have interpreted the Clause to require states to affirmatively implement Congress’s superseding regulations, without compensation from the federal government. Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir.1995). Put another way, the Elections Clause gives Congress the power to “conscript state agencies to carry out [federal] voter” procedures in accordance with Congress’s own mandates. Id. This makes the Clause unique among virtually all other provisions in the Constitution, which “mostly tell [states] not what they must do but what they can or cannot do.” ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794 (7th Cir.1995).
[6] In sum, a state’s role in the creation and implementation of federal election procedures under the Elections Clause is to administer the elections through its own procedures until Congress deems otherwise; if and when Congress acts, the states are obligated to conform to and carry out whatever procedures Congress requires. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 69, 118 S.Ct. 464.
As should be clear from this overview, the Elections Clause operates quite differently from the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause provides that the law of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. “The primary function of the Supremacy Clause is to define the relationship between state and federal law. It is essentially a power conferring provision, one that allocates authority between the national and state governments.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir.1985).

[7] In our system of dual sovereignty, when deciding under the Supremacy Clause whether a particular state law is preempted by a federal enactment, courts strive to maintain the “delicate balance” between the States and the Federal Government. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); see Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240. Courts thus endeavor to preserve the states’ authority when possible, see Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395, particularly where a congressional enactment threatens to preempt a state law regulating matters of its residents’ *1174 health and safety, an area to which “[s]tates traditionally have had great latitude ... to legislate” as a matter of local concern, Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 756, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985). See also Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 129 S.Ct. 538, 543, 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008); Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240. Only where no reconciliation between state and federal enactments may be reached do courts hold that Congress’s enactments must prevail, e.g., Altria, 129 S.Ct. at 543, with the understanding, however, that “the individual States ... retain[their] independent and uncontrollable authority ... to any extent” that Congress has not interfered, see The Federalist No. 33 (Alexander Hamilton).
In light of the different history and purpose of these constitutional provisions, it is not surprising that the preemption analysis for the Supremacy Clause differs from that of the Elections Clause. In its Supremacy Clause jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has crafted special guidelines to assist courts in striking the correct balance between federal and state power. First, in examining claims that a federal law preempts a state statute through the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court instructs courts to begin with a “presumption against preemption.” E.g., Altria Group, 129 S.Ct. at 543; Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240. This principle applies because, as the Court has recently noted, “respect for the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system leads us to assume that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.” Wyeth v. Levine, –––U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1195 n. 3, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the Court has adopted a “plain statement rule,” holding that a federal statute preempts a state statute only when it is the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress” to do so. Gregory, 501 U.S. at 461, 111 S.Ct. 2395 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (“Consideration of issues arising under the Supremacy Clause starts with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States are not to be superseded by ... Federal Act, unless that is the clear and
5

manifest purpose of Congress.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Like the presumption against preemption, this rule “is nothing more than an acknowledgment that the States retain substantial sovereign powers under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not readily interfere.” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 461, 111 S.Ct. 2395.
[8] This jurisprudence, which is motivated in large part by federalism concerns, is unsuited to analyzing the preemptive effect of a congressional enactment under the Elections Clause. Because the states’ sole power over national election procedures is that delegated by the Elections Clause, U.S. Term Limits, 514 U.S. at 805, 115 S.Ct. 1842, and states otherwise have no reserved authority over this domain, id., courts deciding issues raised under the Elections Clause need not strike any balance between competing sovereigns. Instead, the Elections Clause, as a standalone preemption provision, establishes its own balance, resolving all conflicts in favor of the federal government. See, e.g., Foster, 522 U.S. at 71, 118 S.Ct. 464 (stating that “the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say” on matters related to federal election procedures). For this reason, the “presumption against preemption” and “plain statement rule” that guide courts’ analysis of preemption under the Supremacy Clause are not transferable to the Elections Clause context. Cf. Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460–61, 111 S.Ct. 2395. Indeed, the Supreme Court has suggested as *1175 much. In Foster, the Court upheld the Fifth Circuit’s determination that a state election law was voided by a federal election law; however, instead of adopting the Fifth Circuit’s Supremacy Clause analysis, the Supreme Court analyzed the claim under the Elections Clause, without ever mentioning any presumption against preemption or requirement of a plain statement of congressional intent to preempt. See Foster, 522 U.S. 67, 118 S.Ct. 464; Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir.1996), cert. granted in 522 U.S. 67, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997). In fact, our survey of Supreme Court opinions deciding issues under the Elections Clause reveals no case where the Court relied on or even discussed Supremacy Clause principles.
Because the Elections Clause empowered Congress to enact the NVRA, Wilson, 60 F.3d at 1414, the preemption analysis under that Clause is applicable here. We begin our analysis as the Court did in Foster, guided by Election Clause preemption principles. Accord Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir.2008) (declining to apply Supremacy Clause preemption principles in analyzing the preemptive effect of the NVRA).

B
[9] The Supreme Court first explained the principles of Elections Clause preemption in Siebold, 100 U.S. 371. In that case, the Court likened the relationship between the laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures under the Elections Clause to “prior and subsequent enactments of the same legislature.” Id. at 384. “The State laws which Congress sees no occasion to alter, but which it allows to stand, are in effect adopted by Congress.” Id. at 388. By this token, just as a subsequent legislature is not required to make an “entirely new set” of laws when modifying those of a prior legislature, neither is Congress required to wholly take over the regulation of federal election procedures when choosing to “make or alter” certain of the states’ rules. Id. at 384. According to the Court, there is no “intrinsic difficulty in such co-operation” between the state and national legislatures because the two governments do not possess an “equality of jurisdiction” with respect to federal elections. Id. at 392. While Congress may override state enactments, the state may not vitiate an action of Congress by adopting a system of regulations to undo congressional efforts. See id. at 393, 397. In all instances, “the laws of the State, in so far as they are inconsistent with the laws of Congress on the same subject, cease to have effect as laws.” Id. at 397.
Over a century later, the Supreme Court clarified what constitutes a conflict under the Elections Clause’s single system of federal election procedures. See Foster, 522 U.S. 67, 118 S.Ct. 464. Foster considered whether a congressional enactment superseded a Louisiana statute regulating the same federal election procedure. Id. at 68– 69, 118 S.Ct. 464. Specifically, sections 1 and 7 of Title 7 of the U.S.Code established the date for federal congressional elections as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Id. at 69–70, 118 S.Ct. 464. A Louisiana statute established an open primary in October where state voters could elect the candidate who would fill the offices of United States Senator and Representative. Id. at 70, 118 S.Ct. 464. Only if the open primary failed to result in a majority candidate would a run off election between the top two candidates be held on Congress’s specified election day. Id. In response to a challenge by Louisiana voters, the Court unanimously held that the state and federal acts conflicted, and thus invalidated the Louisiana law. Id. at 74, 118 S.Ct. 464.
In concluding that Congress’s power to preclude the state statute was beyond argument, the Court rejected the state’s *1176 claim that its statute and the federal enactment could be construed harmoniously. Id. at 73, 118 S.Ct. 464. Louisiana asserted that “the open primary system concern[ed] only the ‘manner’ of electing federal officials, not the ‘time’ at which the elections will take
6

place.” Id. at 72, 118 S.Ct. 464. The Court discarded this “attempt to draw this time-manner line” as “merely wordplay” and an “imaginative characterization” of the statutes. Id. at 72–73, 118 S.Ct. 464. Building upon the principles from Siebold, the Court declined to adopt a strained interpretation of the statutes to reconcile a potential disagreement. See id. Rather, the Court emphasized Congress’s unique plenary authority not only to supplant state rules but to conscript states to carry out federal enactments under the Elections Clause, and found it enough that, under a natural reading, the state and federal enactments addressed the same procedures and were in conflict. Id. (noting that the Louisiana’s regulation addressed the timing of elections “quite as obviously” as the federal one). Refusing to “par[e] [the statute] down to the definitional bone,” the Court held that the state enactment was void. Id. at 72, 74, 118 S.Ct. 464.
[10] Reading Siebold and Foster together, we derive the following approach for considering whether federal enactments under the Elections Clause displace a state’s procedures for conducting federal elections. First, as suggested in Siebold, we consider the state and federal laws as if they comprise a single system of federal election procedures. Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384. If the state law complements the congressional procedural scheme, we treat it as if it were adopted by Congress as part of that scheme. See id. If Congress addressed the same subject as the state law, we consider whether the federal act has superseded the state act, based on a natural reading of the two laws and viewing the federal act as if it were a subsequent enactment by the same legislature. Foster, 522 U.S. at 74, 118 S.Ct. 464. With this approach in mind, we consider whether the NVRA and Proposition 200 operate harmoniously in a single procedural scheme for federal voter registration.
C
To resolve the question here, we must first understand both the federal and state voter registration procedures at issue. We earlier explained the changes to Arizona’s registration statutes under Proposition 200, which incorporated a requirement that registrants submit documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. See supra Part I; Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16–152, 16–166. Our next step is to examine the scope of the NVRA.
1

Congress enacted the NVRA because, among other reasons, it determined that “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(a).
Initially, Congress attempted to address this problem by enacting legislation that permitted the government and prospective voters to challenge discriminatory practices in the courts. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 313, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) (discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which “authorized the Attorney General to seek injunctions against public and private interference with the right to vote on racial grounds,” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “expedited the hearing of voting cases before three-judge courts and outlawed some of the tactics” used to disqualify African Americans from voting in federal elections). *1177 10 The elimination of discriminatory voting practices through litigation, however, was “slow and expensive, and [meanwhile] the States were creative in contriving new rules to continue violating the Fifteenth [and Fourteenth] Amendment[s] in the face of adverse federal court decrees.” Nw. Austin. Mun. Utility Dis. No. One v. Holder (NAMUDNO ), ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2504, 2508–09, 174 L.Ed.2d 140 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To limit voter registration, some local officials defied court edicts or “simply closed their registration offices to freeze the voting rolls.” Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 314, 86 S.Ct. 803. Congress’s attempts to “authoriz[e] registration by federal officers ... had little impact on local maladministration.” Id. Nearly a century after the Civil War, registration of eligible African American voters in some states was still fifty percentage points lower than that of eligible white voters. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 640, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993).
Congress tried a different approach to addressing this problem by passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), Pub.L. No. 89–110, 79 Stat. 437(codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.). The VRA, enacted under the authority of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement powers, is “a complex scheme of stringent remedies aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant.” Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 308, 315, 86 S.Ct. 803. As enacted, the VRA suspended the use of literacy tests, § 4(a)-(d), required covered jurisdictions to pre-clear changes in voting procedures and practices, § 5, and provided for the appointment of federal examiners to assist in registering qualified citizens to vote, §§ 6, 7, 9, 13. Section 2 of the VRA also permits actions to be brought to void voting qualifications or prerequisites
7

“resulting in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account or race or color.”
[11] While considered on the whole to be a successful tool in eliminating the more obvious discriminatory voting procedures, see NAMUDNO, 129 S.Ct. at 2511, the VRA failed to address voter registration procedures, which imposed a “complicated maze of local laws and procedures, in some cases as restrictive as the out-lawed practices, through which eligible citizens had to navigate in order to exercise their right to vote,” H.R.Rep. No. 103–9, at 3 (1993), 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 105, 107. Between 1988 and 1993, Congress held a series of hearings focused on reforming the voter registration process to address the increasingly pressing issue of low voter turnout in federal elections. Condon v. Reno, 913 F.Supp. 946, 949 n. 2 (D.S.C.1995). Congress found that, while over eighty percent of registered citizens voted in Presidential elections, only sixty percent of eligible voters were registered. H.R.Rep. No. 103–9, at 3. Public opinion polls showed that the primary reason eligible citizens were not voting was the failure to register. Id. While acknowledging that this failure was attributable to many factors outside its control, Congress enacted the NVRA to address the problems within its control, namely those barriers to registration that were imposed by state governments. See id. Under the Elections Clause, Congress had the power “to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to ... registration.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932). Through this authority, Congress enacted the NVRA to remove these obstacles and “to provide *1178 simplified systems for registering to vote in federal elections.” Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 275, 117 S.Ct. 1228, 137 L.Ed.2d 448 (1997) (emphasis omitted).
2
The NVRA is a comprehensive scheme enacting three significant changes to federal election registration procedures nationwide: (1) it creates a standard “Federal Form” (described below) for registering federal voters; (2) it requires states to establish procedures to register voters for federal elections according to three prescribed methods; and (3) it regulates maintenance of voting lists. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq.
Section 1973gg, setting forth the act’s “Findings and Purposes,” provides an overview of the NVRA. The “findings” subsection, § 1973gg(a), articulates Congress’s

intent to promote voter registration and to address “discriminatory and unfair registration laws.” The “purposes” subsection, § 1973gg(b), provides a preview of the operative sections of the NVRA, listing Congress’s goals of increasing voter registration and enhancing the participation of eligible voters (relating to Sections 2 through 5, § 1973gg–2–§ 1973gg–5) and the goals of ensuring the accuracy of registration rolls and protecting the integrity of the electoral process (relating to Section 6, § 1973gg–6).
Section 2, § 1973gg–2, sets forth the scope and applicability of the act.11 Each state (except for those that do not require voter registration as a prerequisite to voting) “shall establish procedures to register” voters for federal elections according to the NVRA’s three methods “notwithstanding any other Federal or State law, in addition to any other method of voter registration provided for under State law.” § 1973gg–2(a).
The first method of voter registration is described in Section 3, § 1973gg–3. This section provides that any application for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application.” § 1973gg–3(a)(1). This provision earned the statute its informal title, the “Motor Voter Law.” United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 191 (1st Cir.1999). Under the statute, the voter registration form must be part of the driver’s license application, and generally “may not require any information that duplicates information required in the driver’s license portion of the form.” § 1973gg–3(c)(2)(A). Section 3 also limits the content of the form to the minimum necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and to enable the state to assess the eligibility of the applicant.12
The second method of voter registration, set forth in Section 4, § 1973gg–4, requires states to register federal voters by mail using the Federal Form. Section 4(a)(1) states that “[e]ach State shall accept and use the [Federal Form] for the registration *1179 of voters in elections for Federal office.” Section 4(a)(2) provides that, “[i]n addition to accepting and using [the Federal Form], a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all the criteria” of the Federal Form. Section 4(b) discusses the availability of the Federal Form and the state equivalent: States must make the mail registration form “available for distribution through governmental and private entities, with particular emphasis on making them available for organized voter registration programs.” § 1973gg–4(b). With certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute permits states to require citizens who register by mail to vote in person if they have not previously
8

voted in the jurisdiction. § 1973gg–4(c).
The third method of federal voter registration is mandated by Section 5, § 1973gg–5, which requires states to designate certain state offices for voter registration. Targeting “the poor and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s licenses and will not come into contact with” motor vehicle agencies, H.R.Rep. No. 103–66, at 19 (1993), as reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 144, this section requires states to provide for federal registration at “all offices in the State that provide public assistance,” § 1973gg–5(a)(2)(A), and “all offices in the State that provide State-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities,” § 1973gg–5(a)(2)(B). The state may also designate additional government offices such as “public libraries, public schools, offices of city and county clerks (including marriage license bureaus), fishing and hunting license bureaus, government revenue offices, unemployment compensation offices, and [other offices] that provides services to persons with disabilities” as voter registration agencies. § 1973gg–5(a)(3).
Section 5 requires each designated agency to provide applicants with the Federal Form, help them complete it, and mandates “[a]cceptance of completed voter registration application forms for transmittal to the appropriate State election official.” § 1973gg–5(a)(4)(A). As in Section 4, the designated state agency may also distribute a state form, but only “if it is equivalent” to the Federal Form. § 1973gg–5(a)(6)(A)(ii).
Section 6, § 1973gg–6, establishes procedures to enhance the accuracy and integrity of the official voting lists both by removing ineligible voters and preventing the mistaken removal of eligible voters.
Section 7, § 1973gg–7, describes how the federal and state governments will determine the contents of the Federal Form, and otherwise coordinate administration of the NVRA’s procedures. This section delegates the creation of the Federal Form to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).13 § 1973gg–7(a). The section requires the EAC to work “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States” in crafting the Form’s contents. Id.
Section 7 also sets out parameters for what the Federal Form may, shall, and cannot include.14 Among other things, the *1180 Federal Form “may require only such identifying information” as is necessary to allow the state to determine the eligibility of the applicant and to administer the voter registration and election process. § 1973gg–7(b)(1). The Federal Form must inform the applicant as to every eligibility requirement “including

citizenship” and require the applicant to attest, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant meets each requirement. § 1973gg–7(b)(2). The form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” § 1973gg–7(b)(3).
Section 8, § 1973gg–8, requires states to designate an officer to serve as chief election official. Section 9, § 1973gg–9, regulates civil enforcement of the NVRA’s provisions and designates a private right of action under the statute. Section 10, § 1973gg–10, sets forth the criminal penalties for election fraud or other noncompliance with the statute.
As this overview indicates, the thrust of the NVRA is to increase federal voter registration by streamlining the registration process. In this vein, the NVRA requires states to make registration opportunities widely available, at the motor vehicle bureau, § 1973gg–3, by mail, § 1973gg–4, and at public assistance, disability service, and other designated state offices, § 1973gg–5. Along with increasing the opportunities for registration, the NVRA eases the burdens of completing registration forms. At the motor vehicle authority, for instance, voter registration must be included as part of the driver’s license application and the combined form cannot require duplicative information. § 1973gg–3(c)(2)(A). The NVRA also regulates the Federal Form to meet its goal of eliminating obstacles to voter registration. See § 1973gg(b)(1)-(2). Thus, the NVRA forbids the EAC from including any identifying information beyond that “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” § 1973gg–7(b)(1). In sum, as every court to have considered the act has concluded, the NVRA’s central purpose is to increase voter registration by streamlining voter registration procedures. See, e.g., Harkless, 545 F.3d at 449; Welker v. Clarke, 239 F.3d 596, 598–99 (3d Cir.2001) (“One of the NVRA’s central purposes was to dramatically expand opportunities for voter registration ....”); Disabled in Action of Metro. N.Y. v. Hammons, 202 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir.2000); Lara, 181 F.3d at 192 (“The NVRA is addressed to heightening overall popular participation in federal elections....”); Nat’l Coal. for Students with Disabilities Educ. & Legal Def. Fund v. Allen, 152 F.3d 283, 285 (4th Cir.1998) (“Congress passed the NVRA ... to encourage increased voter registration for elections involving federal offices” and “to *1181 make it easier to register to vote.”); ACORN v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 835 (6th Cir.1997) (“In an attempt to reinforce the right of qualified citizens to vote by reducing the restrictive nature of voter registration requirements, Congress passed the [NVRA].”).
9

3
Turning now to our Elections Clause analysis, we consider whether Proposition 200’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement is superseded by the NVRA. As indicated by the approach derived from Siebold and Foster, see supra Part II.B, we consider the state and federal enactments together as if they composed a single system of federal election procedures. Next, we consider whether, read naturally, the NVRA provisions complement Proposition 200’s voter registration requirements or supersede them. If a natural interpretation of the language of the two enactments leads to the conclusion that the state law does not function consistently and harmoniously with the overriding federal scheme, then it is replaced by the federal statute.
[12] Applying this framework, we conclude that Proposition 200’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement conflicts with the NVRA’s text, structure, and purpose. First, the NVRA addresses precisely the same topic as Proposition 200 in greater specificity, namely, the information that will be required to ensure that an applicant is eligible to vote in federal elections. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 73, 118 S.Ct. 464. Section 7 of the NVRA, § 1973gg–7, both spells out the information that an applicant must provide in order to register to vote in a federal election and limits what the Federal Form can require. It “may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” § 1973gg–7(b)(1). The Federal Form accounts for eligibility concerns by requiring applicants to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet every eligibility requirement. § 1973gg–7(b)(2). Acknowledging the states’ interests in ensuring voter eligibility, Congress allowed states to give their input on the contents of the Federal Form in an advisory capacity to the EAC. § 1973gg–7(a)(2). Given the NVRA’s comprehensive regulation of the development of the Federal Form, there is no room for Arizona to impose sua sponte an additional identification requirement as a prerequisite to federal voter registration for registrants using that form. If viewed as a second enactment by the same legislature, the NVRA clearly subsumes Proposition 200’s additional documentary requirement on registrants using the Federal Form. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384.
Further supporting this conclusion, the value of the Federal Form (and hence a centerpiece of the NVRA)

would be lost, and Congress’s goal to eliminate states’ discriminatory or onerous registration requirements vitiated, if we were to agree with Arizona that states could add any requirements they saw fit to registration for federal elections through the Federal Form. For instance, the NVRA prohibits the Federal Form from requiring notarization or other such formal authentication. § 1973gg–7(b)(3). If the NVRA did not supersede additional state requirements on registrants using the Federal Form, as Arizona asserts, then states would be free to impose a notarization requirement as a prerequisite to their “accept[ance] and use” of the form, see § 1973gg– 4(a)(1), even though such a requirement would directly contradict Congress’s intent in prohibiting such a requirement in the form itself.
*1182 Moreover, specific statutory language in the NVRA, when read in an unstrained and natural manner, is inconsistent with the state enactment. The NVRA mandates that states “shall accept and use” the Federal Form when applicants register by mail. § 1973gg–4(a). It likewise requires “acceptance” of the completed Federal Form at state office buildings, which must be transmitted to the appropriate State election officials. § 1973gg– 5(a)(4)(iii). The state must implement these methods of registering voters, as well as the combined motor vehiclevoter registration form, § 1973gg–3(c)(1), “notwithstanding any other Federal or state law,” § 1973gg–2(a). By contrast, Proposition 200 precludes the state from registering applicants who have completed and submitted the Federal Form unless such applicants also mail in, or submit at the designated state office building, documentary proof of citizenship. Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16– 152, 16–166. Such a requirement falls under the umbrella of laws displaced by the NVRA’s “notwithstanding” language.
Structurally, allowing states to impose their own requirements for federal voter registration on registrants using the Federal Form would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input, and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of the lines of authority prescribed by Section 7. The NVRA permits states to suggest changes to the Federal Form, but gives the EAC ultimate authority to adopt or reject those suggestions. § 1973gg–7(a). Here, for example, before enacting Proposition 200, Arizona petitioned the EAC to include a requirement in the Federal Form that the applicant present documentary proof of citizenship analogous to what is required by Proposition 200. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in the NVRA, the EAC denied the suggestion and warned that Arizona “may not refuse to register individuals to vote in a Federal election for failing to provide supplemental proof of citizenship, if they have properly completed and timely submitted the Federal
10

Registration Form.” Faced with this denial, Arizona proceeded to implement the requirement in Proposition 200 as a separate state condition to voter registration, which was imposed even on those registering to vote in federal elections with the Federal Form. If the NVRA did not supersede state-imposed requirements for federal voter registration, this type of end-run around the EAC’s consultative process would become the norm, and Congress’s control over the requirements of federal registration would be crippled. Given that the Elections Clause gives Congress ultimate authority over the federal voter registration process, Colegrove, 328 U.S. at 554, 66 S.Ct. 1198, such a reading of the NVRA is untenable.
More broadly, Proposition 200 is not in harmony with the intent behind the NVRA, which is to reduce stateimposed obstacles to federal registration. It is indisputable that by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration. As indicated in our overview, supra Part C.2, the NVRA was sensitive to the multiple purposes of a federal voter registration scheme, including the need “to establish procedures that [would] increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office” and the need to protect “the integrity of the electoral process.” § 1973gg(b). The balance struck by the EAC pursuant to § 1973gg–7(a) was to require applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but not to require the presentation of documentary proof. Id. Proposition 200’s additional requirement is not consistent with this balance.
Arizona argues that Proposition 200 does not conflict with the NVRA because *1183 the NVRA nowhere expressly precludes states from imposing requirements in addition to those of the Federal Form. Focusing on the phrase in the NVRA Section 4 which requires states to “accept and use” the Federal Form to register mail applicants, see § 1973gg–4(a)(1), Arizona argues that its registration process complies with the NVRA because the state makes the Federal Form available to applicants, and will accept the Form so long as it is accompanied by documentary proof of citizenship.
Like the petitioners in Foster, Arizona has offered a creative interpretation of the state and federal statutes to avoid a direct conflict. See Foster, 522 U.S. at 72, 118 S.Ct. 464. But as Foster counsels, we do not strain to reconcile the state’s federal election regulations with those of Congress under the Elections Clause; rather, we consider whether the additional registration requirement mandated by Proposition 200 is harmonious with the procedures mandated by Congress under a natural reading of the statutes. See id. at 74, 118 S.Ct. 464; Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384. As explained above, allowing Arizona to

impose Proposition 200’s registration provisions on top of the Federal Form conflicts with the NVRA’s purpose, procedural framework, and the specific requirement that states use the Federal Form or its equivalent, “notwithstanding any other state or federal law,” § 1973gg–2(a). Under Congress’s expansive Elections Clause power, we must hold Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16– 152(A)(23), 16–166(F), superseded by the NVRA.15
4
Arizona’s remaining arguments do not persuade us to reach a different conclusion. First, Arizona contends that an interpretation of the NVRA that precludes states from imposing additional voter registration requirements for federal elections is unreasonable because Congress could not have intended states to register “any and all” applicants who submit the Federal Form without any outlet for the states to check those applicants’ qualifications. Arizona asserts that because the act contemplates that some applications will be rejected, see § 1973gg–6(a)(2) (which requires states to notify “each applicant of the disposition of the application”), the NVRA cannot require states to automatically register every individual using the Federal Form.
[13] This argument reflects a misunderstanding of the NVRA. As Section 6 demonstrates, states need not register every applicant who completes and submits the Federal Form. See § 1973gg–6(a)(2). Voters still have to prove their eligibility pursuant to the Federal Form. Contrary to Arizona’s assertion, the NVRA does not *1184 require states to register applicants who are ineligible, or whose forms are incomplete, inaccurate, or illegible.
Second, Arizona argues that states must have freedom to exercise their own methods for determining voter eligibility as a protection against voter fraud. In ACORN v. Edgar, the Seventh Circuit considered and discarded a similar argument. In that case, the state claimed that the “Motor Voter” component of the NVRA “opens the door to voter fraud.” 56 F.3d at 795. The court rejected the argument in part because “federal law contains a number of safeguards against vote fraud, and it is entirely conjectural that they are inferior to the protections that [state] law offers.” Id. at 795–96 (citation omitted).
[14] We reach the same conclusion here. Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the NVRA, as evidenced by the numerous fraud
11

protections built into the act. For one, Section 10 applies federal criminal penalties to persons who knowingly and willingly engage in fraudulent registration tactics. § 1973gg–10(2). Second, Sections 3 and 7 require the Federal Form and the combined motor vehicle-voter registration form to contain an attestation clause that sets out the requirements for voter eligibility. §§ 1973gg– 3(c)(2)(C)(i)–(ii), 1973gg–7(b)(2)(A)-(B). Applicants are required to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. §§ 1973gg–3(c)(2)(C)(iii), 1973gg–7(b)(2)(C). Third, Section 4 permits states to verify the eligibility and identity of voters by requiring first-time voters who register by mail to appear at the polling place in person, where the voter’s identity can be confirmed. § 1973gg– 4(c). Last, Section 6 requires states to give notice to applicants of the disposition of their registration, which states may use as a means to detect fraudulent registrations. See § 1973gg–6(a)(2). Because Congress dealt with the issue of voter fraud in the NVRA, we are not persuaded by Arizona’s claim that states must be permitted to impose additional requirements to address the same issue.
Third, Arizona suggests that Congress’s enactment of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq., which Congress passed after the NVRA, provides a gloss on the NVRA’s meaning. According to Arizona, HAVA demonstrated Congress’s intent to permit states to ensure the eligibility of voter registrants, and made clear that states could exceed the minimum requirements of the NVRA in carrying out their registration functions.
We disagree. Congress enacted HAVA in reaction to the 2000 Presidential election and the ensuing controversial Florida recount. Fla. State Conference of NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir.2008). The NVRA and HAVA operate in separate spheres: while the NVRA regulates voter registration, HAVA is concerned with updating election technologies and other electionday issues at polling places.
As relevant here, HAVA interacts with the NVRA only on a few discrete issues. First, HAVA added two checkboxes to the Federal Form, requiring applicants to check off whether they are citizens of the United States and whether they are old enough to vote. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(4).
Second, HAVA permits mail registrants who have not previously voted in a federal election to submit documents verifying their identity along with the Federal Form. § 15483(b)(3). First-time voters who take advantage of this provision do not have to show their identification when they arrive at the polling place, id., a step that the states may otherwise require under the

NVRA, see § 1973gg–4(c). This option is not, however, a prerequisite to successful registration, as applicants who choose not to submit documentation may still be registered.
*1185 Third, HAVA requires states to assign each registrant a “unique identifier” capable of being crosschecked against voters’ identities at the polls. § 15483(a)(1)(A). HAVA provides that the unique identifier may be the applicant’s driver’s license number or the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number. See § 15483(a)(5)(A). But nothing in HAVA allows the state to require these forms of identification as a prerequisite to registration. Rather, if the applicant possesses neither a driver’s license nor social security card, HAVA requires the state to assign the applicant “a number which will serve to identify the applicant for voter registration purposes.” § 15483(a)(5)(A)(ii). The unique identifier is not used to check the citizenship of the registrant, but rather to ensure that the voter who appears at the polls is the same person who registered to vote.
[15] Nor does HAVA allow states to exceed the voter registration requirements set forth in the NVRA. In making this argument, Arizona points to the provision in HAVA stating that:
The requirements established by this title are minimum requirements and nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent a State from establishing election technology and administration requirements that are more strict than the requirements so long as such State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements under this subchapter or any law [including the NVRA and other federal voting regulations, § 15545].
§ 15484. But the “election technology and administration requirements” referenced in this section refer to HAVA’s requirements that states update election equipment (such as by replacing punch card voting systems) and meet other voting system standards. While § 15484 permits states to institute their own technological and administrative improvements, it does not allow them to impose additional requirements on the voter registration process established by the NVRA. Indeed, the section itself precludes states from adding requirements “inconsistent with the Federal requirements under” the NVRA. § 15484. Moreover, HAVA expressly provides that “nothing [in HAVA] may be construed to authorize
12

or require conduct prohibited under [the NVRA].” § 15545(a)(4). This language indicates Congress’s intent was to prevent HAVA from interfering with NVRA’s comprehensive voter registration system. Accordingly, Arizona’s reliance on HAVA is unavailing.
D
Finally, Arizona argues that we are foreclosed from reviewing Gonzalez’s NVRA claim because the prior panel’s ruling in Gonzalez I, which occurred at the preliminary injunction phase of this case, already decided that the NVRA does not supersede the changes to Arizona’s registration system under Proposition 200. See Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1050–51. Arizona asserts that this prior ruling is dispositive, and there is no ground for the court to reconsider the issue here.
[16] [17] Addressing this argument requires us to review the applicability of our law of the case doctrine.16 Under this doctrine, “one panel of an appellate court *1186 will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine applies to prior decisions based on pure issues of law, even those made, as here, in the preliminary stages of review of the same case. See Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 499 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2007).
[18] [19] “The effect of the doctrine is not dispositive, particularly when a court is reconsidering its own judgment, for the law of the case ‘directs a court’s discretion, it does not limit the tribunal’s power.’ ” Mendenhall v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 213 F.3d 464, 469 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)). In other words, “there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to require [invocation of the doctrine], or to prevent a [court] from allowing a past action to be modified while a case remains in court.” King v. West Virginia, 216 U.S. 92, 101, 30 S.Ct. 225, 54 L.Ed. 396 (1910). Instead, the doctrine’s utility is typically prudential: “it’s a courteous and efficient way for a court to say ‘enough’s enough’ when litigants seek reconsideration of prior interlocutory decisions.” Jeffries v. Wood (Jeffries V ), 114 F.3d 1484, 1509 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (citing cases), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997).

[20] That said, the policies animating the law of the case doctrine are undeniably fundamental. The doctrine “promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process by protecting against the agitation of settled issues.” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). These are paramount concerns to sound judicial administration, as “[a]n appellate court cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Balanced against these valid concerns, however, are equally strong considerations that occasionally pull in the opposite direction. We have held that the “[l]aw of the case should not be applied woodenly in a way inconsistent with substantial justice.” United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828, 832 (9th Cir.1987); see also Rent– A–Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 602 (9th Cir.1991) (“[T]he law of the case is an equitable doctrine that should not be applied if it would be unfair.”); Loumar, Inc. v. Smith, 698 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir.1983) (“The law of the case doctrine is not ... a barrier to correction of judicial error. It is a rule of convenience and utility and yields to adequate reason....”). Interests of efficiency and finality clash with the responsibility of the court to not issue judgments known to be wrong on the facts or law.
[21] As a compromise between these sometimes countervailing interests, we have identified three exceptional circumstances in which, on balance, we deem the concerns of finality and efficiency outweighed. Law of the case should not operate as a constraint on judicial review where “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice,17 (2) intervening controlling authority *1187 makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.” Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1489 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Here, Gonzalez argues that the first exception applies. We agree.
[22] The prior panel’s conclusion that the NVRA permits state-imposed documentary proof of citizenship requirements on registrants using the Federal Form was based on three provisions of the statute. First, the panel indicated that under the NVRA states must “either ‘accept and use the mail voter registration form prescribed by the Federal Election Commission’ or, in the alternative, ‘develop and use [their own] form,’ as long as the latter conforms to the federal guidelines.” Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d
13

at 1050(second alteration in original) (citations omitted). Second, the panel asserted that the NVRA “prohibits states from requiring the form to be notarized or otherwise formally authenticated.” Id. Last, the panel described the NVRA as “permit[ting] states to ‘require[ ] such identifying information ... as is necessary to enable ... election official[s] to assess the eligibility of the applicant.’ ” Id. (alterations in original). Construing these provisions together, the panel concluded that the statute plainly contemplates allowing states to require voters to present at least some evidence of citizenship at the time of registration. Id. at 1050–51.
As may be apparent from our NVRA analysis supra, the prior panel’s conclusion was rooted in a fundamental misreading of the statute. As the dissent acknowledges, see Dissent at 1204–05, the NVRA does not give states freedom “either” to accept and use the Federal Form “or, in the alternative,” develop their own form. See id. Rather, the NVRA commands without exception that states “shall” accept and use the Federal Form, and if they develop their own form, it can be used only “in addition to” accepting and using the Federal Form, and still must meet all of the criteria of Section 7. See § 1973gg–4(a). Thus, while Section 4 of the NVRA applies the limitations of Section 7(b) to the states with respect to the creation of their own state forms, nothing in the text or structure of either provision supports reading Section 7(b) as giving the states any authority over or discretion to modify the Federal Form. Insofar as the prior panel referred to portions of the NVRA that relate to the Federal Form, see Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1050, those excerpts are directed solely at the EAC, not the states. See § 1973gg–7(a)–(b). These provisions cannot be said to “plainly allow states ... to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote” for federal elections via the Federal Form. Id. at 1050–51.
The dissent takes issue with our analysis of the prior panel’s opinion, suggesting that the panel may have been using “either ... or, in the alternative” in a conjunctive sense. Dissent at 1203–05. We disagree. The prior panel’s statement that states can *1188 “either accept and use” the Federal Form “or, in the alternative ” develop and use their own form cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean that states can both accept and use the Federal Form and also develop and use their own form. Indeed, such an interpretation would be contrary to the prior panel’s logic; the prior panel based its conclusion that states could require registrants using the Federal Form to show additional identification on the ground that states could require use of their own forms in lieu of the Federal Form.
As another basis for upholding the prior panel’s opinion, the dissent suggests that the prior panel’s conclusion was

correct although its reasoning was erroneous, because “accept and use” in § 1973gg–4(a)(1) can be read to mean “accept ... for a particular purpose [but] not have it be sufficient to satisfy that purpose.” Dissent at 1206. In other words, the dissent argues that although states are required to “accept and use” the Federal Form, the NVRA leaves them free to require prospective voters to comply with additional registration requirements beyond those mandated by the Federal Form. As noted above, Arizona makes a similar argument. This argument is inconsistent with the language and structure of the NVRA. The dissent’s strained interpretation would make the EAC’s procedure for consultation and development of the Federal Form under Section 7(a) an empty exercise, because any state could require registrants to comply with additional state requirements even if they register with the Federal Form. As discussed above, under an Elections Clause framework, we do not strain the language of the NVRA to render it harmonious with Proposition 200. In the context of the NVRA, “accept and use” can mean only one thing: the states must “accept and use” the Federal Form as a fully sufficient means of registering to vote in federal elections.
Reasoning from a fundamental misreading of the statute, the prior panel reached a conclusion that was clear error. See Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1489. The text, structure, and purpose of the NVRA simply cannot bear the prior panel’s interpretation. Moreover, this case represents an “exceptional circumstance,” where the effect of the erroneous decision, were it to stand, would result in a manifest injustice. Id. at 1489, 1492. Not only does the erroneous conclusion impede the implementation of a major congressional enactment, but it poses a significant inequity to citizens who are required under the state law to navigate obstacles that do not exist under federal law in pursuit of their fundamental right to vote. See id. at 1492 (stating that manifest injustice may be found where the challenged decision involves a “significant inequity”). Though we are sensitive to the cautious approach courts should take in deciding to alter an earlier panel’s decision, because the prior decision in this case not only reached a clearly erroneous result, but reached that result on the basis of a misconstruction of the statute, we are convinced that there are appropriately exceptional circumstances to review the decision here.
[23] The fact that the prior panel’s decision was contained in a published opinion does not strip us of our discretion to review its conclusions, because no subsequent published decision has relied upon the prior panel’s decision for the proposition to be overturned. See, e.g., Mendenhall, 213 F.3d at 469 (reversing a prior published appellate opinion as clearly erroneous under the exceptions to the law of the case); Tahoe–Sierra, 216
14

F.3d at 786–87 (same). Under such circumstances, the law of the circuit doctrine does not preclude us from revising prior decisions in the same case under the established exceptions *1189 to the law of the case. See Jeffries V, 114 F.3d 1484.
This conclusion was made clear in Jeffries V, an en banc decision highlighting the workings of our law of the case doctrine. Although the procedural history of the Jeffries decisions is complex,18 the central question addressed in Jeffries V was whether Jeffries IV, 75 F.3d 491, erred in its application of an exception to the law of the case. The Jeffries IV panel held that it could reverse its prior holding in Jeffries III, 5 F.3d 1180, under the first exception to the law of the case, because Jeffries III was “clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Jeffries IV, 75 F.3d at 494. In Jeffries V, we rejected the state’s argument that we should avoid reaching the law of the case issue and instead decide the case on the merits, due to the importance of the law of the case doctrine to our jurisprudence. See 114 F.3d at 1492. After a careful review of the law of the case doctrine, we concluded in Jeffries V that the Jeffries IV panel had erred in overturning Jeffries III, because none of the exceptions to the law of the case were applicable. Id. at 1489. Focusing on the first exception, see id. at 1489 n. 2, we concluded that Jeffries III was not clearly erroneous, and would not work a manifest injustice, and accordingly Jeffries IV had erred in reversing it. Id. at 1489.
The decision in Jeffries V was also supported on stare decisis grounds. Noting that two Ninth Circuit panels had already relied on Jeffries III at the time Jeffries IV was decided, see Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571, 1575 n. 1 (9th Cir.1996); Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir.1995), we stated that a panel “must be exceedingly careful in altering the law of its earlier opinion” in circumstances “when subsequent panels have relied on the initial decision” because “[o]therwise, intra-circuit conflict may arise, posing serious difficulties.” Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1492. Moreover, we noted that “to reach its decision properly, the Jeffries IV panel would have had to reverse Lawson,” which could not properly be done by a three-judge panel. Id. In explaining the effect of prior published opinions on the applicability of our exceptions to the law of the case, the en banc court in Jeffries V notably did not adopt the view of the dissent in that case that “no three-judge panel may reconsider a rule of law embodied in a prior published opinion,” even one in the same case, *1190 Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1511 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). In sum, under our en banc decision in Jeffries V, though a panel cannot overturn prior published opinions in different cases, it may overturn a prior published opinion in the same case if the exceptions to the law of the case are applicable.

In this case, no other panel of this court has relied upon the prior panel’s decision for the proposition that the NVRA does not supersede additional state requirements for federal voter registration. Where no subsequent opinion has relied on the prior published opinion for the proposition to be overturned, there is no stare decisis problem and consequently the law of the circuit doctrine does not prohibit revising the prior opinion.
Despite our decision in Jeffries V, the dissent argues that we are bound by a rule that we can never reverse a prior published opinion, even one in the same case. Dissent at 1198–99. On its face, this is the same rule that was proposed in the Jeffries V dissent and rejected by the majority. To overcome this obstacle, the dissent claims that a footnote in United States v. Washington (Washington IV), 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc), overruled Jeffries V on this issue. Dissent at 1199.
We disagree. Washington IV was heard en banc to resolve an inconsistency between two conflicting lines of precedent on the question whether federal recognition of a tribe has a bearing on that tribe’s entitlement to fishing rights under a specific treaty. See 593 F.3d at 792–93, 798. In United States v. Washington (Washington III ), 394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2005), we held that the intervening federal recognition of a tribe “was a sufficient condition for the establishment of treaty fishing rights.” Id. at 1158. But in Greene v. United States (Greene I), 996 F.2d 973, 976–77 (9th Cir.1993), and Greene v. Babbitt (Greene II), 64 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (9th Cir.1995), we held that federal recognition of a tribe could have no effect on treaty fishing rights. On appeal from the district court’s decision following Washington III, we explained that “the conflict in our precedent led us to rehear the matter en banc without awaiting a threejudge decision.” Washington IV, 593 F.3d at 798 n. 9. This is correct: a three-judge panel could not have resolved the split between Washington III and Greene I and II. The footnote on which the dissent relies further explained that en banc review was necessary because, “[e]ven if the panel could have revisited Washington III under one of the exceptions to the law of the case, it still would have been bound by that published opinion as the law of the circuit ... ‘[W]e have no discretion to depart from precedential aspects of our prior decision ... under the general law-of-the-circuit rule.’ ” Washington IV, 593 F.3d at 798 n. 9 (citations omitted) (quoting Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.2002)).
In light of the detailed discussion in Jeffries V regarding exceptions to the law of the case, we cannot read this sentence as overruling this longstanding doctrine. While Jeffries V was expressly decided on the law-of-the-case
15

ground, nothing in Washington IV turned on the law of the case doctrine. Nor did Washington IV expressly consider or overrule our en banc decision in Jeffries V. “In our circuit, statements made in passing, without analysis, are not binding precedent.” Thacker v. FCC (In re Magnacom Wireless, LLC), 503 F.3d 984, 993–94 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (“Of course, not every statement of law in every opinion is binding on later panels. Where it is clear that a statement is made casually and without analysis, where the statement is uttered in passing without due consideration of the alternatives, or where it is merely a prelude *1191 to another legal issue that commands the panel’s full attention, it may be appropriate to re-visit the issue in a later case.”). The Washington IV footnote on which the dissent relies neither exhibits “reasoned consideration” of our law of the case doctrine, Johnson, 256 F.3d at 914, nor discusses an issue “germane,” id., to the resolution of Washington IV. In fact, it can more accurately be described as informational, “casual[,] and without analysis,” id. at 915. Moreover, the Washington IV footnote is silent on the question whether subsequent published opinions had relied on Washington III, which Jeffries V held could preclude an application of the exceptions to the law of the case. Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1489. Accordingly, we decline to hold that this footnote overruled sub silentio the reasoned analysis of the en banc court in Jeffries V.19
Because, as set forth above, the prior panel’s decision on the NVRA issue meets the standard of a recognized law of the case exception, we have discretion to review that decision, and we have chosen to exercise that discretion here.
E
Perhaps the instructions to the Federal Form put it best in stating: “you can use the application in this booklet to: Register to vote in your State.” Under the NVRA, prospective voters seeking to register in federal elections need only complete and submit the Federal Form. If this sounds simple, it is by design. Congress enacted the NVRA to increase federal registration by streamlining the registration process and eliminating complicated stateimposed hurdles to registration, which it determined were driving down voter turnout rates. Proposition 200 imposes such a hurdle. In light of Congress’s paramount authority to “make or alter” state procedures for federal elections, see Foster, 522 U.S. at 69, 118 S.Ct. 464; Siebold, 100 U.S. at 371, we hold that the NVRA’s comprehensive

regulation of federal election registration supersedes Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16–152(A)(23), 16–166(F).
Because we hold Arizona’s registration requirement void under the NVRA, we need not reach Gonzalez’s claim that the documentary proof of citizenship requirement imposes greater burdens of registration on naturalized citizens than on non-naturalized citizens and burdens the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
III
The remainder of our analysis focuses solely on the validity of Arizona’s polling place provision, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–579.20 That statute requires voters to show proof of identification before voting at the polls. *1192 Id. We first consider Gonzalez’s appeal from the district court’s decision that Proposition 200 does not violate § 2 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.
A
[24] [25] Section 2(a) of the VRA prohibits states from imposing voting qualifications that result in the “denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). A violation of § 2 is established “if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation” by members of a protected class “in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate [1] to participate in the political process and [2] to elect representatives of their choice.” § 1973(b). Said otherwise, a plaintiff can prevail in a § 2 claim only if, “based on the totality of the circumstances, the challenged voting practice results in discrimination on account of race.”21 Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Blaine Cnty., Mont., 363 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir.2004). A violation of § 2 does not require a showing of discriminatory intent, only discriminatory results. See Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 383, 111 S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 557 (9th Cir.1998).
[26] [27] In applying the totality of the circumstances test, “a court must assess the impact of the contested structure or
16

practice on minority electoral opportunities on the basis of objective factors.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 44, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting a § 2 analysis, courts are required to make a “searching inquiry” into “how the challenged [state] practice interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by” minorities in the electoral process. Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1016, 1020 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Gingles, the Supreme Court cited a non-exhaustive list of nine factors (generally referred to as the “Senate Factors” because they were discussed in the Senate Report on the 1982 amendments to the VRA) that courts should consider in making this totality of the circumstances assessment. 478 U.S. at 44– 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752. Relevant here, the factors direct courts to consider the history of official state discrimination against the minority with respect to voting, the extent to which voting in the state is racially polarized, and “the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.” Id. at 36– 37, 106 S.Ct. 2752(quoting S.Rep. No. 97–417, at 28–29 (1982), as reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 206–07). “[T]here is no requirement that any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” Farrakhan v. Gregoire, 590 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Gonzalez alleges that Proposition 200’s registration and polling place identification requirements violate § 2 by disparately affecting Latino voters, unlawfully diluting their right to vote and providing them with less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process. Considering statistical evidence *1193 on the existence of disparate impact on Latino registrants and voters, the district court determined that the limited statistical disparity between Latinos’ registration and voting as compared to the rest of the electorate was not statistically significant. Turning to the Senate Factors listed above, the district court found that Latinos had suffered a history of discrimination in Arizona that hindered their ability to participate in the political process fully, that there were socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and whites in Arizona, and that Arizona continues to have some degree of racially polarized voting.
Despite the presence of limited statistical disparity and some of the Senate Factors, however, the district court concluded that Gonzalez’s claim failed because there was no proof of a causal relationship between Proposition 200 and any alleged discriminatory impact on Latinos. The

district court noted that not a single expert testified to a connection between the requirement that Latinos show identification under Proposition 200 and the observed difference in voter registration and voting rates of Latinos. Furthermore, the district court held that Gonzalez failed to explain how Proposition 200’s requirements interact with the social and historical climate of discrimination to impact Latino voting in Arizona. Without a causal link between the voting practice and prohibited discriminatory result, the district court concluded that Gonzalez had not proven that Proposition 200 results in discrimination “on account of race or color,” and that the claim must therefore be denied.
B
Because a § 2 analysis requires the district court to engage in a “searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality,” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (internal quotation marks omitted), a district court’s examination is “intensely fact-based and localized,” Salt River, 109 F.3d at 591. We therefore “[d]efer[ ] to the district court’s superior fact-finding capabilities,” id., and review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, including its ultimate finding whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practice violates § 2, Old Person v. Cooney, 230 F.3d 1113, 1119(9th Cir.2000) (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 78–79, 106 S.Ct. 2752). We review de novo the district court’s legal determinations and mixed findings of law and fact. Salt River, 109 F.3d at 591. Again, because we have held that Proposition 200’s voter registration requirements are superseded by the NVRA, supra Part II, we consider only Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polls, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–579.
[28] The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gonzalez failed to establish that Proposition 200’s requirements caused any disparate impact on Latinos. To prevail under § 2, a plaintiff must prove “a causal connection between the challenged voting practice and a prohibited discriminatory result.” Salt River, 109 F.3d at 595 (alteration omitted). “[A] bare statistical showing of disproportionate impact on a racial minority does not satisfy the § 2 ‘results’ inquiry.” Id. at 595 (emphasis in original) (collecting cases). To prove that such a causal relationship exists, a plaintiff need not show that the challenged voting practice caused the disparate impact by itself. See Farrakhan, 338 F.3d at 1018–19. Rather, pursuant to a totality of the circumstances analysis, the plaintiff may prove causation by pointing to the interaction between the challenged practice and external
17

factors such as surrounding racial discrimination, and by showing how that interaction results in the discriminatory impact. Id. at 1019. But even under this broad totality of the circumstances *1194 analysis, the causation requirement is crucial: a court may not enjoin a voting practice under § 2 unless there is evidence that the practice results in a denial or abridgement of the rights of a citizen on account of race or color. § 1973(a). If there is no evidence that the voting practice resulted in any such disparate impact, there is no violation and thus no basis for injunctive relief.
The district court correctly applied this standard here. The challenged practice at issue is Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polls. To prove causation, Gonzalez had to establish that Proposition 200’s requirement that voters must produce forms of identification, as applied to Latinos, resulted in a prohibited discriminatory result. Here, Gonzalez alleged in his complaint that “Latinos, among other ethnic groups, are less likely to possess the forms of identification required under Proposition 200 to ... cast a ballot,” but produced no evidence supporting this allegation. The record does include evidence of Arizona’s general history of discrimination against Latinos and the existence of racially polarized voting. But Gonzalez adduced no evidence that Latinos’ ability or inability to obtain or possess identification for voting purposes (whether or not interacting with the history of discrimination and racially polarized voting) resulted in Latinos having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Without such evidence, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that Gonzalez failed to prove causation was clearly erroneous. Therefore we affirm the district court’s denial of this claim.22
IV
Gonzalez I, which considered Gonzalez and ITCA’s appeal from the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, concluded that Arizona’s registration identification requirement was not a poll tax. See 485 F.3d at 1049. We held that the registration requirement did not (1) force voters “to choose between paying a poll tax and providing proof of citizenship when they register to vote,” the standard set forth in Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 541–42, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 14 L.Ed.2d 50 (1965); and did not (2) “make[ ] the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard,” as was held impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S.

663, 666, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966). Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1049 (internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original).
Here, Gonzalez and ITCA argue that Proposition 200 imposes an unconstitutional poll tax in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment. Separately, ITCA asserts that Proposition 200 is also a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment. Guided by the analysis in Gonzalez I, we conclude that Proposition 200’s polling place identification requirement is not a poll tax under either constitutional provision.
A
The Twenty-fourth Amendment provides that:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative *1195 in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States for or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
U.S. Const. amend. XXIV.
Gonzalez does not argue that requiring voters to show identification at the polls is itself a poll tax. Rather, Gonzalez argues that, because some voters do not possess the identification required under Proposition 200, those voters will be required to spend money to obtain the requisite documentation, and that this payment is indirectly equivalent to a tax on the right to vote.
[29] This analysis is incorrect. Although obtaining identification required under Arizona’s statute may have a cost, it is neither a poll tax itself (it is not a fee imposed on voters as a prerequisite for voting), nor is it a burden imposed on voters who refuse to pay a poll tax. Cf. Harman, 380 U.S. at 541–42, 85 S.Ct. 1177.
Our conclusion is consistent with Harman, the only Supreme Court case considering the Twenty-fourth Amendment’s ban on poll taxes. In that case, the Court considered a state statute that required voters to either pay a $1.50 poll tax on an annual basis or go through “a plainly cumbersome procedure,” id. at 541, 85 S.Ct. 1177, for filing an annual certificate of residence. Id. at 530–32,
18

85 S.Ct. 1177. There was no dispute that the $1.50 fee was a poll tax barred by the Twenty–Fourth Amendment. See id. at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Accordingly, the only question before the Court was whether the state “may constitutionally confront the federal voter with a requirement that he either pay the customary poll taxes as required for state elections or file a certificate of residence.” Id. at 538, 85 S.Ct. 1177. The Court enunciated the rule that a state may not impose “a material requirement solely upon those who refuse to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax.” Id. at 542, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Applying this rule, the Court determined that the state’s certificate of residence requirement was a material burden: among other things, the procedure for filing the certificate was unclear, the requirement that the certificate be filed six months before the election “perpetuat[ed] one of the disenfranchising characteristics of the poll tax which the Twenty-fourth Amendment was designed to eliminate,” and the state had other alternatives to establish that voters were residents, including “registration, use of criminal sanction[s], purging of registration lists, [and] challenges and oaths.” Id. at 541–43, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “[w]e are thus constrained to hold that the requirement imposed upon the voter who refuses to pay the poll tax constitutes an abridgment of his right to vote by reason of failure to pay the poll tax.” Id. at 542, 85 S.Ct. 1177.
Arizona’s polling place requirement is not analogous. Proposition 200’s requirement that voters identify themselves at the polling place is not a poll tax, as stated in Gonzalez I. 485 F.3d at 1049. Voters have only to verify their eligibility by showing identification at the polls,23 which does not constitute a tax, a point which Gonzalez does not dispute. Nor does Proposition 200’s identification requirement place a material burden on voters “solely because of their refusal to waive the constitutional immunity” to a poll tax. Harman, 380 U.S. at 542, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Voters are not *1196 given the choice between paying a poll tax or obtaining identification; all voters are required to present identification at the polling place. See Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1049. Cf. Harman, 380 U.S. at 541–42, 85 S.Ct. 1177. Because “Arizona’s system does not, as a matter of law, qualify as a poll tax,” the district court was correct in concluding that Proposition 200’s requirement of identification at the polling place did not violate the Twenty-fourth Amendment. See Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1049.
B

[30] Nor is Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polling place a poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.24 Harper is the leading Supreme Court case considering whether a state law is a poll tax under the Equal Protection Clause. In Harper, the Supreme Court held that a state law levying an annual $1.50 poll tax on individuals exercising their right to vote in the state was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 665–66 & n. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1079. The Court held that “the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications,” id. at 668, 86 S.Ct. 1079, and that the imposition of poll taxes fell outside this power because “[w]ealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process,” id. Because the state’s poll tax made affluence of the voter an electoral standard, and such a standard is irrelevant to permissible voter qualifications, the Court concluded that the tax was invidiously discriminatory and a per se violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 666–67, 86 S.Ct. 1079.
Arizona’s polling place identification requirement falls outside of Harper’s rule that “restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.” Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 1616, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008) (plurality opinion). The requirement that individuals show documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay for them. On the contrary, requiring individuals to show identification falls squarely within the state’s power to fix core voter qualifications. Photo identification addresses the most basic voter criterion: that individuals seeking to cast a ballot are who they purport to be and are in fact eligible to vote. Even ITCA admits that this is a valid state interest.
ITCA argues that the Court’s more recent decision in Crawford, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S.Ct. 1610,25 extended Harper’s holding to include a prohibition on indirect fees, such as fees or costs necessary to *1197 obtain required identification documents. ITCA seeks the benefit of Harper’s per se rule that such an electoral standard is invidiously discriminatory, and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.
This argument is not consistent with Crawford. Crawford involved an Indiana state requirement that a citizen voting in person or at the office of the circuit court clerk before election day present a photo identification card issued by the government. Id. at 1613. The state would provide a free photo identification to “qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity.” Id. at 1614. A
19

number of plaintiffs challenged this requirement on the ground that the “new law substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
Although the Court was unable to agree on the rationale for upholding Indiana’s photo identification requirement,26 neither the lead opinion nor the concurrence held that Harper’s per se rule applied to Indiana’s photo identification requirement. See id. at 1624. The lead opinion, upon which ITCA relies, explained that Harper’s “litmus test” made “even rational restrictions on the right to vote ... invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.” Id. at 1616. But according to the lead opinion, later election cases had moved away from Harper to apply a balancing test to state-imposed burdens on the voting process. Id. Under these later cases, a court “must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the ‘hard judgment’ that our adversary system demands.” Id. The lead opinion then proceeded to apply this balancing test to the Indiana photo identification requirement. Id. Crawford did not purport to overrule Harper, however, which remains as an example of an electoral standard for which a state would never have sufficiently weighty interests to justify the requirement that a fee be paid in order to vote. Id. Because Crawford did not extend Harper’s per se rule to other burdens imposed on voters, but left it applicable only to poll tax requirements, Crawford does not support ITCA’s argument that Proposition 200’s identification requirement is per se invalid under Harper.
Although ITCA’s reliance on Crawford is not entirely clear, ITCA does not appear to argue that Proposition 200’s identification requirement is invalid under Crawford’s balancing test. ITCA does not, for example, claim that the burden imposed by the photo identification requirement was impermissibly heavy in light of Arizona’s legitimate interests. Such an argument would be unavailing in any event. The lead opinion in Crawford held that the burden imposed on citizens who must obtain a photo identification document was not sufficiently heavy to support a facial attack on the constitutionality of the state law, in light of the state’s legitimate interests in deterring and detecting voter fraud, modernizing election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence. Id. at 1617, 1623. The same reasoning is applicable here. While the lead opinion noted that photo identification cards were provided free by Indiana, the lead opinion also recognized that to obtain Indiana’s free photo identification cards, individuals were required to “present at least one ‘primary’ document, which can be a birth certificate, certificate of naturalization, U.S. veterans photo identification, U.S. military photo identification, or a U.S. passport.” Id. at 1621 n. 17. Obtaining these primary

documents, the Supreme Court acknowledged, *1198 may require payment of a fee. Id. Because Proposition 200 identification requirements include these same sorts of primary documents, Proposition 200’s requirements are no more burdensome than those upheld by Crawford. ITCA does not argue that Arizona’s interests in imposing a photo identification requirement are any less weighty than Indiana’s interests in deterring and detecting voter fraud, modernizing election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence. Therefore, even under the balancing test set forth in the Crawford lead opinion, we would uphold Proposition 200’s polling place identification requirement against a facial challenge.
In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200’s photo identification provision is related to the state’s legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
V
Our system of dual sovereignty, which gives the state and federal governments the authority to operate within their separate spheres, “is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 921, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Id. (quoting Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395). Despite our respect for the state’s exercise of its sovereign authority, however, the Constitution’s text requires us to enforce the specific enumerated powers that are bestowed on the federal government and denied to the states. The authority granted to Congress under the Elections Clause to “make or alter” state law regulating procedures for federal elections is one such power. The Framers of the Constitution were clear that the states’ authority to regulate extends only so far as Congress declines to intervene. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 4, cl. 1; e.g., Foster, 522 U.S. at 69, 118 S.Ct. 464. Given the paramount authority delegated to Congress by the Elections Clause, we conclude that the NVRA, which implemented a comprehensive national system for registering federal
20

voters, supersedes Arizona’s conflicting voter registration requirement for federal elections. We uphold Arizona’s polling place identification requirement with respect to all other claims.27
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
Chief Judge KOZINSKI, dissenting in large part:*
As the majority belatedly acknowledges more than halfway into its opinion, we don’t come to this case with a blank slate. A prior panel has already held in a published opinion that Proposition 200 isn’t preempted because the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) “plainly allow[s] states, at least to some extent, to *1199 require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041, 1050–51 (9th Cir.2007) (“Gonzalez I ”). That is law of the circuit and therefore binding on us. See, e.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899–900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Even if it weren’t, it’s law of the case and can’t be lightly disregarded for that reason. See, e.g., Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir.1991). The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. First, it evades law of the circuit by creating an exception that is squarely foreclosed by a recent unanimous en banc opinion. The majority then weakens our rules governing law of the case by declaring that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the NVRA is “clearly erroneous” when it’s clearly not. Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s voter registration requirement.
I.
The fundamental rule of circuit law is that once a panel decides a legal issue in a published opinion, that ruling binds subsequent three-judge panels. The only instance when a three-judge panel may depart from a prior published opinion is if there has been “intervening” higher authority that is “clearly irreconcilable with our prior circuit authority.” Miller, 335 F.3d at 900. And this instance is not truly an exception to the rule because it’s the intervening higher authority, not the three-judge panel, that overrules the earlier opinion. There are in fact no exceptions to law of the circuit, or at least there weren’t until today.
The majority holds that, although a published opinion is binding generally, it doesn’t bind later panels in the same case. For those panels, “[w]here no subsequent opinion

has relied on the prior published opinion for the proposition to be overturned, ... the law of the circuit doctrine does not prohibit revising the prior opinion.” Maj. at 1190.
This exception to the published opinion rule is irreconcilable with our recent en banc opinion in United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (“Washington IV ”). In that case, the three-judge panel was confronted with a conflict between a prior opinion in the same case and another panel’s opinion in a different case. Because it lacked the power to resolve the conflict, the three-judge panel had to call the case en banc sua sponte. Sitting en banc, we held:
This appeal was initially argued to a three-judge panel, but the conflict in our precedent led us to rehear the matter en banc without awaiting a three-judge decision. See Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F.2d 1477, 1478–79 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc). This step was necessary because, even if the panel could have revisited Washington III under one of the exceptions to law of the case, see Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), it still would have been bound by that published opinion as the law of the circuit, see, e.g., Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (“[W]e have no discretion to depart from precedential aspects of our prior decision in Old Person I, under the general law-of-the-circuit rule.”).
Washington IV, 593 F.3d at 798 n. 9.
Applying the Washington IV rule to this case is simple. “[E]ven if ” our three-judge panel were permitted to revisit the prior panel’s opinion “under one of the exceptions to law of the case,” we are “still ... bound by that published opinion as the law of the circuit ” and have “no discretion to depart from [it].” Id. (emphasis added). Washington IV—which clearly holds that law of the circuit trumps law of the case—forecloses the majority’s theory.
*1200 The majority brushes aside Washington IV, relying instead on three earlier cases, foremost Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (“Jeffries V ”). There are two problems with the majority’s reliance on Jeffries V, both of which are fatal to the majority’s new rule. First, Jeffries V was about law of the case, not law of the circuit. Jeffries V held that the three-judge panel in Jeffries IV erred by failing to follow Jeffries III, and based this conclusion on law of the case. 114 F.3d at 1492–93. The majority makes much of the fact that the dissent in Jeffries V would have resolved the case on law of the circuit grounds. Maj. at 1189–90. But it is peculiar indeed
21

to impute a holding to the majority on an issue it never addressed, because it chose not to follow the contrary reasoning of the dissent. A dissent has no precedential value, United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1083 n. 5 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and the majority is surely not obligated to address every argument made there. It is obviously dangerous to infer that the majority ruled on a matter as to which it never expressed an opinion. By that peculiar reasoning, a majority can be held to have decided an issue—and made it law of the circuit—when it never said a word on the subject.
The Jeffries V majority had very little to say about law of the circuit, and what it did say totally undermines the majority here: “The dissent seems to acknowledge that [the] law of the circuit doctrine would preclude the Jeffries IV panel from contradicting the Jeffries III opinion, thus reaching the same result as the majority.” Id. at 1493 n. 12. The majority somehow manages to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Second, to the extent Washington IV says something different from Jeffries V, it is the most recent en banc opinion and therefore clearly controls. See United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 918–19 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion). The majority objects that Washington IV couldn’t have overruled the “longstanding doctrine” that a three-judge panel may overturn a prior panel’s published opinion under an exception to the law of the case, Maj. at 1190, but the doctrine in fact never existed until today. It has no support in Jeffries V or any other published opinion in our circuit.
Take the other two cases the majority cites. See Maj. at 1188 (citing Mendenhall v. NTSB, 213 F.3d 464, 469(9th Cir.2000) (“Mendenhall II ”); Tahoe–Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 786–87 (9th Cir.2000) (“Tahoe IV ”)). The majority claims these cases support its new rule because both reversed “a prior published appellate opinion as clearly erroneous under the exceptions to the law of the case” doctrine. Maj. at 1188. But neither case contradicted the prior panel’s legal ruling and therefore never disturbed the law of the circuit. See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 916 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (a legal statement isn’t law of the circuit unless “it is clear that a majority of the panel has focused on the legal issue presented by the case before it and made a deliberate decision to resolve the issue”).1
*1201 The later Mendenhall panel reversed an award of market-rate attorney’s fees, Mendenhall II, 213 F.3d at 469 & n. 3, but didn’t overturn the prior panel’s statement that “a request [for] attorneys’ fees at a reasonable market

rate.... is appropriate where there is a showing of bad faith,” Mendenhall v. NTSB, 92 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir.1996). Rather, it realized that the prior panel had mistakenly applied a statute awarding attorney’s fees to litigants who prevailed in court to someone who had prevailed in an administrative proceeding. Mendenhall II, 213 F.3d at 469. Because the later panel applied the correct statute, it had no occasion to disturb the prior panel’s construction of the other statute.
In Tahoe, both the earlier panel and the later panel applied the rule that, in general, defendants must affirmatively plead the statute of limitations in a filing with the court. See Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 686–87 (9th Cir.1993). The prior panel had held that the plaintiffs’ claims weren’t time-barred because, by “[f]ailing to plead affirmatively” any statute of limitations other than an irrelevant one, the defendants couldn’t then “rely on any other.” Tahoe–Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 34 F.3d 753, 756 (9th Cir.1994) (“Tahoe III ”). On remand, the defendants filed an answer that pled the correct statute of limitations, and the later panel held that the claims were therefore timebarred. Tahoe IV, 216 F.3d at 788–89. Like Mendenhall, the later panel’s putative reversal of a prior panel didn’t alter a binding statement of circuit law.2
Nor are Mendenhall and Tahoe the only cases on point. A number of panel opinions hold that law of the circuit applies to later panels in the same case. Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), which Washington IV quotes, is a good example. The Old Person panel explained that it was bound by a prior opinion because “none of the three exceptions” to law of the case applied, but it was careful to point out that it also had “no discretion to depart from precedential aspects of our prior decision in Old Person I, under the general law of the circuit rule.” Id.; see also Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. Dep’t of Interior, 406 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir.2005) (“[W]e are ‘bound by the opinion of the prior panel as the law of the case. Also we have no discretion to depart from precedential aspects of our prior decision in[Minidoka I ], under the general law-of-the circuit rule.’ ” (second alteration in original)); accord Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir.1996) (“This court has twice rejected these arguments in Estate I and Estate II. The published decisions in those cases are both the controlling law of the circuit and the law of this case.” (citations omitted)).
*1202 Like Washington IV, these opinions explain that three-judge panels are bound by prior panel opinions as law of the circuit even if they’re not bound by those decisions as law of the case. They also reconcile Mendenhall II and Tahoe IV with our law of the circuit
22

rule, for neither of those cases departed from “precedential aspects” of the prior panel opinions. But even if Mendenhall and Tahoe stood for what the majority claims, our three-judge panel doesn’t have the power to elevate them above Old Person, Minidoka or Hilao. If “faced with such a conflict,” we “must call for en banc review, which the court will normally grant unless the prior decisions can be distinguished.” Atonio, 810 F.2d at 1479 (emphasis added).3
Ultimately, this is all academic. There’s just no getting around Washington IV’s holding that “even if” we were permitted to revisit the prior panel’s opinion “under one of the exceptions to law of the case,” we are “still ... bound by that published opinion as the law of the circuit” and have “no discretion to depart from [it].” 593 F.3d at 798 n. 9. We can debate the meaning of Jeffries all we want, but a unanimous en banc court in Washington IV just resolved this very issue against the majority’s position. The majority here audaciously contradicts this en banc opinion.4
*1203 II.
Even if the majority were right that law of the circuit doesn’t apply, Gonzalez I undisputedly binds us as law of the case. The majority tries in vain to wriggle out from under Gonzalez I’s conclusion that the NVRA doesn’t preempt Proposition 200 by invoking the “clearly erroneous” exception to the law of the case. Maj. at 1187– 89. But the clearly erroneous bar is a tall one to hurdle: If “it is plausible to find that” the NVRA doesn’t preempt Proposition 200, “the holding in [Gonzalez I ] cannot be deemed clearly erroneous.” Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1394(9th Cir.1995). “[I]t is incumbent upon [plaintiffs] to convince us not only that the majority decision in [Gonzalez I ] was wrong, but that it was clearly wrong.” Merritt, 932 F.2d at 1322; see also Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1489. The majority fails to carry this heavy burden and materially weakens the standard for all future cases by pretending that it does.
A.
According to the majority, the Gonzalez I panel’s “conclusion was rooted in a fundamental misreading of the statute.” Maj. at 1187 (emphasis added). “Reasoning from a fundamental misreading of the statute, the prior panel reached a conclusion that was clear error.” Id. at 1188 (emphasis added). But we don’t examine prior

panels’ reasoning. We must follow Gonzalez I unless the “decision ... is so clearly incorrect that we are justified in refusing to regard it as law of the case.” Merritt, 932 F.2d at 1321 (emphasis altered); see Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (“[T]he law of the case turns on whether a court previously ‘decide[d] upon a rule of law’ ... not on whether, or how well, it explained the decision.” (second alteration in original)).
We might “scrutinize the merits ... with greater care” if Gonzalez I lacked any “analysis reflecting the authorities or argument which led [it] to the rule [it reached].” United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir.1986). But the law of the case doctrine doesn’t allow us to assume that poor reasoning begets clear error. Indeed, we’ve held that a panel’s failure to “expressly address [a] claim in its opinion”—and corresponding failure to offer any reasons for its resolution of that claim—isn’t clearly erroneous. Leslie Salt, 55 F.3d at 1393.
A panel’s faulty reasoning doesn’t necessarily consign its conclusion to the trash heap; most conclusions can be arrived at through multiple chains of reasoning. And, although “panels will occasionally find it appropriate to offer alternative rationales,” Johnson, 256 F.3d at 914 (emphasis added), they’re not required to do so. Thus, the existence of perceived holes in a prior panel’s stated rationale doesn’t preclude the possibility that the panel had unstated reasons leading it to the same conclusion. It certainly doesn’t mean that the result the panel reached is incorrect, as it may have reached the correct result for the wrong reason.5 When we say that *1204 a panel’s holding is clearly wrong, what we’re talking about is the rule of law it announces, not the method by which it adopts that rule.6
This distinction doesn’t matter here because Gonzalez I wasn’t clearly erroneous in either reasoning or result. Let’s start with Gonzalez I’s statement that “[t]he NVRA mandates that states either ‘accept and use the mail voter registration form prescribed by the [Election Assistance Commission,]’ or, in the alternative, ‘develop and use [their own] form,’ as long as the latter conforms to the federal guidelines.” Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1050 (third alteration in original) (citations omitted). The majority takes issue with this passage because the NVRA requires states to accept and use both the federal and state forms; ergo, Gonzalez I misconstrued the statute. Maj. at 1187. But “the word ‘or’ is often used as a careless substitute for the word ‘and’; that is, it is often used in phrases where ‘and’ would express the thought with greater clarity.” De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 573, 76 S.Ct. 974, 100 L.Ed. 1415 (1956). Indeed, it is well recognized that “or” can have multiple meanings, with the
23

“exclusive or”—meaning one or the other but not both— being largely useful in symbolic logic rather than common parlance. Wikipedia, Exclusive or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or (last visited Aug. 21, 2010).7
Legislatures—which presumably choose statutory language with care—have used “or” conjunctively instead of as a disjunctive, exclusive “or.” See, e.g., Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 420 U.S. 395, 417–18, 95 S.Ct. 1066, 43 L.Ed.2d 279 (1975) (“utilizing the surplus water or water power”); Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 450, 16 S.Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 765 (1896) (“obscene, lewd or lascivious”); see also Steven Wisotsky, How To Interpret Statutes—Or Not: *1205 Plain Meaning and Other Phantoms, 10 J.App. Prac. & Process 321, 326–27 (2009). And phrases that seem obviously disjunctive like “or, in the alternative” are sometimes used conjunctively. See H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 147 (2d ed.1965). Thus, the Gonzalez I panel could have meant that a state may rely exclusively on the federal form or, in the alternative, also develop a state form.8 This is a perfectly accurate description of the NVRA.
The majority protests that Gonzalez I couldn’t have used “or” conjunctively because “such an interpretation would be contrary to the prior panel’s logic.” Maj. at 1188. But it’s only contrary to the majority’s interpretation of the prior panel’s logic—and the majority begins its interpretation by assuming Gonzalez I misread the statute. This is known as begging the question. If we begin with the presumption that unanimous three-judge panels don’t misread statutes, the “or” can easily be construed conjunctively, to support the conclusion that Gonzalez I interpreted the NVRA correctly. Cf. United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 525 (5th Cir.2006) (“[I]f we begin with the assumption that[the defendant] is guilty, the documents can be read to support that assumption. But if we begin with the proper presumption that [he] is not guilty ..., we must conclude the evidence is insufficient....”).
The other two quotes to which the majority points support its argument even less. Gonzalez I states that section 1973gg–7(b) of the NVRA “prohibits states from requiring that [their] form be notarized or otherwise formally authenticated,” and “permits states to ‘require[ ] such identifying information ... as is necessary to enable ... election official[s] to assess the eligibility of the applicant.’ ” 485 F.3d at 1050 (alterations in original). The majority argues that Gonzalez I “misread” the statute because the “portions of the NVRA that relate to the Federal Form ... are directed solely at the [Election Assistance Commission], not the states.” Maj. at 1187.

But these instructions to the Commission do apply to the states through section 1973gg–4(a)(2), which allows states to “develop and use” their own form if it “meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg–7(b).” Gonzalez I reads the statute correctly; it is the majority here that is mistaken.
B.
Even if the majority’s reasoning is wrong, its conclusion that Gonzalez I clearly erred could still be correct if the NVRA must be read to preempt state law. But it’s not enough for the majority to find a construction of the statute it likes better. After all, many statutes can plausibly be construed two different ways, neither of which can be said to be clearly wrong. See, e.g., Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (“[I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” (emphasis added)). To be clearly erroneous, the prior panel’s construction must be so flawed that it could not pass the second step of the Chevron test, had that construction been adopted by an administrative *1206 agency. See id. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (“[A] court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.” (emphasis added)).
In this case, the text of the NVRA doesn’t “directly address[ ] the precise question at issue,” id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, namely whether states can ask for supplemental proof of citizenship. The statute says that “[e]ach State shall accept and use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the [Election Assistance Commission].” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–4(a)(1). It likewise requires “[a]cceptance of completed voter registration application forms” at state and local government offices, which must be transmitted “to the appropriate State election official.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg– 5(a)(4)(iii). The statute doesn’t obviously prohibit supplemental state requirements, and both preemptive and non-preemptive constructions of “accept” and “use” are plausible. The prior panel’s construction thus easily passes the Chevron test.
The majority believes that, by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form “for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–4(a)(1), the NVRA precludes states from imposing additional requirements. Maj. at 1182, 1188. But neither “accept”
24

nor “use” has such a preclusive meaning; it’s entirely possible to accept and use something for a particular purpose, yet not have it be sufficient to satisfy that purpose. Just go to any liquor store that takes personal checks: They will happily accept and use your check, but only after you provide ID showing that you’re authorized to write it. A minute’s thought comes up with endless such examples: passport and visa; car registration and proof of insurance; boarding pass and picture ID; eggs and ham. Those who accept and use the former often also require the latter.
The majority’s contention that “accept and use” must be read preclusively “[i]n the context of the NVRA,” or “under an Elections Clause framework,” Maj. at 1188, is unconvincing because its understanding of “use” conflicts with that word’s plain English meaning. As the Supreme Court has observed,
Webster’s defines “to use” as “[t]o convert to one’s service” or “to employ.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2806 (2d ed.1950). Black’s Law Dictionary contains a similar definition: “[t]o make use of; to convert to one’s service; to employ; to avail oneself of; to utilize; to carry out a purpose or action by means of.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed.1990). Indeed, over 100 years ago we gave the word “use” the same gloss, indicating that it means “ ‘to employ’ ” or “ ‘to derive service from.’ ” Astor v. Merritt, 111 U.S. 202, 213, 4 S.Ct. 413, 28 L.Ed. 401 (1884).
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228–29, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993) (alterations in original). To “use” an object is simply to derive service from or utilize it. The NVRA doesn’t say that states must treat the federal form as a complete application. It might preclude a state from requiring an applicant to provide yet again the information that is already on the federal form, but that’s not the case here. There’s no question that Arizona accepts and uses the federal form for the information contained in it. Arizona only asks for proof of citizenship in addition to the form in order to complete the registration process.
Nor is the “accept and use” requirement necessarily converted into a broad preemption provision by the NVRA’s general statement that “notwithstanding any other Federal or State law, in addition to any *1207 other method of voter registration provided for under State law, each State shall establish procedures to register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–2(a); see Maj. at 1178. That provision merely requires states to implement the NVRA regardless of any contrary legal authority. It doesn’t alter the substantive scope of the statute.

The only thing the NVRA expressly prohibits states from requiring is “notarization or other formal authentication.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–7(b)(3). The inclusion of a specific prohibition is a strong indication that other prohibitions weren’t intended. See United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 630 (9th Cir.2003); see also U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 793 n.9, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).
Moreover, the NVRA expressly authorizes states to require “such identifying information ... as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–7(b)(1). This provision can plausibly be read as authorizing the type of “identifying information” that Arizona requires. The majority holds that this passage is part of a comprehensive framework preventing states from requiring proof of citizenship, but overlooks the possibility that such proof may be “necessary to enable” Arizona to assess eligibility. See Maj. at 1181.
Other states also require supplemental information and the current National Voter Registration Form available on the Election Assistance Commission website, http://www.eac.gov, (“Registration Form”) seamlessly accommodates them. The current form includes a box labeled “ID Number” that directs applicants to “[s]ee item 6 in the instructions for your state.” Item 6, in turn, catalogs the state-by-state requirements each applicant must satisfy before the state will “accept and use” the federal form. Just like Arizona, many states require applicants to include proof of eligibility. In Alabama, “[y]our social security number is requested.” Registration Form at 3. Connecticut requires a “Connecticut Driver’s License Number, or if none, the last four digits of your Social Security Number.” Id. at 5. Hawaii tells applicants that “[y]our full social security number is required. It is used to prevent fraudulent registration and voting. Failure to furnish this information will prevent acceptance of this application.” Id. at 7. There’s more, but you get the idea. The majority’s reading of the NVRA casts doubt on the voter registration procedures of many states in addition to Arizona.
The simple truth is that nothing in the NVRA clearly supersedes Arizona’s supplemental registration requirements. To get its way, the majority invents a broad rule of same-subject-matter preemption, arguing that the NVRA “addresses precisely the same topic as Proposition 200 in greater specificity, namely, the information that will be required to ensure that an applicant is eligible to vote in federal elections,” such that its “comprehensive regulation” of the voter registration procedure “clearly subsumes Proposition 200’s additional documentary
25

requirement.” Maj. at 1181. But, as the majority acknowledges earlier in its opinion, the question under the Elections Clause isn’t whether the two laws address “the same topic,” but whether Arizona’s law “complements” rather than conflicts with “the congressional procedural scheme.” Maj. at 1176 (citing Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 384, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879)); see also Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 74, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997) (state’s election law is preempted “to [the] extent [that] it conflicts with federal law”). There’s no conflict based on the text of the statutes. Arizona gladly accepts and uses the federal form, it just *1208 asks that voters also provide some proof of citizenship.
Had Congress meant to enact a comprehensive code of voter registration, it could have said so in the NVRA, but it didn’t. Congress may have had the more modest goal of balancing ease of registration against each state’s interest in protecting its voting system. Had Congress explicitly prohibited states from imposing additional requirements, then we could plausibly conclude that Gonzalez I is clearly wrong. But it didn’t, and therefore the majority has no authority under the law of the case doctrine to “depart from [the] prior decision.” Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1493.
C.
The majority offers several of its own reasons for why the NVRA preempts Arizona’s law. “If this court were considering the issue for the first time, [these] arguments might well deserve closer consideration.” Leslie Salt, 55 F.3d at 1395. But “at this point in the proceedings, [we] may address the merits of [the] claims only so far as necessary to determine whether the [Gonzalez I ] court was clearly wrong.” Id. at 1394. None of the majority’s reasons meet this exacting standard.
1. The majority claims that “allowing states to impose their own requirements for federal voter registration ... would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input, and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of the lines of authority prescribed by Section 7.” Maj. at 1182. But Congress never granted much authority to the Election Assistance Commission. The Commission can’t write many regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 15329, can’t enforce the NVRA or the regulations it writes, id. § 1973gg–9, and has no investigative powers. That’s not the profile of an agency in charge of a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Cf. CFTC v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 842, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (O’Connor, J.) (“Congress empowered the CFTC

‘to make and promulgate such rules and regulations as ... are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of [the CEA].’ ” (alteration in original)). And Section 7 of the NVRA doesn’t even prescribe lines of authority; it orders the Commission to consult with the states when developing the federal form. See id. § 1973gg–7(a). If anything, this indicates that Congress didn’t want to aggrandize the Commission’s power over the states. It certainly doesn’t “demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role.” Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 584, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 (1987) (O’Connor, J.); see also Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 347, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984) (O’Connor, J.).
Nor is the majority right to rely on the letter from the Election Assistance Commission telling Arizona that its proof-of-citizenship requirement violates the NVRA. Maj. at 1182. We don’t give deference to administrative agencies on the question of preemption. See Wyeth v. Levine, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1200–01, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (“In such cases, the Court has performed its own conflict determination, relying on the substance of state and federal law and not on agency proclamations of pre-emption.”). Even if we did, we wouldn’t defer in this case, because an informal letter clearly lacks “the force of law.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226–27, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). Determining whether the NVRA preempts Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement begins and ends with the statute.
For the same reason, the majority’s claims that states shouldn’t be able to *1209 make an “end-run around the[Election Assistance Commission]’s consultative process,” Maj. at 1182, and that allowing states to supplement the federal form “would make the [Commission’s] procedure for consultation ... an empty exercise,” id. at 1188, beg the question of whether the Commission can bind the states. Congress may have intended to grant states the power to supplement federal rules despite the Commission’s objection. Cf. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2710, 2717, 174 L.Ed.2d 464 (2009) (states can enforce state fair-lending laws that OCC tried to preempt). If Congress intended to give states this power to disagree, then Arizona hasn’t made an end-run at all.
2. The majority relies on the fact that the NVRA “addresses precisely the same topic as Proposition 200 in greater specificity, namely, the information that will be required to ensure that an applicant is eligible to vote in federal elections.” Maj. at 1181. But the NVRA’s text never states that it’s the exclusive authority on this issue,
26

or that the federal form must be “a fully sufficient means of registering to vote in federal elections.” Maj. at 1188. It’s perfectly plausible that the NVRA would have set the minimum information states must require, prohibited one specific type of requirement (formal authentication) and established a consultative process for developing a national form. Such broad, flexible guidance is far from a definitive regulatory scheme. Moreover, if the statute permits zero deviation from the federal form, why permit states to develop their own forms at all? The only development needed would be photocopying the federal form.
Relatedly, the majority claims that because the NVRA prohibits requiring “notarization or other formal authentication,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–7(b)(3), Congress must have intended to prohibit states from imposing any supplemental requirements. Maj. at 1182. But Congress doesn’t disguise general proscriptions of everything as specific proscriptions of one narrow thing. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (“Congress ... [doesn’t] hide elephants in mouse-holes.”). Nor would permitting Arizona to require proof of citizenship free it to violate the NVRA’s ban on requiring formal notarization. Maj. at 1181. Refusing to enforce an unwritten ban hardly weakens the force of an express prohibition.
3. The majority devotes much time to making the case that “the thrust of the NVRA is to increase federal voter registration by streamlining the registration process.” Maj. at 1180; see id. at 1176–80. It spends endless pages reviewing the history of voting laws, id. at 1176–78, discussing congressional hearings on the general problem of voter participation, id. at 1177, and reviewing the many operative parts of the NVRA, Maj. at 1178–80. But the majority’s lengthy disquisition on history and purpose only highlights the absence of any textual support for its conclusion that Congress meant to increase voter registration by prohibiting state-imposed supplemental requirements. To the extent we rely on purpose at all, we should focus on the purposes codified in the statute rather than our guesses based on reading the tea leaves of history and context. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005).
The NVRA’s four purposes are:

number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;
(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that *1210 enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;
(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b) (emphasis added). Congress thus told us that it was concerned with maximizing the registration of “eligible” voters, in addition “to protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” Id. None of these purposes is served when individuals who are not citizens register to vote. See John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032, 1036–37 (9th Cir.2001) (“We must not ‘interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.’ ”). The majority never explains why a statute enacted to “protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure” that voter rolls are “accurate” must preclude states from confirming that those who wish to register are, in fact, eligible to vote.
* * *
The majority distorts two major areas of law before it even reaches the merits. It creates an unprecedented exception to our law of the circuit rule, trampling underfoot a newly minted en banc opinion. The majority also makes a mess of the law of the case analysis by taking issue with a prior panel’s reasoning, not its conclusion. And, as to the merits, the panel comes nowhere close to proving that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act was wrong, much less clearly wrong. Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once. Count me out.
Parallel Citations
10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,590, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,413
	  

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the

Footnotes

1

Section 16–166(F) provides the following list of approved identification

1. The number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating

*

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United States SudperpeamrtemCeonut rot f(Rtreatn.)s,psoirtttiantigobnyodretshiegneaqtuioivnapleunrstugaonvternmental agen

to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).

indicates on the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identific

of United States citizenship.

27

2. A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifies dciuttiizeesnvshisi-pa-tovitshCe osantgisrefascsitoionnaloefltehceticoonus)n.ty recorder.

3. A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or presentation to the county reco1r0der of tNheiathpeprlicoafntth’sesUenAitecdtsSwtaetrees passpeodrtu.nder the substantive authority of

4. A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United aSntaaltyessisniastunroatliazpaptiloicnabdloectuomceansets coorntshideenriunmg btheersoefenthaectments.

certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the c1e1rtificatSeecotfiona1tuoraf ltihzeatNioVnRiAs vderfifniesd tewrmiths uthsedUinnittheedstSattauttees. § 1973gg–1.

immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.

5. 6.

Other documents or methods of proof that are The applicant’s Bureau of Indian Affairs card

established p1u2rsuant number, tribal treaty

to the immigration reform and control act of 1986. cSaercdtinounm1b9e7r3gogr –tr3ib(ca)l pernorvoildlmese,nitnnpuemrtbineer.nt part:

The combined motor vehicle-voter registration form:

2

As of 2009, section 16–579(A)(1) provides:

(B) may require only the minimum amount of information necessar

(a) A valid form of identification that bears the photograph, name and addr(ei)ssproefvtehnet edluepcltiocrattihvaet vreoatesor nreagbilsytraaptipoenasr;satnodbe the

same as the name and address of the precinct register, including an (Aiir)izeonnaabledrSivtaetre elilceecntisoen, oafnficAiarliszotonaasnseosnsotpheeraetliinggibility of the app

identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identthieficealeticotinonorpraoUcensist;ed States federal, state or local

government issued identification. Identification is deemed valid unless it ca(nCb) eshdaeltleirnmcliundede aonstiattsefmaceentththaat ti—t has expired.

(b) Two different items that contain the name and address of the elector t(hia)tsrtaetaessoneaacbhlyealipgpibeialristytorebqeuitrheemseanmt (einacsluthdeinngacmiteizenship)

and address in the precinct register, including a utility bill, a bank or credit(iuin) icoonnstataintesmanenattttehsattaitsiodnatthedatwthiethainppnliinceatnyt mdaeyestsoef ach such requir

the date of the election, a valid Arizona vehicle registration, an Arizona(iviie)hriecqleuiirnessutrhaencseigncaartudr,eInodf itahne caepnpsliucsanctaurdn,dterribpaelnalty of perjury

ecnarrdo,llma evnatlidcaUrdniotredotShteartefsorfmedeorfalt,ribstaalteidoerntlioficcaaltigoonv, earnpmroepn1e3tritsysutaexdTshidteaetrneetmsifpeiocnant,tsiioabnirleiotciroesradnoeyfr’tmsheacieElritnAigfCictahwtaeet,reiasfv“ooormtfefiercrirlayelghieseltlerdcattbiiooynnthe Federal Ele material.” Identification is deemed valid unless it can be determined oAn mitserfiaccae tVhoatteit Ahacst e(xHpAirVedA. ), Pub.L. No. 107–252, 116 Stat. 1666, (c) A valid form of identification that bears the photograph, name andevaedndtureaslslyoafbtshoerbeeledctthoer eFxEcCep’st dthuatiteisf uthnedeardtdhreesNsVonRAth.e

identification United States

does not Military

reasonably appear identification card

to be or a

vthaelidsaUmneitaesdth1S4etaatedsdrpeaTssshsepinoFrtethdeaenrpdarledFcoionercsmt n:roegt ibsetearr

or the identification is a valid an address, the identification

must be accompanied by one of the items listed in subdivision (b) of this pa(r1a)gmraapyh.require only such identifying information (including the s

data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessa

3

ITCA’s action was joined by the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Leagthuee eolfigUibniiltietdy LofattihneAapmpelircicaannt aCnidtiztoenasd,mthieniAstreirzovnoater registration a

Advocacy Network, and People For the American Way Foundation, as well as th(2e)cslhaiamllainntcslulidsetead satbaotevme.ent that—

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

4

We refer to named plaintiffs Gonzalez and ITCA as representing all plaint(ifBfs) caosnstoaciinasteadn ainttetshteaitriornesthpaetctthiveeapapctliiocanns.t mWeheetsreeach such requir

appropriate, we refer to Gonzalez and ITCA individually; however, because(CG)ornezqauleirzesatnhde sITigCnAatubrerinogf ththeeapsapmliceanNt,VuRnAderanpdenalty of perjury

Twenty-fourth Amendment claims, we refer to both collectively as “Gonzalez(”3)inmtahyensoetcitniocnlusddeisacnuyssreinqguitrheemseenttwfoorcnlaoitmarsiz. aWtioen or other forma

refer to the defendants collectively as “Arizona,” even though Arizona county(4re)csohradlelrisncwluedree,ailnsoprninamt tehdataiss iddeefnetnidcaalnttso itnhatthuesseed in the attestat

consolidated actions.

(i) [voter eligibility requirements and penalties for false application

(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the

5

See Articles of Confederation of 1781, art. V (“[D]elegates shall be annually acpopnofiindteendtiianl asuncdhwmilal nbneeursaesd tohnelylefgoirslvaotuterer roefgeisatcrahtion purposes; a

state shall direct ... with a power, reserved to each state, to recall its delegates.(.i.i.i)Eaachstastteamteesnhtaltlhamt aiifntaaninaiptsploicwanntdedloeegsatreesgiinstear to vote, the o

meeting of the states....”).

application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter

§ 1973gg–7(b).

6

SCeoenv1eTnhtieonDaetbPatheislaidnetlhpehiSaeivne1ra7l8S7taTtoegCetohnevrewntiitohntsheonJothuernAaldoofpttih1oe5nFoefdtehrBealeFCceaodunesrveaelwnCteioornnes,atcLithuuttohiuoernr

as Recommended by the General cMonacrtliuns’isonLebtatesre,dYoantetsh’es lManignuuategse,

and

structure

o

Congressional Opinions, Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of ′98–′99, atnhde NOVthRerAIollrutshtreatNioVnRs Aof’sthleegiCsloantisvteituhtiisotnory2.2B5 e(cpahuosteo.the parties argu

reprint 1987) (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed.1901) [hereinafter Elliot’s Debatesc]o. nsistent with our holding. As discussed supra page 1182, the EAC c

acceptance of the Federal Form upon receipt of additional proof.” W

7

South Carolinian delegates Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge moved toReexpcolrutd, ewthhiechlanwgeuahgaevegivhienlgd Cisonthgeresmsotshtisasuuthpoerrivtiastoivrye and reliable l

power over the states. 5 Elliot’s Debates at 401. “The states, they contendGedli,ckcmoualnd, a8n2dFm.3udst82b5e,r8e3li5ed(9othn”Ctior.1re9g9u6l)a,tsehloewgissltahtaivt eCongress rejecte

appointments. Id. See also Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 275–76, 124 S.tChta.t1“7n6o9th, i1n5g8iLn.Ethdis.2Ad c5t4s6h(a2ll00p4re)v. ent a State from requiring presentati

for voter registration,” H.R.Rep. No. 103–66, at 23 (1993), 1993 U

8

Alexander Hamilton described the need for congressional oversight of thaemsetantdems eans tfwolaloswnso:t ““[cTohnesiFstreanmt ewrsit]hhtahveepsuurbpmosiettsedof”thtehe NVRA and “

regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, tomthaeillroecgailstardamtioinnisptrroagtiroanms;owf hthicehA, cint.”orIddi.nary cases, and

when no authority

improper a right to

views prevail, may be both more interpose, whenever extraordinary

cciorncuvmensiteannt1c6easndmmigohLrtearwesnaodtifesrfthatcehtaoctrayisn;etbeisruptpoatshritteiyoonfhaanvereceelarsetsesaderrysveetotdoittfospstrhaefeceltunysa.i”toionTnhpaerlinciples

that

in

Federalist No. 59.

James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Manual: Federal Practice & Proc

purpose of judicial efficiency, these principles are distinguished by the

9

The Court has generally construed Congress’s exclusive authority under thaendElaescatiocnosnsCelqauuesneceexepaacnhsihvaeslyit.sSoewe,nep.go.l,icUyncitoendsiSdteartaetsions. Id.

v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 483, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (191177) certification of results); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386,

(authority over federal election process, from registration to 35 S.ACst.h9a0s4b, e5e9nLn.oEtded. 1in35p5ri(o1r9c1a5s)es(a, u“t[hf]oorritysotmo eentifmorec,eththeere

have

existed

i

right of an eligible voter to cast ballot and have ballot counted); Ex Parte cCirocyu,m12st7anUc.eSs. i7n3w1,h7ic5h2–a5c3o, u8rtSm.Caty. 1d2e6c3li,n3e2toL.fEodll.o2w74the law of the c

(1888) (authority to regulate conduct at any election coinciding with federfarlomconthteestl)a;wExofpathretecYasaerbirfo‘uthgeh p(TrehveioKuus–dKelcuixsiConasiessc)l,early erroneous

110 U.S. 651, 662, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274 (1884) (authority to make adcdoitnitornaastl,lathwessfeocrofnrdeef,oprumreu,laatniodnsasfteateexsetrhcaist eaocforuigrthtmtoay decline to fo

vote); Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S. 399, 404, 25 L.Ed. 715 (1879) (authoriteyrrtoonepouunsis’horsta‘atemelaencitfieosnt oinfjfuicsetircsefowrovuilodlaottihoenrwofissetarteesult.’ ” Tahoe–

28

Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 787 n. 43 (9th Cir.2000) (citations and brackets ompirtotetedc)t,ioanff’adndonVothinegr RgrioguhntsdAs,c5t3c5haUll.eSn.g3e0s2t,o1P2r2opSo.Csit.ion 200’s voter

1465, 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002); see also Mendenhall, 213 F.3d at 469 & n. 2. As in the other cases noting but not resolving this apparent conflict, we need not settle this issue in the present case,1 becauseWthielreethareemgarojournitdysitgonosaretissfJyohthnesoenxcwehpetinonexuangdgeerraetiitnhgerthe precedential

formulation of the standard.

relies on the Johnson concurrence in an attempt to characterize Washing

passing” that isn’t binding on later panels. Maj. at 1190–91. But the sta 18 The Jeffries decisions were a series of five opinions in response to a habeasthpretei-tjiuodngbeypPaanterilchkaJdeftofrimesa.kJeefafrsiuesa hsapdonbteeennsebnatnecnceadll. 593 F.3d at 7

to death by a jury, but petitioned for relief on the ground of juror miscondSucutp(rheme celaCimouerdt tohpaitnoionnes,jumroursht abdeintafkoermn efdaromthoerejusreorrisously than state

that Jeffries was a convicted armed robber). The district court rejected this sctlraiicmtlyonetcheesgsaroryuntod theatrevsuelnt.ifSetreueU,nthitiesdfaSctat twesouvl.dBnaoirtd, 85 F.3d 450,

have affected the verdict. On appeal, a panel of this court initially uphdeulde dtheefedreisntcreic.t..c.”o)u. rTt’hsatc’osnbcelcuasuiosne, lJikeeffrWieasshvi.nBgtlondgIeVt’ts rule, a statem

(Jeffries I ), 974 F.2d 1179 (9th Cir.1992), but then granted Jeffries’s petimtioenritfsororfehtheearicnagseanodfterenve“rpsreodvidtseeslfaonsutpheervgirsoournydftuhnacttion” to “three

Jeffries I conflicted with precedent. Jeffries v. Blodgett (Jeffries II ), 988auFth.2odrit9a2ti3ve(9ctihrcuCiitr.l1aw99.”3)B. aTrhaepipnadnve.l Ethneonmoretoje,c4te0d0 Fth.3ed 744, 751 n. 8

state’s petition for rehearing, but amended Jeffries II to make clear that thUencitleadimStoaftejsurvo.rHmairsdceosntdy,uc9t7, 7ifFt.r2ude,1w34o7u,ld13h4av8e(9htahd Cair.1992) (en ba

“substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict. Jeffries v. Blodgett (JeffFr.i2esd I1I4I7)7,,514F7.38d–7191(890th(9Ctihr.1C9i8r.71)9(9e3n).bOannc)r.emand, the

district court held that juror misconduct had in fact occurred and granted Jeffries’s petition. See Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1488. After the state appealed this ruling, the panel again reversed itself, holdin2g that itThaahdoientIeVrpsraeitdedthpartecitedoevnetrtuoronbedroTadalhyoienIJIeI’fsfri“ebsaIrIeI,leagnadl holding ... tha

that the law of the case did not prevent reversal of Jeffries III because tdheaftednescei.”sioTnahwoaesIV“c, l2e1a6rlyF.e3rdroante7o8u8s. aInf dthwatowuledrewtorurklyaTahoe III’s hold

manifest injustice.” See Jeffries v. Wood (Jeffries IV ), 75 F.3d 491 (9th Coifr.1th9e96c)i.rcAucitc.oBrduitngitlyw, athsne’pt.anTealhroeeinIsItIatseadiditsondleynitahlatofthe defendants

Jeffries’s habeas petition. Jeffries petitioned for rehearing en banc, whichBweceagursaenttehde tdoedfentedramnitnseh, admno’tngfiloetdhetrhtehiirngasn,swehre,thTearhoe III couldn

Jeffries IV had erred in reversing Jeffries III. See Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 148li8m. itations defense.

19 The other cases cited by the dissent in support of its version of th3e law ofWthee’rceirncoutitadlooncetr.iMneowsteoref oduecr isdiesdterbycirthcureites-jaugdrgee pthaantetlhsree-judge pane

and thus could not have overruled Jeffries V. See Minidoka Irrigation Distl.awv. Dofepth’et ocfirIcnuteitr.ioSre,e4, 0e6.gF.,.3Sdch5i6a7vo(9etxh rCeilr..2S0c0h5in)d; lOerldv. Schiavo, 403

Person, 312 F.3d 1036; Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cidr.e1c9is9i6o)n. Ownaes opfubthliessheedc,astehse aplrsioorprpea-ndealtepdreJceefdfreinest.rSuelee also applies to

Hilao, 103 F.3d 767.

Kofka, 419 F.3d 709, 714 (8th Cir.2005) (“[W]e held in an earlier appe

We are bound to follow this holding. It is not only the law of the case, 20 Because Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause is limited to pwreheimchptoinlgy rtehgeuclaotuiortnesnreblaantecdmtoayfeodveratul renl.e”c(ticoitnast,ioonusromitted)); Af–C

holding invalidating Proposition 200’s registration requirement does not Cprier.v2e0n0t4A) (r“izTohneasfurbosmeqaupepnltypinagneiltswroeuqludirneomt eontlyinhasvtaeteto forego applic

election registrations. However, Arizona has presented its system of vodteisrcarerdgisthtreatwioenll-uensdtaebrliPshroepdorsuitlieontha2t0c0iracsuict opnacnuerlrsenartley‘bound by the

registering voters for state and federal elections, and has not indicated thate,xipnlitchietlyevoerntimGpolnicziatleyzopvrervrauillisngonththaet pNrVioRr Aprecclaeidme,nti.t’ ” (alteration i

plans to establish a separate state registration system. We therefore do(Dn.Cot.Ccior.n2s0i0d3er) (w“[hTe]thhoesrePisrsoupeossiatrioenba2r0re0d’sbyrelgaiwstroaftitohne case doctrine..

requirement, as applied only to state registrations, is valid under Gonzalez apnredvIeTnCtsAa’snreewmapinpienlglactelaipmans.el from declining to follow the legal rulin

233 F.3d 358, 369 (6th Cir.2000) (“Our decisions in Craft I and in Co 21 This approach applies both to claims of vote denial and of vote dilution. Spmainthelvo.fStahlitsRciovuerrt Pmraoyjencot tAogvreicrt.uIrmnpthroevdeemceisniton&oPf oawnoetrher panel of this

Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 596 n. 8 (9th Cir.1997).

consideration of the argument.’ ”), overruled on other grounds 535 U.

United States, 162 F.3d 154, 160 (1st Cir.1998) (en banc) (“In [Irving v 22 Gonzalez also argues that the district court erred in evaluating one of the SepnaanteelFoafcttohrissacnoduirnt ceoxnpcrleusdsilnygdtehfaitntehde dthisepacroantetoiumrspaocft the discretion

on Latinos was statistically insignificant. Because Gonzalez’s failure to shorewprceasuesnatetidonbiosthdisthpeosliatiwve,ohf otwhevcears, eweanndeetdhenoltawreaocfh this circuit reg

these issues.

exception.... Indeed, when the United States asserted the discretionary f

F.3d 830 (1st Cir.1995) ] the panel ... took refuge in the law of the circu 23 Voters who use an early ballot to vote do not even have to show identPifeicaartsion. vA. rEizd.gRaerv,.S1t5a3t. F§.31d6–359570,(A40)(2fo(r7etharlCyirb.1a9ll9o8ts), (“Absent any

elector identity is verified by signature comparison alone).

Suburban would be binding precedent on this issue, and Curtis would a

our peers provides yet another reason to question the wisdom of departin 24 ITCA’s briefing collapses the Twenty-fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment poll tax claims into a single argument. But
these are different claims that arise under different constitutional4 amendmToentthse. eTxhtenTt wtheenmtya-fjourirttyhsAugmgenstdsmaetnhtreeex-tjeunddgse opnalnyeltocan overrule pub

federal elections, see Harman, 380 U.S. at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177 (holding thcaotn“ftlhicetsTwietnhtyU-fnoiuterdthSAtamteesndvm. Cenotnatrbeorlaish, [5e9d3] tFh.e3dpo1ll135 (9th Cir.20

tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections”), while the FourteenthoApimnieonndtmhaetnthadlsopuinrpvoarlitdedatetos orevsetrricutlieonsesvoenratlhceleriagrhlyt teorroneous publish

vote in state elections, see Harper, 383 U.S. at 666, 86 S.Ct. 1079. Therefoerev,ewn ethhoauvgehatdhdereesnsebdanthcesceoucrltaitmhesnseapdaorpatteedlyt.he panel’s legal analysis.

S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (court of appeals was correct not 25 Crawford was decided by the Supreme Court after this court’s holding inriGgohntlzyaplerzedIi.cItTedCwAofurladmbees oCvrearwtufronreddabsyatnhe“iSnuteprveemneinCgourt).

controlling authority” that provides a basis for this court to reconsider its decision in Gonzalez I that Arizona’s registration requirement is not a poll tax. Because Gonzalez I did not address w5hether tThheispoplrlincgipleacaelsiodeintfiofricmastionurrereqvuiierwemoefndt icsotrnisctitcuotuedrt ajudgments. “In

poll tax, see 485 F.3d at 1048–49, we need not address this argument. the decision below is correct, it must be affirmed, although the lower c

Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa R 26 The lead opinion authored by Justice Stevens was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia filed a
concurring opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The other6three juFstoiceusidnigssoenntaedp.anel’s reasoning defeats the fundamental purpose of law

27 Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

from the burden of repeated argument by pertinacious litigants—by enc Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice a

can slow decisionmaking to a glacial pace, which is what happened to a

*

to challenge the reasons the agencies gave for the new regulations they I concur in the portion of the judgment upholding Proposition 200’s pololinng“Dpelaocsesifpyrionvgi”siothne, RAurliezm.Raekvi.nSgtaPt.ro§ce1s6s–, 54719D. Fukoer Lth.eJ. 1385, 1385–8

reasons articulated by the district court in its thorough decision, I wouPldoliacfyfmirmakiintsg Fruolrinmg, 7in1 Ufa.vCohr i.oLf .ARerivz.o1n3a83o,n1t3h9e0–e9q1ua&l n.17 (2004).

29

7

Wikipedia gives the following example to illustrate the difference between the exclusive and the inclusive “or”:

[I]t might be argued that the normal intention of a statement like “You may have coffee, or you may have tea” is to stipulate

that exactly one of the conditions can be true. Certainly under many circumstances a sentence like this example should be

taken as forbidding the possibility of one’s accepting both options. Even so, there is good reason to suppose that this sort of

sentence is not disjunctive at all. If all we know about some disjunction is that it is true overall, we cannot be sure that either

of its disjuncts is true. For example, if a woman has been told that her friend is either at the snack bar or on the tennis court,

she cannot validly infer that he is on the tennis court. But if her waiter tells her that she may have coffee or she may have tea,

she can validly infer that she may have tea. Nothing classically thought of as a disjunction has this property. This is so even

given that she might reasonably take her waiter as having denied her the possibility of having both coffee and tea.

....

There are also good general reasons to suppose that no word in any natural language could be adequately represented by the

binary exclusive “or” of formal logic.

Wikipedia, Exclusive or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or (last visited Aug. 21, 2010).

8

Our own precedent shows that “and” and “or” can sometimes be used interchangeably. For example, in MacDonald v. Pan

American World Airways, Inc., the majority construed “and” in a contract as “or” despite a particularly eloquent dissent. 859 F.2d

742, 744–45 (9th Cir.1988); see id. at 746 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). MacDonald is law of the circuit as to the “and” versus “or”

issue and stands in the way of the majority’s claim that the Gonzalez I panel somehow misread the statute.

30

 
 APPEAL,CLOSED,CONSOLIDATED,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Prescott Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−01362−ROS

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al v. Jan Brewer, Sec. of State Assigned to: Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver Lead case: 2:06−cv−01268−ROS Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: No cause code entered
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Date Terminated: 08/20/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Incorporated

represented by Benjamin Jay Blustein , Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8320 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: bblustein@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St. NW, Ste. A4−170 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2064 Fax: 202−434−6424 Email: dkohrman@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Jeremy Bodney Steptoe &Johnson LLP − Phoenix, AZ Collier Cemter 201 E Washington St., Ste. 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2382 602−257−5200 Fax: 602−257−5299 Email: dbodney@steptoe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David B Rosenbaum Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067−6379 602−640−9000 Fax: 602−640−9050 Email: drosenbaum@omlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elliot M Mincberg , People for the American Way Foundation 2000 M St NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20036 202−467−2392 Fax: 202−293−2672

Email: emincberg@pfaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joe P Sparks Sparks Tehan &Ryley PC 7503 E 1st St Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480−949−1339 Fax: 480−949−7587 Email: joesparks@sparkslawaz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon Marshall Greenbaum Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8315 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez Maricopa County Attorneys Office 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8541 Email: hartmank@mcao.maricopa.gov TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Bradley ACLU − Atlanta, GA Voting Rights Project 230 Peachtree St NW., Ste. 1440 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−523−2721 Fax: 404−653−0331 Email: nbradley@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene Osborn Maledon PA PO Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85012−6379 602−640−9000 Fax: 602−640−6053 Email: sgreene@omlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067−6379 602−640−9301 Fax: 602−640−9050 Email: thudson@omlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona
Plaintiff Hopi Tribe
Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Arizona

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012

Plaintiff Arizona Advocacy Network
Plaintiff People For the American Way Foundation

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steve M Gallardo

David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen J Hartman−Tellez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara S Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Lee Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David B Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Janice K Brewer in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona

Date Filed 05/24/2006
05/24/2006 05/25/2006 05/30/2006
06/01/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Rep. Steve M. Gallardo, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., The League of Women Voters of Arizona, The Hopi Tribe, The League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, The Arizona Advocacy Network, The People For the American Way Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rosenbaum, David) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
Filing fee paid 05/24/06, receipt number PHX043727. This case has been assigned to the Honorable James A. Teilborg. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06−1362−PCT−JAT. (ESH, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
3 STANDARD TRACK ORDER. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/25/06. (TLB ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
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)
5 ORDER re [doc #20 in CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS] MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Transfer by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Rosenbaum, David) filed by The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. That any party opposing ITCA Plas' Motion to Consolidate shall do so no later than Noon on

06/01/2006 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 06/01/2006
06/02/2006 06/06/2006
06/16/2006 07/14/2006

6/2/06. FURTHER ORDERED that the expedited briefing schedule set forth on 5/17/06 remains intact. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Order in both cases to ensure that all parties receive notice. FURTHER ORDERED that should the matters be consolidated, all parties shall appear at the TRO hearing on 6/9/06 Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/31/06. (KMG, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
6 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Elliot Mincberg on behalf of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
7 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
8 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Benjamin Blustein on behalf of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
9 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 8 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Jon Greenbaum on behalf of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
11 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
12 Notice re Acceptance of Service by Attorneys for Defendant 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 re 1 Complaint, (Greene, Sara) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
13 CONSOLIDATION ORDER − MEMBER CASE. (Lead case: CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS) Case reassigned to Judge Roslyn O Silver for all further proceedings. Judge James A Teilborg terminated. That the ITCA Plas' Motion to Consolidate (Doc.#20 in Lead case) is granted. All future filings in Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al., v. Brewer, Case No. CV 06−1362, shall be filed in CV 061268; FURTHER ORDERED that the ITCA Plas will be permitted to participate in the expedited briefing schedule set forth on 5/17/06; FURTHER ORDERED that all parties shall appear at the TRO hearing on 6/9/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/6/06. (KMG, ) Modified on 6/7/2006 (DNH, ). (Entered: 06/06/2006)
Remark per attorney Monica Saxena Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave Ste 400 Washington DC 20005 removed from case per attorney request; party represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
14 Notice re Revised Notice of Deposition of Defendant Brewer and The Office of the Secretary of State 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 (Greene, Sara) Modified on 9/8/2006 (KCS). DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR, ATTORNEY NOTICED TO REFILE DOCUMENT IN LEAD CASE. (Entered: 07/14/2006)

08/11/2006 09/08/2006
09/11/2006 09/12/2006 05/27/2008
08/20/2008 08/20/2008

Appeal Remark; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#152) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
15 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 14 Other Notice, filed by Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc, Steve M Gallardo, Arizona Advocacy Network, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, People For the American Way Foundation. Description of deficiency: Document filed in the wrong case. (KCS) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
Appeal Remark; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#184) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
Appeal Remark; Notice of Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#189) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
16 ORDER granting Stipulation 754 in Case CV−06−1268−PHX−ROS. 2006). ITCA and Hopi Plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the to the Procedures and the polling place identification requirements of A.R.S. § 16−579 only. This Order does not dismiss any claims or allegations set forth in the Complaint challenging the proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration.. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/27/08. (DNH) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
17 ORDER: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on behalf of the Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be terminated. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/20/08. (ESL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
18 CLERK'S JUDGMENT that pursuant to the Courts order filed August 20, 2008, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to take nothing, and complaint and action are dismissed.(ESL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

 
 APPEAL,CLOSED,CONSOLIDATED,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Prescott Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−01575−ROS

Navajo Nation et al v. Brewer et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver Lead case: 2:06−cv−01268−ROS Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Date Terminated: 05/27/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Navajo Nation a federally recognized Indian tribe

represented by Brenna L Clani , Navajo Nation Dept of Justice PO Box 2010 Window Rock, AZ 86515 928−871−7506 Fax: 928−871−6200 Email: brennalclani@navajo.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dana Lee Bobroff Navajo Nation Department of Justice PO Box 2010 Window Rock, AZ 86515 928−871−6936 Fax: 928−871−6177 Email: dbobroff@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith M Dworkin Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd., 4th Fl. Scottsdale, AZ 85251−3647 480−425−2600 Fax: 480−970−4610 Email: judith.dworkin@sackstierney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marvin S Cohen Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd 4th Floor Scottsdale, AZ 85251−3647 480−425−2600 Fax: 480−970−4610 Email: marvin.cohen@sackstierney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Ferguson−Bohnee Arizona State University College of Law P.O. Box 877906 Tempe, AZ 85287−7906 480−727−0420 Fax: 480−727−9270 Email: pafergus@asu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Agnes Laughter
V. Defendant Janice K Brewer individually and in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arizona
Defendant Patty Hansen individually and in her official capacity as Coconino County Election Administrator
Defendant Candace Owens individually and in her official capacity as Coconino County Recorder Defendant Penny Pew individually and in her official capacity as Apache County Elections Director

represented by Dana Lee Bobroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith M Dworkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marvin S Cohen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Ferguson−Bohnee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter Alex Silverman Office of the Attorney General − 1275 W Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−8305 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: peter.silverman@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jean E Wilcox Coconino County Attorneys Office 110 E Cherry St Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928−779−6518 Fax: 928−779−5618 Email: jwilcox@coconino.az.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jean E Wilcox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley William Carlyon Apache County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 637 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 928−337−7560 Fax: 928−337−2427 Email: bcarlyon@apachelaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant LeNora Johnson individually and in her official capacity as Apache County Recorder
Defendant Kelly Dastrup individually and in her official capacity as Navajo County Elections Director
Defendant Laurette Justman individually and in her official capacity as Navajo County Recorder

represented by Bradley William Carlyon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lance B Payette Navajo County Attorney PO Box 668 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928−524−4002 Fax: 928−524−4244 Email: lance.payette@navajocountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lance B Payette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/20/2006
06/20/2006 06/20/2006
06/21/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter. (Attachments: # 1 Index for Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7−Part A# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7−Part B# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7−Part C# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 7−Part D# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7−Part E# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 8−Part A# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 8−Part B# 15 Exhibit Exhibit B−Part C# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 8−Part D# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 21 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cohen, Marvin) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Setting Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Cohen, Marvin) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
Filing fee paid 06/20/06, receipt number PHX044753. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Earl H. Carroll. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06−1575−PHX−EHC. (entered by ESH, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
4 Summons Issued as to Laurette Justman, Jan Brewer, Patty Hansen, Candace Owens, Penny Pew, LeNora Johnson, Kelly Dastrup. (Attachments: # 1 Patty# 2 Candace# 3 Penny# 4 Lenora# 5 Kelly# 6 Laurette)(ESH, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Alex Silverman on behalf of Jan Brewer (Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
6 Notice re and Motion to Transfer and to Consolidate by Jan Brewer (Attachments: # 1 Supplement # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
7 Notice re Plaintiffs' Notice of Opposition to Motion to Transfer and to Consolidate by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cohen, Marvin) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
8 ANSWER to Complaint by Laurette Justman, Kelly Dastrup.(Payette, Lance) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Penny Pew, LeNora Johnson.(Carlyon, Bradley) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

07/10/2006 07/11/2006
07/13/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/18/2006 07/19/2006
07/19/2006 07/19/2006 07/24/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 08/04/2006 08/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006

10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Brenna L Clani on behalf of the Navajo Nation. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
11 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
12 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
13 ORDER granting 12 Joint Stipulation to Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Jan Brewer (Secretary of State) answer due 7/24/2006. . Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 7/17/06. (LCF) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
14 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter. (Attachments: # 1)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
15 Notice re Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Transfer and Consolidate by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
16 ANSWER to Complaint by Patty Hansen, Candace Owens.(Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Jean E Wilcox on behalf of Patty Hansen, Candace Owens (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
18 STIPULATION (Joint) by Navajo Nation, Agnes Laughter. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ferguson, Patricia) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
19 ORDER granting stipulation 18 ; ORDERED that the Court will delay briefing and ruling on the plas' motion for expedited hearing and ruling on plas' motion for preliminary injunction until a ruling is issued by Judge Roslyn Silver on Secretary of State's Motion to Transfer and Consolidate this actio with nos. CV 06−01268−PHX−ROS and CV 06−01362−PCT−JAT. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 7/18/2006. (LAD) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
20 Notice re of Association by Jan Brewer (Richards, William) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
21 Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer and to Consolidate by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Richards, William) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
22 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Jan Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
23 ORDER granting 22 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT, Jan Brewer answer due 7/27/2006.. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 7/24/06. (SBU, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
24 ANSWER to Complaint by Jan Brewer.(Silverman, Peter) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
25 CONSOLIDATION ORDER − MEMBER CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Roslyn O Silver for all further proceedings. Judge Earl H Carroll terminated. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/2/06. (TLJ) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
Appeal Remark; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#152) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
Appeal Remark; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#184) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
Appeal Remark; Notice of Appeal filed in lead case CV 06−1268−PHX−ROS (#189) (REW, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

04/01/2008 05/27/2008 08/20/2008 08/20/2008

26 ORDER per Stipulation filed in Lead Case CV06−1268−PHX−ROS it is ORDERED that PFAWF's claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/01/08. (ESL) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
27 ORDER DISMISSING CASE granting Stipulation in Case No. CV−06−1268−PHX−ROS, this case {CV−06−1575−PHX−ROS) is dismissed without prejudice. Order 775 . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/27/08. (DNH) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
28 ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on behalf of the Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be terminated. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/20/08. (ESL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
29 CLERK'S JUDGMENT that pursuant to the Courts order filed August 20, 2008, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to take nothing, and complaint and action are dismissed.(ESL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

 
 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

127 S.Ct. 5 Supreme Court of the United States
Helen PURCELL, Maricopa County Recorder, et al. v.
Maria M. GONZALEZ et al. Arizona et al. v.
Maria M. Gonzalez et al.
Nos. 06A375 (06-532) and 06A379 (06-533). | Oct. 20, 2006.
Synopsis Background: The State of Arizona and county officials from four of its counties sought relief from an interlocutory injunction entered by a two-judge motions panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoining operation of Arizona voter identification procedures pending appeal.
[Holding:] On applications for stay, the Supreme Court of the United States held that order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoining operation of Arizona voter identification procedures would be vacated.
Order of Court of Appeals vacated, and remanded.
Justice Stevens, concurred and filed opinion.
Opinion
**6 PER CURIAM.
*2 The State of Arizona and county officials from four of its counties seek relief from an interlocutory injunction entered by a two-judge motions panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice KENNEDY has referred the applicants’ filings to the Court. We construe the filings of the State and the county officials as petitions for certiorari; we grant the petitions; and we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.

I
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. The measure sought to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.
The election procedures implemented to effect Proposition 200 do not necessarily result in the turning away of qualified, registered voters by election officials for lack of proper identification. A voter who arrives at the polls on election day without identification may cast a conditional provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter is allowed five business days to return to a designated site and present proper identification. In addition any voter who knows he or she cannot secure identification within five business days of the election has the option to vote before election day during the early voting period. The State has determined that, because there is adequate time during the early voting period to compare the voters’ signatures on the ballot with their signatures on the registration rolls, voters need not present identification if voting early.
Arizona is a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So it was required to preclear any new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” with either the United States Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure its new voting policy did “not have the purpose [or] effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. See *3 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 461-462, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003). On May 6, 2005, the United States Attorney General precleared the procedures Arizona adopted under Proposition 200.
In the District Court the plaintiffs in this action are residents of Arizona, Indian tribes, and various community organizations. In May 2006, these plaintiffs brought suit challenging Proposition 200’s identification requirements. On September 11, 2006, the District Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, but it did not at that time issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. These findings were important because resolution of legal questions in the Court of Appeals required evaluation of underlying factual issues.
1

Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
The plaintiffs appealed the denial, and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals set a briefing schedule that concluded on November 21, two weeks after the upcoming November 7 election. The plaintiffs then requested an injunction pending appeal from the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ rules, the request for an injunction was assigned to a two-judge motions/screening panel. See Rule 3-3 (CA9 2002). On October 5, after receiving lengthy written responses from the State and the county officials but without oral argument, the panel issued a four-sentence order enjoining Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200’s provisions pending disposition, after full briefing, of the appeals of the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals offered no explanation or justification for its order. Four days later, the court denied a motion for **7 reconsideration. The order denying the motion likewise gave no rationale for the court’s decision.
Despite the time-sensitive nature of the proceedings and the pendency of a request for emergency relief in the Court of Appeals, the District Court did not issue its findings of fact and conclusions of law until October 12. It then concluded that “plaintiffs have shown a possibility of success on the merits of some of their arguments but the Court cannot say that at this stage they have shown a strong likelihood.” *4 Order in No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS etc. (D.Ariz., Oct. 11, 2006), pp. 7-8, App. to Application for Stay of Injunction, Tab 5 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The District Court then found the balance of the harms and the public interest counseled in favor of denying the injunction.
II
[1] [2] “A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989). Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). Countering the State’s compelling interest in preventing voter fraud is the plaintiffs’ strong interest in exercising the “fundamental political right” to vote. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the likely effects of Proposition 200 are much debated, the possibility that qualified voters might be turned away from the polls would caution any district judge to give careful consideration to the plaintiffs’ challenges.
[3] Faced with an application to enjoin operation of voter identification procedures just weeks before an election, the Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction, considerations specific to election cases and its own institutional procedures. Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter *5 confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase. So the Court of Appeals may have deemed this consideration to be grounds for prompt action. Furthermore, it might have given some weight to the possibility that the nonprevailing parties would want to seek en banc review. In the Ninth Circuit that procedure, involving voting by all active judges and an en banc hearing by a court of 15, can consume further valuable time. These considerations, however, cannot be controlling here. It was still necessary, as a procedural matter, for the Court of Appeals to give deference to the discretion of the District Court. We find no indication that it did so, and we conclude this was error.
Although at the time the Court of Appeals issued its order the District Court had not yet made factual findings to which the Court of Appeals owed deference, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), by failing to provide any factual findings or indeed any reasoning of its own the Court of Appeals left this Court in the position of evaluating **8 the Court of Appeals’ bare order in light of the District Court’s ultimate findings. There has been no explanation given by the Court of Appeals showing the ruling and findings of the District Court to be incorrect. In view of the impending election, the necessity for clear guidance to the State of Arizona, and our conclusion regarding the Court of Appeals’ issuance of the order we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
We underscore that we express no opinion here on the correct disposition, after full briefing and argument, of the appeals from the District Court’s September 11 order or
2

Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
on the ultimate resolution of these cases. As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested, and “[n]o bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 359, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997). Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the *6 factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules.
The order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.3, the Clerk is directed to issue the judgment in these cases forthwith.
It is so ordered.

Justice STEVENS, concurring.
Allowing the election to proceed without enjoining the statutory provisions at issue will provide the courts with a better record on which to judge their constitutionality. At least two important factual issues remain largely unresolved: the scope of the disenfranchisement that the novel identification requirements will produce, and the prevalence and character of the fraudulent practices that allegedly justify those requirements. Given the importance of the constitutional issues, the Court wisely takes action that will enhance the likelihood that they will be resolved correctly on the basis of historical facts rather than speculation.

3

 
 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 476 (Mem) (2012)

133 S.Ct. 476 Supreme Court of the United States
ARIZONA, et al., petitioners, v.
The INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., et al.
No. 12–71. | Oct. 15, 2012.

Case below, 677 F.3d 383.
Opinion
Motion of Mountain States Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

1

 
 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 969 (Mem) (2013)

133 S.Ct. 969 Supreme Court of the United States
ARIZONA, et al., petitioners, v.
The INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., et al.
No. 12–71. | Jan. 14, 2013.

Opinion
Motion of Jesus M. Gonzalez, et al. to correct case caption denied.

1

 
 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1310 (Mem) (2013)

133 S.Ct. 1310 Supreme Court of the United States
ARIZONA, et al., petitioners, v.
THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., et al.
No. 12–71. | Feb. 19, 2013.

Opinion
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

1

 
 (Slip Opinion)

OCTOBER TERM, 2012

1

Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus
ARIZONA ET AL. v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 12–71. Argued March 18, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4(a)(1). That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. Respondents, a group of individual Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations, sought to enjoin that Arizona law. Ultimately, the District Court granted Arizona summary judgment on respondents’ claim that the NVRA pre-empts Arizona’s requirement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part but reversed as relevant here, holding that the state law’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement is pre-empted by the NVRA.
Held: Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form. Pp. 4–18. (a) The Elections Clause imposes on States the duty to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators, but it confers on Congress the power to alter those regulations or supplant them altogether. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 804–805. This Court has said that the terms “Times, Places, and Manner” “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including regulations relating to “registration.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366. Pp. 4–6. (b) Because “accept and use” are words “that can have more than

2

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Syllabus
one meaning,” they “are given content . . . by their surroundings.” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 466. Reading “accept” merely to denote willing receipt seems out of place in the context of an official mandate to accept and use something for a given purpose. The implication of such a mandate is that its object is to be accepted as sufficient for the requirement it is meant to satisfy. Arizona’s reading is also difficult to reconcile with neighboring NVRA provisions, such as §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) and §1973gg–4(a)(2).
Arizona’s appeal to the presumption against pre-emption invoked in this Court’s Supremacy Clause cases is inapposite. The power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to pre-empt. Because Congress, when it acts under this Clause, is always on notice that its legislation will displace some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States, the reasonable assumption is that the text of Elections Clause legislation accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent.
Nonetheless, while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from “deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.” Pp. 6–13.
(c) Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1; Amdt. 17. It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.
The NVRA permits a State to request the EAC to include statespecific instructions on the Federal Form, see 42 U. S. C. §1973gg– 7(a)(2), and a State may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request (or failure to act on it) in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here. Should the EAC reject or decline to act on a renewed request, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to in-

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

Syllabus
clude Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement on the Federal Form. Pp. 13–17. 677 F. 3d 383, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which KENNEDY, J., joined in part. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

1

Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 12–71
_________________
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 17, 2013]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
The National Voter Registration Act requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. The contents of that form (colloquially known as the Federal Form) are prescribed by a federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission. The Federal Form developed by the EAC does not require documentary evidence of citizenship; rather, it requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by concrete evidence of citizenship. The question is whether Arizona’s evidenceof-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the Act’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form.
I
Over the past two decades, Congress has erected a complex superstructure of federal regulation atop state voter-registration systems. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 107 Stat. 77, as amended, 42

2

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
U. S. C. §1973gg et seq., “requires States to provide simplified systems for registering to vote in federal elections.” Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273, 275 (1997). The Act requires each State to permit prospective voters to “register to vote in elections for Federal office” by any of three methods: simultaneously with a driver’s license application, in person, or by mail. §1973gg–2(a).
This case concerns registration by mail. Section 1973gg–2(a)(2) of the Act requires a State to establish procedures for registering to vote in federal elections “by mail application pursuant to section 1973gg–4 of this title.” Section 1973gg–4, in turn, requires States to “accept and use” a standard federal registration form. §1973gg–4(a)(1). The Election Assistance Commission is invested with rulemaking authority to prescribe the contents of that Federal Form. §1973gg–7(a)(1); see §15329.1 The EAC is explicitly instructed, however, to develop the Federal Form “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.” §1973gg–7(a)(2). The Federal Form thus contains a number of state-specific instructions, which tell residents of each State what additional information they must provide and where they must submit the form. See National Mail Voter Registration Form, pp. 3–20, online at http://www.eac.gov (all Internet materials as visited June 11, 2013, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); 11 CFR §9428.3 (2012). Each state-specific instruction must be approved by the EAC before it is included on the Federal Form.
To be eligible to vote under Arizona law, a person must be a citizen of the United States. Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–101(A) (West 2006). This case concerns Arizona’s efforts to enforce that qualification. In

——————
1 The Help America Vote Act of 2002 transferred this function from the Federal Election Commission to the EAC. See §802, 116 Stat. 1726, codified at 42 U. S. C. §§15532, 1973gg–7(a).

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

Opinion of the Court
2004, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 200, a ballot initiative designed in part “to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 2 (2006) (per curiam).2 Proposition 200 amended the State’s election code to require county recorders to “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Supp. 2012). The proofof-citizenship requirement is satisfied by (1) a photocopy of the applicant’s passport or birth certificate, (2) a driver’s license number, if the license states that the issuing authority verified the holder’s U. S. citizenship, (3) evidence of naturalization, (4) tribal identification, or (5) “[o]ther documents or methods of proof . . . established pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” Ibid. The EAC did not grant Arizona’s request to include this new requirement among the state-specific instructions for Arizona on the Federal Form. App. 225. Consequently, the Federal Form includes a statutorily required attestation, subscribed to under penalty of perjury, that an Arizona applicant meets the State’s voting requirements (including the citizenship requirement), see §1973gg–7(b)(2), but does not require concrete evidence of citizenship.
The two groups of plaintiffs represented here—a group of individual Arizona residents (dubbed the Gonzalez plaintiffs, after lead plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez) and a group of nonprofit organizations led by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)—filed separate suits seeking to enjoin the voting provisions of Proposition 200. The District

—————— 2 In May 2005, the United States Attorney General precleared under
§5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the procedures Arizona adopted to implement Proposition 200. Purcell, 549 U. S., at 3.

4

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
Court consolidated the cases and denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1g. A two-judge motions panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then enjoined Proposition 200 pending appeal. Purcell, 549 U. S., at 3. We vacated that order and allowed the impending 2006 election to proceed with the new rules in place. Id., at 5–6. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s initial denial of a preliminary injunction as to respondents’ claim that the NVRA pre-empts Proposition 200’s registration rules. Gonzales v. Arizona, 485 F. 3d 1041, 1050–1051 (2007). The District Court then granted Arizona’s motion for summary judgment as to that claim. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1e, 3e. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part but reversed as relevant here, holding that “Proposition 200’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement conflicts with the NVRA’s text, structure, and purpose.” Gonzales v. Arizona, 624 F. 3d 1162, 1181 (2010). The en banc Court of Appeals agreed. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F. 3d 383, 403 (2012). We granted certiorari. 568 U. S. ___ (2012).
II
The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.”
The Clause empowers Congress to pre-empt state regulations governing the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections. The question here is whether the federal statutory requirement that States “accept and use” the Federal Form pre-empts Arizona’s state-law require-

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

5

Opinion of the Court
ment that officials “reject” the application of a prospective voter who submits a completed Federal Form unaccompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.
A
The Elections Clause has two functions. Upon the States it imposes the duty (“shall be prescribed”) to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators; upon Congress it confers the power to alter those regulations or supplant them altogether. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 804– 805 (1995); id., at 862 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). This grant of congressional power was the Framers’ insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal Congress. “[E]very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation,” and “an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs.” The Federalist No. 59, pp. 362–363 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (emphasis deleted). That prospect seems fanciful today, but the widespread, vociferous opposition to the proposed Constitution made it a very real concern in the founding era.
The Clause’s substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932); see also Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15, 24–25 (1972) (recounts); United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 320 (1941) (primaries). In practice, the Clause functions as “a default provision; it invests the States with responsi-

6

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
bility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to pre-empt state legislative choices.” Foster v. Love, 522 U. S. 67, 69 (1997) (citation omitted). The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 392 (1880).
B
The straightforward textual question here is whether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F), which requires state officials to “reject” a Federal Form unaccompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship, conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that Arizona “accept and use” the Federal Form. If so, the state law, “so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.” Siebold, supra, at 384. In Arizona’s view, these seemingly incompatible obligations can be read to operate harmoniously: The NVRA, it contends, requires merely that a State receive the Federal Form willingly and use that form as one element in its (perhaps lengthy) transaction with a prospective voter.
Taken in isolation, the mandate that a State “accept and use” the Federal Form is fairly susceptible of two interpretations. It might mean that a State must accept the Federal Form as a complete and sufficient registration application; or it might mean that the State is merely required to receive the form willingly and use it somehow in its voter registration process. Both readings—“receive willingly” and “accept as sufficient”—are compatible with the plain meaning of the word “accept.” See 1 Oxford English Dictionary 70 (2d ed. 1989) (“To take or receive (a thing offered) willingly”; “To receive as sufficient or adequate”); Webster’s New International Dictionary 14 (2d ed. 1954)

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

7

Opinion of the Court
(“To receive (a thing offered to or thrust upon one) with a consenting mind”; “To receive with favor; to approve”). And we take it as self-evident that the “elastic” verb “use,” read in isolation, is broad enough to encompass Arizona’s preferred construction. Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 241 (1993) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). In common parlance, one might say that a restaurant accepts and uses credit cards even though it requires customers to show matching identification when making a purchase. See also Brief for State Petitioners 40 (“An airline may advertise that it ‘accepts and uses’ e-tickets . . . , yet may still require photo identification before one could board the airplane”).
“Words that can have more than one meaning are given content, however, by their surroundings.” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 466 (2001); see also Smith, supra, at 241 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). And reading “accept” merely to denote willing receipt seems out of place in the context of an official mandate to accept and use something for a given purpose. The implication of such a mandate is that its object is to be accepted as sufficient for the requirement it is meant to satisfy. For example, a government diktat that “civil servants shall accept government IOUs for payment of salaries” does not invite the response, “sure, we’ll accept IOUs—if you pay us a ten percent down payment in cash.” Many federal statutes contain similarly phrased commands, and they contemplate more than mere willing receipt. See, e.g., 5 U. S. C. §8332(b), (m)(3) (“The Office [of Personnel Management] shall accept the certification of ” various officials concerning creditable service toward civilian-employee retirement); 12 U. S. C. A. §2605(l)(2) (Supp. 2013) (“A servicer of a federally related mortgage shall accept any reasonable form of written confirmation from a borrower of existing insurance coverage”); 16 U. S. C. §1536(p) (Endangered Species Committee “shall accept the determinations of the

8

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
President” with respect to whether a major disaster warrants an exception to the Endangered Species Act’s requirements); §4026(b)(2), 118 Stat. 3725, note following 22 U. S. C. §2751, p. 925 (FAA Administrator “shall accept the certification of the Department of Homeland Security that a missile defense system is effective and functional to defend commercial aircraft against” man-portable surfaceto-air missiles); 25 U. S. C. §1300h–6(a) (“For the purpose of proceeding with the per capita distribution” of certain funds, “the Secretary of the Interior shall accept the tribe’s certification of enrolled membership”); 30 U. S. C. §923(b) (the Secretary of Labor “shall accept a board certified or board eligible radiologist’s interpretation” of a chest X ray used to diagnose black lung disease); 42 U. S. C. §1395w– 21(e)(6)(A) (“[A] Medicare+Choice organization . . . shall accept elections or changes to elections during” specified periods).3
Arizona’s reading is also difficult to reconcile with neighboring provisions of the NVRA. Section 1973gg– 6(a)(1)(B) provides that a State shall “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked” not later than a specified number of days before the election. (Emphasis added.) Yet Arizona reads the phrase “accept and use” in §1973gg–4(a)(1) as permitting it to reject a completed Federal Form if the applicant does not submit additional information required by state law. That reading can be squared with Arizona’s obligation
——————
3 The dissent accepts that a State may not impose additional requirements that render the Federal Form entirely superfluous; it would require that the State “us[e] the form as a meaningful part of the registration process.” Post, at 7 (opinion of ALITO, J.). The dissent does not tell us precisely how large a role for the Federal Form suffices to make it “meaningful”: One step out of two? Three? Ten? There is no easy answer, for the dissent’s “meaningful part” standard is as indeterminate as it is atextual.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

9

Opinion of the Court
under §1973gg–6(a)(1) only if a completed Federal Form is not a “valid voter registration form,” which seems unlikely. The statute empowers the EAC to create the Federal Form, §1973gg–7(a), requires the EAC to prescribe its contents within specified limits, §1973gg–7(b), and requires States to “accept and use” it, §1973gg–4(a)(1). It is improbable that the statute envisions a completed copy of the form it takes such pains to create as being anything less than “valid.”
The Act also authorizes States, “[i]n addition to accepting and using the” Federal Form, to create their own, state-specific voter-registration forms, which can be used to register voters in both state and federal elections. §1973gg–4(a)(2) (emphasis added). These state-developed forms may require information the Federal Form does not. (For example, unlike the Federal Form, Arizona’s registration form includes Proposition 200’s proof-of-citizenship requirement. See Arizona Voter Registration Form, p. 1, online at http://www.azsos.gov.) This permission works in tandem with the requirement that States “accept and use” the Federal Form. States retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms, but the Federal Form provides a backstop: No matter what procedural hurdles a State’s own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.4 Arizona’s reading
——————
4 In the face of this straightforward explanation, the dissent maintains that it would be “nonsensical” for a less demanding federal form to exist alongside a more demanding state form. Post, at 9 (opinion of ALITO, J.). But it is the dissent’s alternative explanation for §1973gg– 4(a)(2) that makes no sense. The “purpose” of the Federal Form, it claims, is “to facilitate interstate voter registration drives. Thanks to the federal form, volunteers distributing voter registration materials at a shopping mall in Yuma can give a copy of the same form to every person they meet without attempting to distinguish between residents of Arizona and California.” Post, at 9. But in the dissent’s world, a volunteer in Yuma would have to give every prospective voter not only

10

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
would permit a State to demand of Federal Form applicants every additional piece of information the State requires on its state-specific form. If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of “increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.” §1973gg(b).
Finally, Arizona appeals to the presumption against pre-emption sometimes invoked in our Supremacy Clause cases. See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 460– 461 (1991). Where it applies, “we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). That rule of construction rests on an assumption about congressional intent: that “Congress does not exercise lightly” the “extraordinary power” to “legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States.” Gregory, supra, at 460. We have never mentioned such a principle in our Elections Clause cases.5 Siebold, for example, simply said that Elections

——————
a Federal Form, but also a separate set of either Arizona- or Californiaspecific instructions detailing the additional information the applicant must submit to the State. In ours, every eligible voter can be assured that if he does what the Federal Form says, he will be registered. The dissent therefore provides yet another compelling reason to interpret the statute our way.
5 United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476 (1917), on which the dissent relies, see post, at 3–4 (opinion of ALITO, J.), is not to the contrary— indeed, it was not even a pre-emption case. In Gradwell, we held that a statute making it a federal crime “to defraud the United States” did not reach election fraud. 243 U. S., at 480, 483. The Court noted that the provision at issue was adopted in a tax-enforcement bill, and that Congress had enacted but then repealed other criminal statutes specifically covering election fraud. Id., at 481–483.
The dissent cherry-picks some language from a sentence in Gradwell, see post, at 3–4, but the full sentence reveals its irrelevance to our case:

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

11

Opinion of the Court
Clause legislation, “so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them.” 100 U. S., at 384. There is good reason for treating Elections Clause legislation differently: The assumption that Congress is reluctant to pre-empt does not hold when Congress acts under that constitutional provision, which empowers Congress to “make or alter” state election regulations. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. When Congress legislates with respect to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States.6 Because the power the Elections Clause confers is
——————
“With it thus clearly established that the policy of Congress for so great a part of our constitutional life has been, and now is, to leave the conduct of the election of its members to state laws, administered by state officers, and that whenever it has assumed to regulate such elections it has done so by positive and clear statutes, such as were enacted in 1870, it would be a strained and unreasonable construction to apply to such elections this §37, originally a law for the protection of the revenue and for now fifty years confined in its application to ‘Offenses against the Operations of the Government’ as distinguished from the processes by which men are selected to conduct such operations.” 243 U. S., at 485.
Gradwell says nothing at all about pre-emption, or about how to construe statutes (like the NVRA) in which Congress has indisputably undertaken “to regulate such elections.” Ibid.
6 The dissent counters that this is so “whenever Congress legislates in an area of concurrent state and federal power.” Post, at 5 (opinion of ALITO, J.). True, but irrelevant: Elections Clause legislation is unique precisely because it always falls within an area of concurrent state and federal power. Put differently, all action under the Elections Clause displaces some element of a pre-existing state regulatory regime, because the text of the Clause confers the power to do exactly (and only) that. By contrast, even laws enacted under the Commerce Clause (arguably the other enumerated power whose exercise is most likely to trench on state regulatory authority) will not always implicate concurrent state power—a prohibition on the interstate transport of a commodity, for example.

12

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
none other than the power to pre-empt, the reasonable assumption is that the statutory text accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent. Moreover, the federalism concerns underlying the presumption in the Supremacy Clause context are somewhat weaker here. Unlike the States’ “historic police powers,” Rice, supra, at 230, the States’ role in regulating congressional elections—while weighty and worthy of respect—has always existed subject to the express qualification that it “terminates according to federal law.” Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U. S. 341, 347 (2001). In sum, there is no compelling reason not to read Elections Clause legislation simply to mean what it says.
We conclude that the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form. Siebold, supra, at 397. If this reading prevails, the Elections Clause requires that Arizona’s rule give way.
We note, however, that while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from “deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.”7 Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24. The NVRA clearly contemplates that not every submitted Federal Form will result in registration. See
——————
7 The dissent seems to think this position of ours incompatible with our reading of §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B), which requires a State to “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked” by a certain date. See post, at 9–10 (opinion of ALITO, J.). What the dissent overlooks is that §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) only requires a State to register an “eligible applicant” who submits a timely Federal Form. (Emphasis added.)

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

13

Opinion of the Court
§1973gg–7(b)(1) (Federal Form “may require only” information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant” (emphasis added)); §1973gg–6(a)(2) (States must require election officials to “send notice to each applicant of the disposition of the application”).
III
Arizona contends, however, that its construction of the phrase “accept and use” is necessary to avoid a conflict between the NVRA and Arizona’s constitutional authority to establish qualifications (such as citizenship) for voting. Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. Article I, §2, cl. 1, provides that electors in each State for the House of Representatives “shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature,” and the Seventeenth Amendment adopts the same criterion for senatorial elections. Cf. also Art. II, §1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” presidential electors). One cannot read the Elections Clause as treating implicitly what these other constitutional provisions regulate explicitly. “It is difficult to see how words could be clearer in stating what Congress can control and what it cannot control. Surely nothing in these provisions lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.” Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 210 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 833–834; Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 231–232 (1986) (Ste-

14

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
vens, J., dissenting).8 Prescribing voting qualifications, therefore, “forms no
part of the power to be conferred upon the national government” by the Elections Clause, which is “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections.” The Federalist No. 60, at 371 (A. Hamilton); see also id., No. 52, at 326 (J. Madison). This allocation of authority sprang from the Framers’ aversion to concentrated power. A Congress empowered to regulate the qualifications of its own electorate, Madison warned, could “by degrees subvert the Constitution.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 250 (M. Farrand rev. 1966). At the same time, by tying the federal franchise to the state franchise instead of simply placing it within the unfettered discretion of state legislatures, the Framers avoided “render[ing] too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal govern-
——————
8 In Mitchell, the judgment of the Court was that Congress could compel the States to permit 18-year-olds to vote in federal elections. Of the five Justices who concurred in that outcome, only Justice Black was of the view that congressional power to prescribe this age qualification derived from the Elections Clause, 400 U. S., at 119–125, while four Justices relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, id., at 144 (opinion of Douglas, J.), 231 (joint opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.). That result, which lacked a majority rationale, is of minimal precedential value here. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 66 (1996); Nichols v. United States, 511 U. S. 738, 746 (1994); H. Black, Handbook on the Law of Judicial Precedents 135–136 (1912). Five Justices took the position that the Elections Clause did not confer upon Congress the power to regulate voter qualifications in federal elections. Mitchell, supra, at 143 (opinion of Douglas, J.), 210 (opinion of Harlan, J.), 288 (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J.). (Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall did not address the Elections Clause.) This last view, which commanded a majority in Mitchell, underlies our analysis here. See also U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 833. Five Justices also agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not empower Congress to impose the 18-year-old-voting mandate. See Mitchell, supra, at 124–130 (opinion of Black, J.), 155 (opinion of Harlan, J.), 293–294 (opinion of Stewart, J.).

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

15

Opinion of the Court
ment which ought to be dependent on the people alone.” The Federalist No. 52, at 326 (J. Madison).
Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.9 If, but for Arizona’s interpretation of the “accept and use” provision, the State would be precluded from obtaining information necessary for enforcement, we would have to determine whether Arizona’s interpretation, though plainly not the best reading, is at least a possible one. Cf. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932) (the Court will “ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided” (emphasis added)). Happily, we are spared that necessity, since the statute provides another means by which Arizona may obtain information needed for enforcement.
Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) of the Act provides that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” At oral argument,

——————
9 In their reply brief, petitioners suggest for the first time that “registration is itself a qualification to vote.” Reply Brief for State Petitioners 24 (emphasis deleted); see also post, at 1, 16 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); cf. Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F. 3d 1411, 1413, and n. 1 (CA9 1995), cert. denied, 516 U. S. 1093 (1996); Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F. 3d 791, 793 (CA7 1995). We resolve this case on the theory on which it has hitherto been litigated: that citizenship (not registration) is the voter qualification Arizona seeks to enforce. See Brief for State Petitioners 50.

16

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
the United States expressed the view that the phrase “may require only” in §1973gg–7(b)(1) means that the EAC “shall require information that’s necessary, but may only require that information.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 52 (emphasis added); see also Brief for ITCA Respondents 46; Tr. of Oral Arg. 37–39 (ITCA Respondents’ counsel). That is to say, §1973gg–7(b)(1) acts as both a ceiling and a floor with respect to the contents of the Federal Form. We need not consider the Government’s contention that despite the statute’s statement that the EAC “may” require on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant,” other provisions of the Act indicate that such action is statutorily required. That is because we think that—by analogy to the rule of statutory interpretation that avoids questionable constitutionality—validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to avoid serious constitutional doubt. That is to say, it is surely permissible if not requisite for the Government to say that necessary information which may be required will be required.
Since, pursuant to the Government’s concession, a State may request that the EAC alter the Federal Form to include information the State deems necessary to determine eligibility, see §1973gg–7(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 55 (United States), and may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U. S. C. §701–706, no constitutional doubt is raised by giving the “accept and use” provision of the NVRA its fairest reading. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here. In 2005, the EAC divided 2-to-2 on the request by Arizona to include the evidence-ofcitizenship requirement among the state-specific instructions on the Federal Form, App. 225, which meant that no action could be taken, see 42 U. S. C. §15328 (“Any action

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

17

Opinion of the Court
which the Commission is authorized to carry out under this chapter may be carried out only with the approval of at least three of its members”). Arizona did not challenge that agency action (or rather inaction) by seeking APA review in federal court, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 11–12 (Arizona), but we are aware of nothing that prevents Arizona from renewing its request.10 Should the EAC’s inaction persist, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete evidence requirement on the Federal Form. See 5 U. S. C. §706(1). Arizona might also assert (as it has argued here) that it would be arbitrary for the EAC to refuse to include Arizona’s instruction when it has accepted a similar instruction requested by Louisiana.11
* * *
We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona

——————
10 We are aware of no rule promulgated by the EAC preventing a renewed request. Indeed, the whole request process appears to be entirely informal, Arizona’s prior request having been submitted by e-mail. See App. 181.
The EAC currently lacks a quorum—indeed, the Commission has not a single active Commissioner. If the EAC proves unable to act on a renewed request, Arizona would be free to seek a writ of mandamus to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U. S. C. §706(1). It is a nice point, which we need not resolve here, whether a court can compel agency action that the agency itself, for lack of the statutorily required quorum, is incapable of taking. If the answer to that is no, Arizona might then be in a position to assert a constitutional right to demand concrete evidence of citizenship apart from the Federal Form.
11 The EAC recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver’s license, ID card, or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to the completed Federal Form. See National Mail Voter Registration Form, p. 9; Tr. of Oral Arg. 57 (United States).

18

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of the Court
from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

1

Opinion of KENNEDY, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 12–71
_________________
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 17, 2013]
JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The opinion for the Court insists on stating a proposition that, in my respectful view, is unnecessary for the proper disposition of the case and is incorrect in any event. The Court concludes that the normal “starting presumption that Congress does not intend to supplant state law,” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 654 (1995), does not apply here because the source of congressional power is the Elections Clause and not some other provision of the Constitution. See ante, at 10–12.
There is no sound basis for the Court to rule, for the first time, that there exists a hierarchy of federal powers so that some statutes pre-empting state law must be interpreted by different rules than others, all depending upon which power Congress has exercised. If the Court is skeptical of the basic idea of a presumption against preemption as a helpful instrument of construction in express pre-emption cases, see Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 545 (1992) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part), it should say so and apply that skepticism across the board.
There are numerous instances in which Congress, in the undoubted exercise of its enumerated powers, has stated

2

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

Opinion of KENNEDY, J.
its express purpose and intent to pre-empt state law. But the Court has nonetheless recognized that “when the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily ‘accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.’ ” Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U. S. 70, 77 (2008) (quoting Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U. S. 431, 449 (2005)). This principle is best understood, perhaps, not as a presumption but as a cautionary principle to ensure that pre-emption does not go beyond the strict requirements of the statutory command. The principle has two dimensions: Courts must be careful not to give an unduly broad interpretation to ambiguous or imprecise language Congress uses. And they must confine their opinions to avoid overextending a federal statute’s pre-emptive reach. Error on either front may put at risk the validity and effectiveness of laws that Congress did not intend to disturb and that a State has deemed important to its scheme of governance. That concern is the same regardless of the power Congress invokes, whether it is, say, the commerce power, the war power, the bankruptcy power, or the power to regulate federal elections under Article I, §4.
Whether the federal statute concerns congressional regulation of elections or any other subject proper for Congress to address, a court must not lightly infer a congressional directive to negate the States’ otherwise proper exercise of their sovereign power. This case illustrates the point. The separate States have a continuing, essential interest in the integrity and accuracy of the process used to select both state and federal officials. The States pay the costs of holding these elections, which for practical reasons often overlap so that the two sets of officials are selected at the same time, on the same ballots, by the same voters. It seems most doubtful to me to suggest that States have some lesser concern when what is involved is their own historic role in the conduct of elections. As

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

Opinion of KENNEDY, J.
already noted, it may be that a presumption against preemption is not the best formulation of this principle, but in all events the State’s undoubted interest in the regulation and conduct of elections must be taken into account and ought not to be deemed by this Court to be a subject of secondary importance.
Here, in my view, the Court is correct to conclude that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 is unambiguous in its pre-emption of Arizona’s statute. For this reason, I concur in the judgment and join all of the Court’s opinion except its discussion of the presumption against pre-emption. See ante, at 10–12.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

1

THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 12–71
_________________
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 17, 2013]
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
This case involves the federal requirement that States “accept and use,” 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4(a)(1), the federal voter registration form created pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The Court interprets “accept and use,” with minor exceptions, to require States to register any individual who completes and submits the federal form. It, therefore, holds that §1973gg–4(a)(1) preempts an Arizona law requiring additional information to register. As the majority recognizes, ante, at 13–15, its decision implicates a serious constitutional issue— whether Congress has power to set qualifications for those who vote in elections for federal office.
I do not agree, and I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it

2

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Cum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption.
I
In 2002, Congress created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), 42 U. S. C. §15321 et seq., and gave it the ongoing responsibility of “develop[ing] a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office” “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.” §1973gg–7(a)(2). Under the NVRA, “[e]ach State shall accept and use the mail voter registration application form” the EAC develops. §1973gg–4(a)(1). The NVRA also states in a subsequent provision that “[i]n addition to accepting and using the form described in paragraph (1), a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form . . . for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office” so long as it satisfies the same criteria as the federal form. §1973gg–4(a)(2).
Section 1973gg–7(b) enumerates the criteria for the federal form. The form “may require only such identifying information . . . and other information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” §1973gg–7(b)(1). The federal form must also “specif[y] each eligibility requirement (including citizenship),” “contai[n] an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement,” and “requir[e] the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.” §§1973gg–7(b)(2)(A)–(C). Insofar as citizenship is concerned, the standard federal form contains the bare statutory requirements; individuals seeking to vote need only attest that they are citizens and sign under penalty of

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

THOMAS, J., dissenting
perjury. Arizona has had a citizenship requirement for voting since
it became a State in 1912. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. In 2004, Arizona citizens enacted Proposition 200, the law at issue in this case. Proposition 200 provides that “[t]he county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F). The law sets forth several examples of satisfactory evidence, including driver’s license number, birth certificate, U. S. passport, naturalization documents, and various tribal identification documents for Indians. §16– 166(F)(1)–(6).
Respondents, joined by the United States, allege that these state requirements are pre-empted by the NVRA’s mandate that all States “accept and use” the federal form promulgated by the EAC. §1973gg–4(a)(1). They contend that the phrase “accept and use” requires a State presented with a completed federal form to register the individual to vote without requiring any additional information.
Arizona advances an alternative interpretation. It argues that §1973gg–4(a)(1) is satisfied so long as the State “accepts and use[s]” the federal form as part of its voter qualification process. For example, a State “accepts and use[s]” the federal form by allowing individuals to file it, even if the State requires additional identifying information to establish citizenship. In Arizona’s view, it “accepts and uses” the federal form in the same way that an airline “accepts and uses” electronic tickets but also requires an individual seeking to board a plane to demonstrate that he is the person named on the ticket. Brief for State Petitioners 40. See also 677 F. 3d 383, 446 (CA9 2012) (Rawlinson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[M]erchants may accept and use credit cards, but a customer’s production of a credit card in and of itself may not be sufficient. The customer must sign and may have

4

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
to provide photo identification to verify that the customer is eligible to use the credit card”).
JUSTICE ALITO makes a compelling case that Arizona’s interpretation is superior to respondents’. See post, at 6–10 (dissenting opinion). At a minimum, however, the interpretations advanced by Arizona and respondents are both plausible. See 677 F. 3d, at 439 (Kozinski, C.J., concurring) (weighing the arguments). The competing interpretations of §1973gg–4(a)(1) raise significant constitutional issues concerning Congress’ power to decide who may vote in federal elections. Accordingly, resolution of this case requires a better understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions.
II A
The Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, provides that “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” in elections for the federal House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for direct election of Senators, contains an identical clause. That language is susceptible of only one interpretation: States have the authority “to control who may vote in congressional elections” so long as they do not “establish special requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 864–865 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also The Federalist No. 57, p. 349 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J. Madison) (“The electors . . . are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State”). Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications, or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

5

THOMAS, J., dissenting
Sixth Amendments, which are not at issue here. This power is instead expressly reposed in the States.
1
The history of the Voter Qualifications Clause’s enactment confirms this conclusion. The Framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress. Indeed, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility:
“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323 (emphasis added).
Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the Framers’ design.
The Constitutional Convention did recognize a danger in leaving Congress “too dependent on the State governments” by allowing States to define congressional elector qualifications without limitation. Ibid. To address this concern, the Committee of Detail that drafted Article I, §2, “weighed the possibility of a federal property requirement, as well as several proposals that would have given the federal government the power to impose its own suffrage laws at some future time.” A. Keyssar, The Right to Vote 18 (rev. ed. 2009) (hereafter Keyssar); see also 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 139–140, 151, 153, 163–165 (M. Farrand rev. ed. 1966) (text of several voter qualification provisions considered by the Committee of Detail).
These efforts, however, were ultimately abandoned. Even if the convention had been able to agree on a uniform federal standard, the Framers knew that state ratification conventions likely would have rejected it. Madison ex-

6

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
plained that “reduc[ing] the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323; see also J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 217 (abridged ed. 1833) (same). Justice Story elaborated that setting voter qualifications in the Constitution could have jeopardized ratification, because it would have been difficult to convince States to give up their right to set voting qualifications. Id., at 216, 218–219. See also Keyssar 306–313 (Tables A.1 and A.2) (state-by-state analysis of 18th- and 19th-century voter qualifications, including property, taxpaying, residency, sex, and race requirements).
The Convention, thus, chose to respect the varied state voting rules and instead struck the balance enshrined in Article I, §2’s requirement that federal electors “shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” That compromise gave States free reign over federal voter qualifications but protected Congress by prohibiting States from changing the qualifications for federal electors unless they also altered qualifications for their own legislatures. See The Federalist No. 52, at 323. This balance left the States with nearly complete control over voter qualifications.
2
Respondents appear to concede that States have the sole authority to establish voter qualifications, see, e.g., Brief for Gonzalez Respondents 63, but nevertheless argue that Congress can determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. See, e.g., id., at 61. The practical effect of respondents’ position is to read Article I, §2, out of the Constitution. As the majority correctly recognizes, “the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements.” See ante, at 15.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

7

THOMAS, J., dissenting
For this reason, the Voter Qualifications Clause gives States the authority not only to set qualifications but also the power to verify whether those qualifications are satisfied.
This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting, see Keyssar 306–313 (Tables A.1 and A.2). To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments. See C. Williamson, American Suffrage from Property to Democracy, 1760–1860, p. 32 (1960). In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. Keyssar 24 (“In some locales, particularly in the South, voting was still an oral and public act: men assembled before election judges, waited for their names to be called, and then announced which candidates they supported”). States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.
Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters using highly formalized procedures. See id., at 122. Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. See An Act in Addition to the Several Acts for Regulating Elections, 1800 Mass. Acts ch. 74, in Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 96 (1897) (Massachusetts’ 1801 voter registration law). But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad

8

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.
B
Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, §4, “to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States). Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, §4, supports that position.
1
Article I, §4, gives States primary responsibility for regulating the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” and authorizes Congress to “at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”1 Along with the Seventeenth Amendment, this provision grants Congress power only over the “when, where, and how” of holding congressional elections. T. Parsons, Notes of Convention Debates, Jan. 16, 1788, in 6 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 1211 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 2000) (hereinafter Documentary History) (Massachusetts ratification delegate Sedgwick) (emphasis omitted); see also ante, at 13 (“Arizona is correct that [Article I, §4,] empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them”).
Prior to the Constitution’s ratification, the phrase “manner of election” was commonly used in England, Scotland, Ireland, and North America to describe the
——————
1 The majority refers to Article I, §4, cl. 1, as the “Elections Clause.” See, e.g., ante, at 4. Since there are a number of Clauses in the Constitution dealing with elections, I refer to it using the more descriptive term, Times, Places and Manner Clause.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

9

THOMAS, J., dissenting
entire election process. Natelson, The Original Scope of the Congressional Power to Regulate Elections, 13 U. Pa. J. Constitutional L. 1, 10–18 (2010) (citing examples). But there are good reasons for concluding that Article I, §4’s use of “Manner” is considerably more limited. Id., at 20. The Constitution does not use the word “Manner” in isolation; rather, “after providing for qualifications, times, and places, the Constitution described the residuum as ‘the Manner of holding Elections.’ This precise phrase seems to have been newly coined to denote a subset of traditional ‘manner’ regulation.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; footnote omitted). Consistent with this view, during the state ratification debates, the “Manner of holding Elections” was construed to mean the circumstances under which elections were held and the mechanics of the actual election. See 4 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 71 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1863) (hereafter Elliot’s Debates) (“The power over the manner of elections does not include that of saying who shall vote . . . the power over the manner only enables them to determine how those electors shall elect—whether by ballot, or by vote, or by any other way” (John Steele at the North Carolina ratification debates)); A Pennsylvanian to the New York Convention, Pennsylvania Gazette, June 11, 1788, in 20 Documentary History 1145 (J. Kaminski, G. Saladino, R. Leffler, & C. Schoenleber eds. 2004) (same); Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence as Amicus Curiae 6–7 (same, citing state ratification debates). The text of the Times, Places and Manner Clause, therefore, cannot be read to authorize Congress to dictate voter eligibility to the States.
2
Article I, §4, also cannot be read to limit a State’s authority to set voter qualifications because the more specific language of Article I, §2, expressly gives that authority to

10

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
the States. See ante, at 13 (“One cannot read [Article I, §4,] as treating implicitly what [Article I, §2, and Article II, §1,] regulate explicitly”). As the Court observed just last Term, “[a] well established canon of statutory interpretation succinctly captures the problem: ‘[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.’ ” RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 5) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U. S. 374, 384 (1992); second alteration in original). The Court explained that this canon is particularly relevant where two provisions “ ‘are interrelated and closely positioned, both in fact being parts of [the same scheme.]’ ” 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (quoting HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U. S. 1, 6 (1981) (per curiam)). Here, the general Times, Places and Manner Clause is textually limited by the directly applicable text of the Voter Qualification Clause.
The ratification debates over the relationship between Article I, §§2 and 4, demonstrate this limitation. Unlike Article I, §2, the Times, Places and Manner Clause was the subject of extensive ratification controversy. Antifederalists were deeply concerned with ceding authority over the conduct of elections to the Federal Government. Some antifederalists claimed that the “ ‘wealthy and the wellborn,’ ” might abuse the Times, Places and Manner Clause to ensure their continuing power in Congress. The Federalist No. 60, at 368. Hamilton explained why Article I, §2’s Voter Qualifications Clause foreclosed this argument:
“The truth is that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected. But this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government. Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regula-

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

11

THOMAS, J., dissenting
tion of the times, the places, and the manner of elections.” Id., at 369.
Ratification debates in several States echoed Hamilton’s argument. The North Carolina debates provide a particularly direct example. There, delegate John Steele relied on the established “maxim of universal jurisprudence, of reason and common sense, that an instrument or deed of writing shall be construed as to give validity to all parts of it, if it can be done without involving any absurdity” in support of the argument that Article I, §2’s grant of voter qualifications to the States required a limited reading of Article I, §4. 4 Elliot’s Debates 71.
This was no isolated view. See 2 id., at 50–51 (Massachusetts delegate Rufus King observing that “the power of control given by [Article I, §4,] extends to the manner of election, not the qualifications of the electors”); 4 id., at 61 (same, North Carolina’s William Davie); 3 id., at 202–203 (same, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph); Roger Sherman, A Citizen of New Haven: Observations on the New Federal Constitution, Connecticut Courant, Jan. 7, 1788, in 15 Documentary History 282 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 1983) (same); A Freeman [Letter] II (Tench Coxe), Pennsylvania Gazette, Jan. 30, 1788, in id., at 508 (same). It was well understood that congressional power to regulate the “Manner” of elections under Article I, §4, did not include the power to override state voter qualifications under Article I, §2.
3
The concern that gave rise to Article I, §4, also supports this limited reading. The Times, Places and Manner Clause was designed to address the possibility that States might refuse to hold any federal elections at all, eliminating Congress, and by extension the Federal Government. As Hamilton explained, “every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.” The

12

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
Federalist No. 59, at 360 (emphasis deleted); see also U. S. Term Limits, Inc., 514 U. S., at 863 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (Article I, §4, designed “to ensure that the States hold congressional elections in the first place, so that Congress continues to exist”); id., at 863, and n. 10 (same, citing ratification era sources). Reflecting this understanding of the reasoning behind Article I, §4, many of the original 13 States proposed constitutional amendments that would have strictly cabined the Times, Places and Manner Clause to situations in which state failure to hold elections threatened the continued existence of Congress. See 2 Elliot’s Debates 177 (Massachusetts); 18 Documentary History 71–72 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 1995) (South Carolina); id., at 187–188 (New Hampshire); 3 Elliot’s Debates 661 (Virginia); Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York (July 26, 1788) (New York), online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp (all Internet materials as visited June 6, 2013, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); 4 Elliot’s Debates 249 (North Carolina); Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island (May 29, 1790) (Rhode Island), online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratri.asp. Although these amendments were never enacted, they underscore how narrowly the ratification conventions construed Congress’ power under the Times, Places and Manner Clause. In contrast to a state refusal to hold federal elections at all, a state decision to alter the qualifications of electors for state legislature (and thereby for federal elections as well) does not threaten Congress’ very existence.
C
Finding no support in the historical record, respondents and the United States instead chiefly assert that this Court’s precedents involving the Times, Places and Manner Clause give Congress authority over voter qualifica-

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

13

THOMAS, J., dissenting
tions. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA) et al. 30–31, 48–50 (hereafter Brief for ITCA Respondents; Brief for Gonzalez Respondents 44–50; Brief for United States 24–27, 31–33. But this Court does not have the power to alter the terms of the Constitution. Moreover, this Court’s decisions do not support the respondents’ and the Government’s position.
Respondents and the United States point out that Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355 (1932), mentioned “registration” in a list of voting-related subjects it believed Congress could regulate under Article I, §4. Id., at 366 (listing “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns” (emphasis added)). See Brief for ITCA Respondents 49; Brief for Gonzalez Respondents 48; Brief for United States 21. But that statement was dicta because Smiley involved congressional redistricting, not voter registration. 285 U. S., at 361–362. Cases since Smiley have similarly not addressed the issue of voter qualifications but merely repeated the word “registration” without further analysis. See Cook v. Gralike, 531 U. S. 510, 523 (2001); Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15, 24 (1972).
Moreover, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970), a majority of this Court, “took the position that [Article I, §4,] did not confer upon Congress the power to regulate voter qualifications in federal elections,” as the majority recognizes. Ante, at 14, n. 8. See Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 288 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 210–212 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 143 (opinion of Douglas, J.). And even the majority’s decision in U. S. Term Limits, from which I dissented, recognized that Madison’s Federalist No. 52 “explicitly contrasted the state control over the qualifications of electors” with what it believed was “the

14

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
lack of state control over the qualifications of the elected.” 514 U. S., at 806 (emphasis added). Most of the remaining cases cited by respondents and the Government merely confirm that Congress’ power to regulate the “Manner of holding Elections” is limited to regulating events surrounding the when, where, and how of actually casting ballots. See, e.g., United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (1941) (upholding federal regulation of ballot fraud in primary voting); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 (1884) (upholding federal penalties for intimidating voter in congressional election); see also Foster v. Love, 522 U. S. 67 (1997) (overturning Louisiana primary system whose winner was deemed elected if he received a majority of votes in light of federal law setting the date of federal general elections); Roudebush, supra (upholding Indiana ballot recount procedures in close Senate election as within state power under Article I, §4). It is, thus, difficult to maintain that the Times, Places and Manner Clause gives Congress power beyond regulating the casting of ballots and related activities, even as a matter of precedent.2
——————
2 Article I, §§2 and 4, and the Seventeenth Amendment concern congressional elections. The NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement applies to all federal elections, even presidential elections. See §1973gg– 4(a)(1). This Court has recognized, however, that “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892)). As late as 1824, six State Legislatures chose electoral college delegates, and South Carolina continued to follow this model through the 1860 election. 1 Guide to U. S. Elections 821 (6th ed. 2010). Legislatures in Florida in 1868 and Colorado in 1876 chose delegates, id., at 822, and in recent memory, the Florida Legislature in 2000 convened a special session to consider how to allocate its 25 electoral votes if the winner of the popular vote was not determined in time for delegates to participate in the electoral college, see James, Election 2000: Florida Legislature Faces Own Disputes over Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 11, 2000, p. A16, though it ultimately took no action. See Florida’s Senate Adjourns

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

15

THOMAS, J., dissenting
III A
Arizona has not challenged the constitutionality of the NVRA itself in this case. Nor has it alleged that Congress lacks authority to direct the EAC to create the federal form. As a result, I need not address those issues. Arizona did, however, argue that respondent’s interpretation of §1973gg–4(a)(1) would raise constitutional concerns. As discussed, supra, I too am concerned that respondent’s interpretation of §1973gg–4(a)(1) would render the statute unconstitutional under Article I, §2. Accordingly, I would interpret §1973gg–4(a)(1) to avoid the constitutional problems discussed above. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 689 (2001) (“ ‘[I]t is a cardinal principle’ of statutory interpretation, however, that when an Act of Congress raises ‘a serious doubt’ as to its constitutionality, ‘this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided’ ” (quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932))).
I cannot, therefore, adopt the Court’s interpretation that §1973gg–4(a)(1)’s “accept and use” provision requires states to register anyone who completes and submits the form. Arizona sets citizenship as a qualification to vote, and it wishes to verify citizenship, as it is authorized to do under Article 1, §2. It matters not whether the United States has specified one way in which it believes Arizona might be able to verify citizenship; Arizona has the independent constitutional authority to verify citizenship in the way it deems necessary. See in Part II–A–2, supra. By requiring Arizona to register people who have not
——————
Without Naming Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2000, p. A6. Constitutional avoidance is especially appropriate in this area because the NVRA purports to regulate presidential elections, an area over which the Constitution gives Congress no authority whatsoever.

16

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

THOMAS, J., dissenting
demonstrated to Arizona’s satisfaction that they meet its citizenship qualification for voting, the NVRA, as interpreted by the Court, would exceed Congress’ powers under Article I, §4, and violate Article 1, §2.
Fortunately, Arizona’s alternative interpretation of §1973gg–4(a)(1) avoids this problem. It is plausible that Arizona “accept[s] and use[s]” the federal form under §1973gg–4(a)(1) so long as it receives the form and considers it as part of its voter application process. See post, at 6–10 (ALITO, J., dissenting); 677 F. 3d, at 444 (Rawlinson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 624 F. 3d 1162, 1205–1208 (CA9 2010) (Kozinski, C. J., dissenting in part), reh’g 649 F. 3d 953 (CA9 2011); 677 F. 3d, at 439 (Kozinski, C. J., concurring) (same). Given States’ exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are met, I would hold that Arizona may request whatever additional information it requires to verify voter eligibility.
B
The majority purports to avoid the difficult constitutional questions implicated by the Voter Qualifications Clause. See ante, at 13–15. It nevertheless adopts respondents’ reading of §1973gg–4(a)(1) because it interprets Article I, §2, as giving Arizona the right only to “obtai[n] information necessary for enforcement” of its voting qualifications. Ante, at 15. The majority posits that Arizona may pursue relief by making an administrative request to the EAC that, if denied, could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Ante, at 15–17.
JUSTICE ALITO is correct to point out that the majority’s reliance on the EAC is meaningless because the EAC has no members and no current prospects of new members. Post, at 6 (dissenting opinion). Offering a nonexistent pathway to administrative relief is an exercise in futility,

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

17

THOMAS, J., dissenting
not constitutional avoidance. Even if the EAC were a going concern instead of an
empty shell, I disagree with the majority’s application of the constitutional avoidance canon. I would not require Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements from the Federal Government, for, as I have shown, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to withhold such approval. Accordingly, it does not have the authority to command States to seek it. As a result, the majority’s proposed solution does little to avoid the serious constitutional problems created by its interpretation.
* * *
Instead of adopting respondents’ definition of “accept and use” and offering Arizona the dubious recourse of bringing an APA challenge within the NVRA framework, I would adopt an interpretation of §1973gg–4(a)(1) that avoids the constitutional problems with respondents’ interpretation. The States, not the Federal Government, have the exclusive right to define the “Qualifications requisite for Electors,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, which includes the corresponding power to verify that those qualifications have been met. I would, therefore, hold that Arizona may “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship,” as defined by Arizona law. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F).
I respectfully dissent.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

1

ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 12–71
_________________
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 17, 2013]
JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.
The Court reads an ambiguous federal statute in a way that brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States and produces truly strange results.
Under the Constitution, the States, not Congress, have the authority to establish the qualifications of voters in elections for Members of Congress. See Art. I, §2, cl. 1 (House); Amdt. 17 (Senate). The States also have the default authority to regulate federal voter registration. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship. According to the Court, however, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) deprives Arizona of this authority. I do not think that this is what Congress intended.
I also doubt that Congress meant for the success of an application for voter registration to depend on which of two valid but substantially different registration forms the applicant happens to fill out and submit, but that is how the Court reads the NVRA. The Court interprets one provision, 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B), to mean that, if an applicant fills out the federal form, a State must regis-

2

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

ALITO, J., dissenting
ter the applicant without requiring proof of citizenship. But the Court does not question Arizona’s authority under another provision of the NVRA, §1973gg–4(a)(2), to create its own application form that demands proof of citizenship; nor does the Court dispute Arizona’s right to refuse to register an applicant who submits that form without the requisite proof. I find it very hard to believe that this is what Congress had in mind.
These results are not required by the NVRA. Proper respect for the constitutional authority of the States demands a clear indication of a congressional intent to preempt state laws enforcing voter qualifications. And while the relevant provisions of the Act are hardly models of clarity, their best reading is that the States need not treat the federal form as a complete voter registration application.
I A
In light of the States’ authority under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, I would begin by applying a presumption against pre-emption of the Arizona law requiring voter registration applicants to submit proof of citizenship. Under the Elections Clause, the States have the authority to specify the times, places, and manner of federal elections except to the extent that Congress chooses to provide otherwise. And in recognition of this allocation of authority, it is appropriate to presume that the States retain this authority unless Congress has clearly manifested a contrary intent. The Court states that “[w]e have never mentioned [the presumption against pre-emption] in our Elections Clause cases,” ante, at 10, but in United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476 (1917), we read a federal statute narrowly out of deference to the States’ traditional authority in this area. In doing so, we explained that “the policy of Congress for [a] great . . . part

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

ALITO, J., dissenting
of our constitutional life has been . . . to leave the conduct of the election of its members to state laws, administered by state officers, and that whenever it has assumed to regulate such elections it has done so by positive and clear statutes.” Id., at 485 (emphasis added).1 The presumption against pre-emption applies with full force when Congress legislates in a “field which the States have traditionally occupied,” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947), and the NVRA was the first significant federal regulation of voter registration enacted under the Elections Clause since Reconstruction.
The Court has it exactly backwards when it declines to apply the presumption against pre-emption because “the federalism concerns underlying the presumption in the Supremacy Clause context are somewhat weaker” in an Elections Clause case like this one. Ante, at 12. To the contrary, Arizona has a “ ‘compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process’ ” that the Constitution recognizes and that the Court’s reading of the Act seriously undermines. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (quoting Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 231 (1989)).
By reserving to the States default responsibility for administering federal elections, the Elections Clause protects several critical values that the Court disregards. First, as Madison explained in defense of the Elections Clause at the Virginia Convention, “[i]t was found neces-

——————
1 The Court argues that Gradwell is irrelevant, observing that there was no state law directly at issue in that case, which concerned a prosecution under a federal statute. Ante, at 10, n. 5. But the same is true of Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880), on which the Court relies in the very next breath. In any event, it is hard to see why a presumption about the effect of federal law on the conduct of congressional elections should have less force when the federal law is alleged to conflict with a state law. If anything, one would expect the opposite to be true.

4

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

ALITO, J., dissenting
sary to leave the regulation of [federal elections], in the first place, to the state governments, as being best acquainted with the situation of the people.” 3 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 312 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Because the States are closer to the people, the Framers thought that state regulation of federal elections would “in ordinary cases . . . be both more convenient and more satisfactory.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 360 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
Second, as we have previously observed, the integrity of federal elections is a subject over which the States and the Federal Government “are mutually concerned.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 391 (1880). By giving States a role in the administration of federal elections, the Elections Clause reflects the States’ interest in the selection of the individuals on whom they must rely to represent their interests in the National Legislature. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 858–859 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
Third, the Elections Clause’s default rule helps to protect the States’ authority to regulate state and local elections. As a practical matter, it would be very burdensome for a State to maintain separate federal and state registration processes with separate federal and state voter rolls. For that reason, any federal regulation in this area is likely to displace not only state control of federal elections but also state control of state and local elections.
Needless to say, when Congress believes that some overriding national interest justifies federal regulation, it has the power to “make or alter” state laws specifying the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. But we should expect Congress to speak clearly when it decides to displace a default rule enshrined in the text of the Constitution that serves such important purposes.
The Court answers that when Congress exercises its

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

5

ALITO, J., dissenting
power under the Elections Clause “it necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States.” Ante, at 11. But the same is true whenever Congress legislates in an area of concurrent state and federal power. A federal law regulating the operation of grain warehouses, for example, necessarily alters the “pre-existing legal regime erected by the States,” see Rice, supra, at 229–230—even if only by regulating an activity the States had chosen not to constrain.2 In light of Arizona’s constitutionally codified interest in the integrity of its federal elections, “it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain” that Congress intended to pre-empt Arizona’s law. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 243 (1985).
B
The canon of constitutional avoidance also counsels against the Court’s reading of the Act. As the Court acknowledges, the Constitution reserves for the States the power to decide who is qualified to vote in federal elections. Ante, at 13–15; see Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 210–211 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court also recognizes that, although Congress generally has the authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” such elections,
——————
2 The Court observes that the Commerce Clause, unlike the Elections Clause, empowers Congress to legislate in areas that do not implicate concurrent state power. Ante, at 12, n. 6. Apparently the Court means that the presumption against pre-emption only applies in those unusual cases in which it is unclear whether a federal statute even touches on subject matter that the States may regulate under their broad police powers. I doubt that the Court is prepared to abide by this cramped understanding of the presumption against pre-emption. See, e.g., Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 6) (“There is therefore ‘a presumption against pre-emption’ of state laws governing domestic relations” (quoting Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141, 151 (2001)).

6

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

ALITO, J., dissenting
Art. I, §4, cl. 1, a federal law that frustrates a State’s ability to enforce its voter qualifications would be constitutionally suspect. Ante, at 15; see ante, at 4–8 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). The Court nevertheless reads the NVRA to restrict Arizona’s ability to enforce its law providing that only United States citizens may vote. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. We are normally more reluctant to interpret federal statutes as upsetting “the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 460 (1991); see Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 540 (1947) (“[W]hen the Federal Government . . . radically readjusts the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating are reasonably explicit”).
In refusing to give any weight to Arizona’s interest in enforcing its voter qualifications, the Court suggests that the State could return to the Election Assistance Commission and renew its request for a change to the federal form. Ante, at 16–17. But that prospect does little to assuage constitutional concerns. The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic. The most that the Court is prepared to say is that the State “might” succeed by seeking a writ of mandamus, and failing that, “might” be able to mount a constitutional challenge. Ante, at 17, n. 10. The Court sends the State to traverse a veritable procedural obstacle course in the hope of obtaining a judicial decision on the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the NVRA. A sensible interpretation of the Act would obviate these difficulties.
II
The NVRA does not come close to manifesting the clear

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

7

ALITO, J., dissenting
intent to pre-empt that we should expect to find when Congress has exercised its Elections Clause power in a way that is constitutionally questionable. Indeed, even if neither the presumption against pre-emption nor the canon of constitutional avoidance applied, the better reading of the Act would be that Arizona is free to require those who use the federal form to supplement their applications with proof of citizenship.
I agree with the Court that the phrase “accept and use,” when read in isolation, is ambiguous, ante, at 6–7, but I disagree with the Court’s conclusion that §1973gg– 4(a)(1)’s use of that phrase means that a State must treat the federal form as a complete application and must either grant or deny registration without requiring that the applicant supply additional information. Instead, I would hold that a State “accept[s] and use[s]” the federal form so long as it uses the form as a meaningful part of the registration process.
The Court begins its analysis of §1973gg–4(a)(1)’s context by examining unrelated uses of the word “accept” elsewhere in the United States Code. Ante, at 7–8. But a better place to start is to ask what it normally means to “accept and use” an application form. When the phrase is used in that context, it is clear that an organization can “accept and use” a form that it does not treat as a complete application. For example, many colleges and universities accept and use the Common Application for Undergraduate College Admission but also require that applicants submit various additional forms or documents. See Common Application, 2012–2013 College Deadlines, Fees, and Requirements, https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/ MemberRequirements.aspx (all Internet materials as visited June 10, 2013, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Similarly, the Social Security Administration undoubtedly “accepts and uses” its Social Security card application form even though someone applying for a card

8

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

ALITO, J., dissenting
must also prove that he or she is a citizen or has a qualifying immigration status. See Application for a Social Security Card, Form SS–5 (2011), http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ online/ss-5.pdf. As such examples illustrate, when an organization says that it “accepts and uses” an application form, it does not necessarily mean that the form constitutes a complete application.
That is not to say that the phrase “accept and use” is meaningless when issued as a “government diktat” in §1973gg–4(a)(1). Ante, at 7. Arizona could not be said to “accept and use” the federal form if it required applicants who submit that form to provide all the same information a second time on a separate state form. But Arizona does nothing of the kind. To the contrary, the entire basis for respondents’ suit is that Proposition 200 mandates that applicants provide information that does not appear on a completed federal form. Although §1973gg–4(a)(1) forbids States from requiring applicants who use the federal form to submit a duplicative state form, nothing in that provision’s text prevents Arizona from insisting that federal form applicants supplement their applications with additional information.
That understanding of §1973gg–4(a)(1) is confirmed by §1973gg–4(a)(2), which allows States to design and use their own voter registration forms “[i]n addition to accepting and using” the federal form. The Act clearly permits States to require proof of citizenship on their own forms, see §§1973gg–4(a)(2) and 1973gg–7(b)—a step that Arizona has taken and that today’s decision does not disturb. Thus, under the Court’s approach, whether someone can register to vote in Arizona without providing proof of citizenship will depend on the happenstance of which of two alternative forms the applicant completes. That could not possibly be what Congress intended; it is as if the Internal Revenue Service issued two sets of personal income tax forms with different tax rates.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

9

ALITO, J., dissenting
We could avoid this nonsensical result by holding that the Act lets the States decide for themselves what information “is necessary . . . to assess the eligibility of the applicant”—both by designing their own forms and by requiring that federal form applicants provide supplemental information when appropriate. §1973gg–7(b)(1). The Act’s provision for state forms shows that the purpose of the federal form is not to supplant the States’ authority in this area but to facilitate interstate voter registration drives. Thanks to the federal form, volunteers distributing voter registration materials at a shopping mall in Yuma can give a copy of the same form to every person they meet without attempting to distinguish between residents of Arizona and California. See H. R. Rep. No. 103–9, p. 10 (1993) (“Uniform mail forms will permit voter registration drives through a regional or national mailing, or for more than one State at a central location, such as a city where persons from a number of neighboring States work, shop or attend events”). The federal form was meant to facilitate voter registration drives, not to take away the States’ traditional authority to decide what information registrants must supply.3
The Court purports to find support for its contrary approach in §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B), which says that a State must “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked” within a specified period. Ante, at 8–9. The Court understands §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) to mean that a State must register an eligible applicant if he or she submits a “ ‘valid voter registration form.’ ” Ante,
——————
3 The Court argues that the federal form would not accomplish this purpose under my interpretation because “a volunteer in Yuma would have to give every prospective voter not only a Federal Form, but also a separate set of either Arizona- or California-specific instructions.” Ante, at 10, n. 4. But this is exactly what Congress envisioned. Eighteen of the federal form’s 23 pages are state-specific instructions.

10

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC.

ALITO, J., dissenting
at 9. But when read in context, that provision simply identifies the time within which a State must process registration applications; it says nothing about whether a State may require the submission of supplemental information. The Court’s more expansive interpretation of §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) sneaks in a qualification that is nowhere to be found in the text. The Court takes pains to say that a State need not register an applicant who properly completes and submits a federal form but is known by the State to be ineligible. See ante, at 12–13. But the Court takes the position that a State may not demand that an applicant supply any additional information to confirm voting eligibility. Nothing in §1973gg– 6(a)(1)(B) supports this distinction.
What is a State to do if it has reason to doubt an applicant’s eligibility but cannot be sure that the applicant is ineligible? Must the State either grant or deny registration without communicating with the applicant? Or does the Court believe that a State may ask for additional information in individual cases but may not impose a categorical requirement for all applicants? If that is the Court’s position, on which provision of the NVRA does it rely? The Court’s reading of §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) is atextual and makes little sense.
* * *
Properly interpreted, the NVRA permits Arizona to require applicants for federal voter registration to provide proof of eligibility. I therefore respectfully dissent.

 
 No. 12-71

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., Petitioners,
v.
THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., and JESUS M. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Respondents. _________________ On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit
___________
STATE PETITIONERS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS

Thomas C. Horne Attorney General of Arizona David R. Cole, Solicitor General Counsel of Record Paula S. Bickett Chief Counsel, Civil Appeals Thomas M. Collins Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone (602) 542-3333 dave.cole@azag.gov

Melissa G. Iyer Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. 702 E. Osborn Rd Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Phone (602) 234-8767
M. Miller Baker McDermott Will & Emery The McDermott Building 500 N. Capitol St., NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone (202) 756-8233

Counsel for State Petitioners

i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Did the court of appeals err 1) in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to this Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions, and 2) in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?

ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners, who were Defendants-Appellees below, are the State of Arizona; Ken Bennett in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State; Shelly Baker, in her official capacity as La Paz County Recorder; Berta Manuz, in her official capacity as Greenlee County Recorder; Lynn Constabile, in her official capacity as Yavapai County Election Director; Laura Dean–Lytle, in her official capacity as Pinal County Recorder; Judy Dickerson, in her official capacity as Graham County Election Director; Donna Hale, in her official capacity La Paz County as Election Director; Robyn S. Pouquette, in her official capacity as Yuma County Recorder; Steve Kizer, in his official capacity as Pinal County Election Director; Christine Rhodes, in her official capacity as Cochise County Recorder; Linda Haught Ortega, in her official capacity as Gila County Recorder; Sadie Jo Tomerlin, in her official capacity as Gila County Election Director; Brad Nelson, in his official capacity as Pima County Election Director; Karen Osborne, in her official capacity as Maricopa County Election Director; Yvonne Pearson, in her official capacity as Greenlee County Election Director; Angela Romero, in her official capacity as Apache County Election Director; Helen Purcell, in her official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, in her official capacity as Pima County Recorder; Lenora Fulton, in her official capacity as Apache County Recorder; Juanita Simmons, in her official capacity as Cochise County Election Director; Wendy John, in her official capacity as Graham County Recorder; Carol Meier, in her official capacity as Mohave County Recorder; Allen Tempert, in his official

iii
capacity as Mohave County Elections Director; Suzanne “Suzie” Sainz, in her official capacity as Santa Cruz County Recorder, Melinda Meek, in her official capacity as Santa Cruz County Election Director; Leslie Hoffman, in her official capacity as Yavapai County Recorder; Sue Reynolds, in her official capacity as Yuma County Election Director. Other parties who have been replaced by succession in office are: Janice K. Brewer, now Governor of Arizona, who was replaced by Ken Bennett; Thomas Schelling, who was replaced by Juanita Simmons, Joan McCall, who was replaced by Carol Meier, Ana Wayman-Trujillo, who was replaced by Leslie Hoffman, Patti Madril, who was replaced by Sue Reynolds, Susan Hightower Marler, who was replaced by Robyn S. Poucette, Gilberto Hoyos who was replaced by Steve Kizer, Linda Haught Ortega, who was replaced by Sadie Tomerlin, Dixie Mundy who was replaced by Linda Eastlick, and Penny Pew, who was replaced by Angela Romero.
Respondents, who were Plaintiffs-Appellants below, are The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; Steve M. Gallardo; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; League of Women Voters of Arizona; Hopi Tribe; Bernie Abeytia; Luciano Valencia; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Chicanos Por La Causa; Friendly House; Jesus Gonzalez; Debbie Lopez; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Valle Del Sol; Project Vote; Common Cause; and Georgia Morrison-Flores.
Other parties before the court of appeals were Candace Owens, Coconino County Recorder, and Patty Hansen, Coconino County Election Director in their

iv
official capacities, as were Laurette Justman, Navajo County Recorder, and Kelly Dastrup, former Navajo County Election Director, in their official capacities.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................. viii
INTRODUCTION .....................................................1
OPINIONS BELOW .................................................4
JURISDICTION ........................................................ 4
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ..........................5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................11
I. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.............................................................11
A. Congress Delegated a Limited Role to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission— That Is, to Develop the Federal Form.......12
B. The EAC Developed a Federal Form that Includes State-Specific Instructions and Revises It As State Election Laws Evolve. 13
II. The Passage and Implementation of Proposition 200...............................................15
A. Arizona Voters Pass Proposition 200 Due in Part to Concerns About Ineligible Voters Registering and Voting in Elections..........15
B. The U.S. Department of Justice Precleared Proposition 200 as Compliant with the Voting Rights Act. ......................................17
C. Arizona Requested an Amendment to the Federal Form to Avoid Voter Confusion, Which the EAC Rejected............................17

vi
D. Arizona Election Officials Implemented Proposition 200’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement in 2006. ................................19
E. Arizona Continues to Accept and Use the Federal Form..............................................20
III. Procedural History. ......................................21
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................25
ARGUMENT ..........................................................28
I. The Ninth Circuit Erred In Applying Preemption Principles Under The Elections Clause That Are Different From Supremacy Clause Preemption Principles.. .....................28
II. Under Ordinary Conflict Preemption Principles, the NVRA Does Not Preempt Proposition 200’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement. .................................................33
A. The NVRA Does Not Preclude States from Requiring that Applicants Supply StateSpecific Information with the Federal Form. .................................................................... 35
B. The NVRA Does Not Preclude States from Including Evidence of Citizenship as Part of the State-Specific Information that Applicants Are Required to Submit with the Federal Form..............................................37
C. Arizona “Accepts and Uses” the Federal Form for Purposes of § 1973-gg-4(a)(1) by Requiring that Evidence of Citizenship Be Submitted with the Federal Form As Permitted by § 1973-gg-7(b)(1). .................39

vii
D. Proposition 200 Is Consistent with Congress’s Purpose of Protecting Election Integrity. ....................................................41
E. The EAC’s Failure to Include Arizona’s Evidence of Citizenship Requirement in the Federal Form’s State-Specific Instructions Has No Preemptive Force..........................44
III. The NVRA Should Be Read As Not Preempting Proposition 200 to Avoid Raising a Serious Doubt as to the NVRA’s Constitutionality. ............................................ 46
A. If the NVRA Is Construed to Preempt Proposition 200’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement, the Construction Raises Serious Question Concerning the Constitutionality of the NVRA Because Such a Construction Intrudes upon the States’ Exclusive Power to Define and Enforce Voter Qualifications in Federal Elections. ....................................................47
1. The Voter Qualifications Clauses assign to the States the exclusive power to define and enforce voter qualifications in federal elections. ................................................. 48
B. The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Congress to Prohibit Proposition 200’s Non-Discriminatory Requirement of Evidence of Citizenship ............................53
CONCLUSION .......................................................56

viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

PAGE

ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995) .....................................50

Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461 (2004).................................................46

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).................................34, 37, 46

Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003).................................................38

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011).............................................38

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).................................................55

Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005).................................................47

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989).................................................41

Common Cause of Colo. v. Buescher, 750 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (D. Colo. 2010) .....................42

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)......................................... passim

Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997).............................................32, 33

ix
Gonzalez v. Arizona, Nos. 06-16702, 06-16706 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2006) ....21
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963).................................................49
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991).................................................22
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985).................................................34
Lassiter v. Northampton Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959)...................................................49
Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 1996) ...................................32
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) ......................................... passim
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)............................................. passim
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932).................................................53
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993).................................................40
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).................................................31
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 806 U.S. 779 (1995).................................... 49, 50, 52
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).................................................46

x
Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................22 Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)...........................................32, 46 Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997)...........................................38, 39 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).................................................47
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 .................................5, 48 U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl.1 ..................................5, 30 U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ................................6, 48 U.S. Const. amend. XIV....................................54, 55 U.S. Const. amend. XVII ....................................5, 48
STATUTES 42 U.S.C. § 15328..............................................18, 45 42 U.S.C. § 15329..............................................13, 45 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg....................................................9 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b) ....................................... 11, 41 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2...............................................12 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-3............................................... 11 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a) .................................. passim 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a) ................................8, 41, 42 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a) ................................6, 13, 45 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b) .................................. passim

xi
47 U.S.C § 253(d) ....................................................44 49 U.S.C. § 5125(d) .................................................44 A.R.S. § 16-166....................................................9, 10 A.R.S. § 16-166(F) .......................................15, 19, 20 A.R.S. § 16-579........................................................15
REGULATIONS 11 C.F.R. § 9428.2(a)................................................35 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b)................................................14 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6 ....................................................15
OTHER AUTHORITIES 4 Elliot’s Debates 71 ...............................................49 Arizona Secretary of State’s Procedures Manual, at 9-14, http://www.azsos.gov/election/electronic_voting_syste m/manual.pdf ..........................................................20 FEC Guide to Implementing the NVRA, http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Implementing%20t he%20NVRA%20of%201993%20Requirements%20Iss ues%20Approaches%20and%20Examples%20Jan%20 JAN%201%201994.pdf............................................ 36 Merriam Webster Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ ...... 40 The Federalist No. 52 (James Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961) ........................................................................49

xii
The Federalist No. 60 (Alexander Hamilton) (J. Cooke ed. 1961) .................................................49, 52

1
INTRODUCTION
This case has been before this Court before, as Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006). In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s error at that time, this Court unanimously emphasized the State’s “indisputable” and “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Id. at 4. This Court also cautioned that fraud in voting pollutes the democratic process by “driv[ing] honest citizens out . . . and breed[ing] distrust of our government.” Id.
To preserve the integrity of their elections, Arizona voters enacted Proposition 200, which in relevant part requires that voter registration applicants provide evidence of citizenship. Using a new standard for preemption under the Elections Clause that is contrary to this Court’s prior decisions, the Ninth Circuit held that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempted Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement.
Under the new standard, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that “courts deciding issues raised under the Elections Clause need not be concerned with preserving a ‘delicate balance’ between competing sovereigns.” (Pet. App. 16c [emphasis added].) Therefore, although the Ninth Circuit did not find that there was an actual conflict between Proposition 200’s evidence-of citizenship requirement and the provision in the NVRA that requires the States to “accept and use” the mail-in registration form (the Federal Form) created by the Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC), it found Proposition 200’s requirement invalid. That

2
decision was mistaken on multiple levels. Actual conflict between federal and state law is the cornerstone of preemption under the Elections Clause, just as it is under the Supremacy Clause. In Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 71 (1879), a case decided under the Elections Clause, this Court held that a state election law is preempted when it “conflicts” with federal law, and only “so far as the conflict extends,” id. at 384, and “no further,” id. at 386. This Court’s later Elections Clause cases followed this precedent. And there is no conflict between the NVRA and Proposition 200, either as to the language or as to the goals and purposes of the NVRA.
The NVRA and the EAC’s regulations expressly contemplate that the Federal Form will reflect statespecific registration requirements, and the EAC in practice includes a wide variety of state-specific requirements in the Federal Form. Nothing in the NVRA or the EAC’s regulations excludes evidence of citizenship from the requirements a state may impose or that may be incorporated into the Federal Form. Indeed, the NVRA’s express purpose includes increasing the number of “eligible” voters and “protecting the integrity of the electoral process.” The Ninth Circuit nonetheless found Proposition 200 preempted. The court construed the NVRA’s requirement that States “accept and use” the Federal Form application as a requirement to assess the applicant’s eligibility based only on the information requested on the Federal Form. This is contrary to the ordinary meaning of that phrase and would lead to the absurd and impossible result that a commissioner who had absolute documented proof that an applicant was

3
not a citizen would nevertheless have to register that applicant if the proof were external to the application. To “accept and use” a form application in any other context merely means that the application is used to determine whether the applicant is eligible for and entitled to receive what he or she has applied for. (For example, an employer may “accept and use” a form employment application to assess candidates for an open position. But clearly “accepting and using” a form from qualified individuals does not entitle all applicants to a job merely because they filled out the form completely.) As Judge Kozinski observed, “it’s entirely possible to accept and use something for a particular purpose, yet not have it be sufficient to satisfy that purpose.” (Pet. App. 96a). “A minute’s thought comes up with endless [other] examples: passport and visa, car registration and proof of insurance; boarding pass and picture ID. . . .” (Pet. App. 97a).
If the phrase “accept and use” as set forth in the NVRA is construed in accordance with its plain meaning (as it should be), there is no conflict between the NVRA’s language and Arizona’s requirement that applicants supply some evidence of citizenship with their voter registration forms. A store may “accept and use” credit cards to transact business and nevertheless demand photo identification at the point of sale. In the same way, Arizona “accepts and uses” the Federal Form to process applications from those seeking to register. The requirement that applicants provide additional evidence to support their application does not constitute a “rejection” of the Federal Form any more than an identification check at an airport gate

4
entrance constitutes a “rejection” of a passenger’s ticket.
By ignoring the ordinary meaning, the Ninth Circuit in effect applied a presumption in favor of preemption. Because Arizona “accepts and uses” the Federal Form and the NVRA does not preclude Arizona from requiring that registrants include evidence of citizenship as well, there is no direct conflict. Therefore, the NVRA does not preempt Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement.
OPINIONS BELOW
The en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reported at 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (Pet. App. 1c-122c). Other opinions of the Ninth Circuit are included in the Petition Appendix at 1a106a and 1d-21d. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision reviewed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granting summary judgment to the Petitioners (Pet. App. 1e-10e) and the district court’s decision denying Respondents’ relief on all remaining claims. (Joint Appendix [JA] at 246 to 319.)
JURISDICTION
The court of appeals entered judgment on April 17, 2012. (Pet. App. 4c.) The petition for certiorari was filed within ninety days of April 17, 2012. Accordingly, this Court’s jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

5
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite

6
for electors of the most numerous branch of state legislatures.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of [Presidential] Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress. . . .
Section 1973gg-4 of the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4, provides in relevant part:
Mail registration
(a) Form (1) Each State shall accept and use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Federal Election Commission pursuant to section 1973gg-7(a)(2) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.
Section 1973gg-7 of the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7, provides in relevant part:

7
Federal coordination and regulations
(a) In general The Election Assistance Commission --
(1) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3);
(2) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office;
(3) not later than June 30 of each odd-numbered year, shall submit to the Congress a report assessing the impact of this subchapter on the administration of elections for Federal office during the preceding 2-year period and including recommendations for improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms, and other matters affected by this subchapter; and
(4) shall provide information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under this subchapter.
(b) Contents of mail voter registration form.
The mail voter registration form developed under subsection (a)(2) of this section –

8
(1) May require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;
(2) shall include a statement that --
(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);
(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and
(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;
(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and
(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application –
(5) the information required in section 1973gg-6(a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;
(i) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and

9
(ii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
The entire text of the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-7, is reproduced in the Petition Appendix at 1h-28h.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 16-166:
F. The county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Satisfactory evidence of citizenship shall include any of the following:
1. The number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by the department of transportation or the equivalent governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship.
2. A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifies citizenship

10
to the satisfaction of the county recorder.
3. A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States passport.
4. A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is verified with the United States immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.
5. Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.
6. The applicant's bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.
(The complete text of A.R.S. § 16-166 is reproduced in

11
the Petition Appendix at 46h-50h.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
Congress enacted the NVRA in 1993 with the primary objectives of
[1] “increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote for Federal office;” [2]“mak[ing] it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement [the NVRA] in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;” [3] “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process; and [4] “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1)-(4) (emphasis added) (The complete text of the NVRA is reprinted in Pet. App. 1h42h.)
In furtherance of the NVRA’s goals, Congress requires States to accept three different kinds of voter registration applications from those wishing to register to vote in federal elections. First, the NVRA requires States to treat any application for a driver’s license submitted to the state motor vehicle department “as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for federal office (the Motor Voter Form”). 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-3(a)(1). Second, the NVRA permits

12
voters to submit their application via mail through the use of “the mail voter registration application form.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). Lastly, individuals may apply “in person at the appropriate registration site designated . . . in accordance with State law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a)(3).
With respect to registrations submitted by mail, the NVRA directs the States to “accept and use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by [the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission] for the registration of voters in elections for Federal Office” (“the Federal Form”). 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). The contents of the Federal Form are governed by Section 1973gg-7(b). “In addition,” individual States may also “develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria” required for the Federal Form in subsection 1973gg-7(b). 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). This form “may require only such identifying information . . . and other information as is necessary to enable the appropriate state elections official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1).
A. Congress Delegated a Limited Role to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission— That Is, to Develop the Federal Form.
Congress prescribed the specific information that may be required, the information that must be required, and the information that must not be required on the Federal Form and any individual state counterpart that might otherwise be used. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2). The NVRA explicitly provides

13
that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information . . . and other information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” Id. § 1973gg-7(b)(1) (emphasis added). The NVRA also provides that the Federal Form “shall include” statements that specify each eligibility requirement (including citizenship), contain an attestation of eligibility, and require the applicant’s signature under penalty of perjury. Id. § 1973gg-7(b)(2) (emphasis added). Lastly, the NVRA provides that the forms developed for voter registration “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” Id. § 1973gg-7(b)(3) (emphasis added).
While the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is responsible for creating the Form, Congress explicitly denied the EAC the authority “to issue any rule, promulgate any regulation, or take any other action which imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local government except to the extent permitted under section 1973gg-7(a) of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 15329. In turn, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a) permits the EAC to develop the Federal Form, and “provid[e] information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under [the NVRA].”
B. The EAC Developed a Federal Form that Includes State-Specific Instructions and Revises It As State Election Laws Evolve.
There are three “components” to the Federal Form:

14
the general application instructions, the form itself, and the state-specific instructions. (Pet. App. 60c-84c [Appendix to Opinion].) The state-specific instructions account for seventeen pages of the twenty-five page Federal Form. Nearly all of the state-specific instructions require that the registrant provide specific identifying information on the Federal Form. For example, to register in California, “you must provide your California driver’s license or California identification card number.” (Id. at 68c.) In Hawaii, “[y]our full social security number is required.” (Id.at 71c.) And “Michigan law requires that the same address be used for voter registration and driver license purposes.” (Id. at 75c.) The state-specific instructions also include additional eligibility requirements that vary from state to state. As its instructions clearly indicate, a person cannot complete the Federal Form without referencing and meeting the widely varied, state-specific requirements, as well as attesting to eligibility. (Id. 63c).
The EAC’s regulations include “state-specific instructions” as a mandatory “component” of the Federal Form. See 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b). The regulation further requires that “[t]he state-specific instructions shall contain . . . information regarding the state’s specific voter eligibility and registration requirements.” 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b). The EAC requires that state election officials report and update it on the State’s unique “voter registration eligibility requirements” for the purpose of including and updating any requirements set forth in the “state specific” component of the Federal Form. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6. Updating the Federal Form with new or

15
additional state-specific registration requirements is primarily a ministerial task, which the EAC has largely delegated to its staff: “EAC staff routinely fields requests from states to update or change their state-specific instructions, which are part of the National Form.” (See EAC Operation Policy; Statement of Paul DeGregorio at 1 [JA at 223].)
II. The Passage and Implementation of Proposition 200.
A. Arizona Voters Pass Proposition 200 Due in Part to Concerns About Ineligible Voters Registering and Voting in Elections.
Due at least in part to concerns about the “increase in non-citizens registering to vote and actually voting in elections,”1 Arizona voters passed a ballot initiative called Proposition 200), which asks prospective voters to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. (The portion of Proposition 200 that addresses registration is codified at A.R.S. § 16-166(F), which is set forth in Pet. App. 42h-50h.) Proposition 200 also requires registered voters to present identification in order to cast their ballots at the polls. A.R.S. § 16-579.
Arizona, like other States, has experienced fraud in voting with regard to both registration and casting ballots. (JA 99, 117, 267-68, 336-39). For example, in
1 This Court recognized the States’ legitimate concern with voter fraud in Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4.

16
2005, in two counties, about 200 individuals’ voter registrations were cancelled after they swore to the jury commissioner they were not U.S. citizens. (Id. at 267.) Additionally, election officials testified that some voter-registration organizations, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”) submitted “garbage” voterregistration forms and had misled noncitizens into registering to vote. The Maricopa County Recorder testified:
It was enormous amounts of voter registrations that were – and there is no other term for it other than garbage, these were scrawled, they were -- they were not whole addresses, these were not real people, Nacho Cheese, that type [of] thing. . . . And they were getting paid for it.
So we had them in on many occasions. On one particular occasion, we had gotten a group in . . . and there were 24 that said, “I am not a citizen.” We drug them back in and asked them to bring their lawyers to say, “Do you understand that if I put these on file, these people have committed a felony?” I believed then and I believe now that it is not the person who is doing this, but the person who is getting them to do this in order to make their money.
(Id. at 340-41.)

17
B. The U.S. Department of Justice Precleared Proposition 200 as Compliant with the Voting Rights Act.
Following Arizona voters’ enactment of Proposition 200, the Arizona Attorney General submitted it to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (Id. at 193, 248). Arizona specifically stated that the measure would require applicants registering to vote to provide evidence of United States citizenship with the application. (Pet.App. 6e-7e.) Arizona had the burden of showing that Proposition 200’s “new voting policy did ‘not have the purpose [or] effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.’” Purcell, 549 U.S. at 3 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1973(c). The Department of Justice precleared the measure on January 24, 2005. (JA 193.)2
C. Arizona Requested an Amendment to the Federal Form to Avoid Voter Confusion, Which the EAC Rejected.
After receiving preclearance from the Department of Justice, Arizona submitted a request to the EAC to include Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement on the state-specific instructions for the Federal Form. (Id. at 181.) The then-EAC Executive Director declined to approve this state-specific requirement.
2 The Department precleared a subsequent similar law after the State of Georgia filed suit in the district court of the District of Columbia. (JA 342-72.)

18
(Id. at 181-82.) The EAC Commissioners themselves apparently had no involvement in the decision. Rather, the Director made the decision unilaterally. (See, e.g., id. at 223). The Director claimed that the voter approved measure was “preempted by Federal law.” (Id. at 186.) According to the Director, “[a]ny Federal Registration Form that has been properly and completely filled-out by a qualified applicant and timely received by an election official must be accepted in full satisfaction of registration requirements.” Id. (emphasis added). It would follow from this reasoning that even if state officials had documentary proof that the applicant was not a citizen and therefore was not a qualified applicant, the application would have to be accepted.
One day after the district court issued its opinion denying the Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and concluding that NVRA did not preempt Proposition 200, Arizona requested that the EAC reconsider. (Id. at 216-22.) A vote on that request resulted in a deadlock, as two Commissioners voted in favor of amending the instructions and two voted against it. (Id. at 225.) Director Wilkey’s original decision was permitted to stand and the Federal Form has not been amended. “Any action” taken by the EAC, however, “may be carried out only with the approval of at least three of its members.” 42 U.S.C. § 15328. Here, the EAC Director was not performing the ministerial task of adding state-specific requirements, but making a legal determination about the validity of the state-specific instructions. Yet three Commissioners never approved the Director’s legal determination about the validity of Arizona’s evidence-

19
of-citizenship requirement. Currently, the EAC has no active commissioners and has not maintained even three members since 2010. The two remaining Commissioners both resigned in late 2011 along with Director Wilkey.3 In May 2012, the EAC’s general counsel and default interim executive director also resigned.4
D. Arizona Election Officials Implemented Proposition 200’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement in 2006.
Proposition 200 permits a variety of options to satisfy its evidence-of- citizenship requirement. A.R.S. § 16-166(F). In most instances, providing evidence of citizenship is accomplished by writing an identifying number on a postcard registration form, including an Arizona driver’s license or non-operating identification number issued after October 1, 1996. A.R.S. § 16166(F)(1). Approximately ninety percent of voting-age Arizonans possess driver’s licenses (JA 257).
Applicants may also write the “A-number” located on their certificate of naturalization on their postcard registration form. A.R.S. § 16-166(F)(4). Applicants
3 See Commissioner Gineen Bresso’s 12/8/2011 Resignation Letter, available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Bresso%20Resignation1.p df; Commissioner Donetta L. Davidson’s 11/30/2011 Resignation Letter, available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Davidson%20resignation% 20letter%20to%20President%20Obama1.pdf. 4 See EAC Employee Directory, available at http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/staff.aspx.

20
may also provide their tribal identification number. A.R.S. § 16-166 (F)(6). For the very few applicants who do not have any of these numbers, they can provide copies of other documents such as birth certificates, passports, naturalization documents, or “other documents that are meant as proof that [may be] established pursuant to” federal immigration law. (Pet. App. 9d (quoting A.R.S. § 16-166(F)(5)). Originals are not required. See A.R.S. § 16-166(F).
E. Arizona Continues to Accept and Use the Federal Form.
Following the implementation of Proposition 200, Arizona has continued to accept the Federal Form and for voter registration purposes. (JA 190.) The Arizona Secretary of State continually makes the Federal Form available to anyone who requests it. (Id. at 191.) In addition, that form is publicly available for downloading and printing on the EAC’s website. (Id. at 191.) Before the district court’s injunction following remand from the Ninth Circuit (Id. at 381-84), when an Arizona applicant provided the Federal Form, county recorders evaluated the application, determined if it provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship, and sent correspondence to any applicant who did not provide adequate information indicating what information was necessary to complete the application process. (See JA 251; see also Arizona Secretary of State’s Procedures Manual, at 9-14, available at http://www.azsos.gov/ election/electronic_voting_system/manual.pdf.) In other words, submission of the Federal Form without the requisite evidence of citizenship does not result in denial; instead, officials respond with a request that

21
the applicant supply evidence of citizenship.
III. Procedural History
After the voters passed Proposition 200, several Plaintiffs brought overlapping Complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to prevent its implementation. (Pet. App. 7c.) The district court, following briefing and an evidentiary hearing, denied preliminary relief. (Pet. App. 1f-3f.) A two-judge motions panel of Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and granted Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Interlocutory Appeal. Gonzalez v. Arizona, Nos. 06-16702, 06-16706 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2006). This Court reversed. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 8.
On remand, a panel of the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction in a published opinion, finding that the NVRA did not prohibit the State from requiring evidence of citizenship. (Pet. App. 16d-17d) (Gonzalez v. Arizona I). Shortly after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling, the district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment on the NVRA claim. (Pet. App. 3e). Following a trial on the remaining claims, the district court granted judgment in favor of the State. (Pet. App. 8c.) The district court found that the burdens on potential registrants were not excessive. (JA 288-94.) The district court also found that voter fraud, the basis for Proposition 200, was a significant problem. (Id. at 29495.)

22
Plaintiffs appealed. (Pet. App. 9c). A divided second panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Gonzalez I and reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling on the NVRA claim, affirming the district court’s decision on the remaining claims. (Pet. App. 1a-96a) (Gonzalez v. Arizona II). The State petitioned for and received rehearing en banc. (Pet. App. 1b-6b).
In another divided opinion, the en banc court concluded that the NVRA preempts Proposition 200 as applied to the Federal Form. (Pet. App. 1c-122c) (Gonzalez v. Arizona III). The court reasoned that the Election Clause “empowers both the federal and state governments to enact laws governing the mechanics of federal elections.” (Id. at 13c.) The court determined that because the Election Clause permits Congress to “‘conscript state agencies to carry out’ federal mandates,” it “operates quite differently from the Supremacy Clause.” (Id. at 14c-15c(quoting Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court concluded that it “need not be concerned with preserving a ‘delicate balance’ between [the States and the Federal Government].” (Id. at 16c (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991))). Instead, the court determined that the Election Clause “establishes its own balance” and that the “presumption against preemption” and “plain statement rule’” that guide Supremacy Clause analysis are not transferable to the Elections Clause context.” (Id.)
The Ninth Circuit’s new test for analyzing elections preemption does not require an actual conflict between

23
state and federal law. Under its newly created preemption analysis, the court determined that the state statute is superseded “[i]f the two statutes do not operate harmoniously in a single procedural scheme for federal voter registration.” (Id. at 20c). It then concluded that because of the evidence-of-citizenship requirement, Arizona did not “‘accept[] and us[e]’ the Federal Form,” and therefore Arizona’s requirement was preempted “when applied to the Federal Form.” (Id. at 31c, 43c.)
Chief Judge Kozinski concurred, but observed the following:
The statutory language we must apply is readily susceptible to the interpretation of the majority, but also that of the dissent. For a state to “accept and use” the federal form could mean that it must employ the form as a complete registration package, to the exclusion of other materials. This would construe the phrase “accept and use” narrowly or exclusively. But if we were to give the phrase a broad or inclusive construction, states could “accept and use” the federal form while also requiring registrants to provide documentation confirming what’s in the form.
(Pet. App. 89c.)
Judges Rawlinson and Smith dissented. The

24
dissent disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the Elections Clause, finding that it was not supported by this Court’s decisions. (Pet. App. 116c-121c.) They noted that this Court’s Elections Clause decisions “emphasize the respect that should be accorded the procedures implemented by states,” clarify that “preemption extend[s] only as far as a conflict exists,” and hold that “a conflict exists only if the [state and federal] regulations cannot co-exist.” (Id. at 116c, 121c.) The dissent therefore concluded that “[b]ecause the requirements of both the NVRA and Proposition 200 may be met without conflict, they can easily coexist under the Election Clause.” (Id. at 121c.)
The dissent articulated several reasons, supported by the NVRA itself, that there was no conflict. For example, drawing on an analogy first articulated by Chief Judge Kozinski in an earlier opinion in this case (Pet. App. at 96a-97a), the dissent observed:
[A]ccepting and using something does not mean that it is necessarily sufficient. For example, merchants may accept and use credit cards, but a customer’s production of a credit card in and of itself may not be sufficient. The customer must sign and may have to provide photo identification to verify that the customer is eligible to use the credit card.
(Pet. App. at 105c.)
The dissent further found that § 1973gg-7(b)

25
expressly “permits states to ‘require . . . such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.’” (Id. at 107c (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1); alterations in dissenting opinion). The dissent stated that Congress could not have intended that the States are prohibited from asking for additional information to verify that applicants are citizens because the NVRA expressly allows the States to develop their own forms as long as they comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b). (Id. at 109c110c.) Consequently, the dissent concluded that Arizona did not defy “the demand to accept and use the Federal Form by not finding voter registration wholly sufficient based solely on the Federal Form.” (Id. at 106c.)
On remand and after a full trial, the district court found that the burdens on potential registrants were not excessive. (JA 288-94.) Plaintiffs were able to produce only “one person . . . who [was] unable to register to vote due to Proposition 200’s evidence of citizenship requirement” and did not “demonstrate [] that . . . persons rejected are in fact eligible to register to vote.” (Id. at 292.) The district court found that Proposition 200 had a valid basis that is, that voter fraud had indeed infected the voter registration process in Arizona. (Id. at 292.) The district court also found that Proposition 200 has not burdened those eligible citizens wishing to register from exercising their fundamental right. (Id. at 294.)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

26
1. The Ninth Circuit applied a new, unprecedented preemption test to find that the NVRA preempts Arizona from requiring that evidence of citizenship accompany an applicant’s federal voter registration form. In effect, the Ninth Circuit replaced ordinary preemption principles with a unique presumption in favor of preemption for cases decided under the Elections Clause. This new test is contrary to this Court’s precedent under the Elections Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
The Elections Clause grants States explicit authority to manage procedures for federal elections and this Court has long held that if Congress seeks to alter the States’ procedures, such federal regulations supplant state regulations only to the extent of a conflict. This Court’s Elections Clause preemption analysis is entirely consistent with this Court’s preemption analysis under the Supremacy Clause. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit’s preemption test implies that Congress’s laws should preempt a state law that addresses the same subject matter even if there is no actual conflict between the state and federal law and regardless of any of the factors that govern conflict preemption.
2. The Ninth Circuit’s preemption conclusion focused on the NVRA requirement that States “accept and use” the Federal Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). Under ordinary conflict preemption principles and by following traditional canons of statutory construction, the NVRA’s requirement that States “accept and use” the Federal Form and Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement can easily coexist.

27
It is undisputed that the NVRA contemplates that States can require voter registration applicants using the Federal Form to provide state-specific “information as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). The mere requirement that an applicant provide state-specific information is entirely consistent with the NVRA. And there can be no serious dispute that the NVRA by its terms allows States to include in their state-specific requirements that applicants submit evidence of citizenship to allow the State “to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” By reading Section 1973gg-4(a)(1)’s “accept and use” language in isolation instead of in conjunction with Section 1973gg-7(b)(1), the Ninth Circuit violated the basic canon of statutory construction that related statutory provisions are to be read together.
In addition, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “accept and use,” especially as used in connection with a form application, is consistent with Arizona’s requirement that applicants also provide evidence of eligibility to vote. Just as prospective employers may “accept and use” a form application to consider qualified candidates and also require a writing sample, Arizona may “accept and use” the Federal Form and also require evidence of citizenship.
Moreover, the NVRA forbids States from requiring “notarization or other formal authentication” in connection with the Federal Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg7(b)(3). Under the expressio unius canon of construction, Congress’s specific exclusion of one

28
requirement creates the inference that other such requirements, such as evidence of citizenship, are not excluded.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit incorrectly gave deference to EAC’s failure to include Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement in Arizona’s statespecific instructions. The EAC’s decision declining to include Arizona’s requirement was not a result of a majority vote of the EAC Commissioners and certainly the decision was not subject to formal rulemaking following notice and comment. Instead, the decision was nothing more than the whim of an EAC administrator.
3. Any doubts concerning whether the NVRA preempts Proposition 200 should be resolved in favor of finding no preemption under the canon of constitutional avoidance. The States have the exclusive authority to determine and enforce voter qualifications in federal elections under the Voter Qualifications Clauses of the Constitution. If this Court interprets the NVRA as preempting Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, it will raise a serious question concerning the constitutionality of the NVRA under the Voter Qualifications Clauses. To avoid that collision, this Court should interpret the NVRA as not preempting Proposition 200.
ARGUMENT
I. The Ninth Circuit Erred in Applying Preemption Principles Under the Elections

29
Clause that Are Different from Supremacy Clause Preemption Principles.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the “Elections Clause operates quite differently from the Supremacy Clause.” (Pet. App. 15c.) The court emphasized that “courts deciding issues raised under the Elections Clause need not be concerned with preserving a ‘delicate balance’ between competing sovereigns.” (Pet. App. 16c [emphasis added].) It abandoned the principles traditionally governing preemption and fashioned a new approach.
According to this newly invented test, a state law is preempted if it does not “operate harmoniously in a single procedural scheme” with a state law that “address[es] the same subject.” (Pet. App. 20c.) The Ninth Circuit erred in applying this newly invented test because it is inconsistent with Siebold where this court held that a federal law enacted under the Elections Clause did not preempt a state law addressing the same subject unless there wass an actual conflict between the two laws and even then, preemption extended only “so far as the conflict extends,” 100 U.S. at 384, and “no further,” id. at 386.5
Under the Siebold test, the issue is whether state
5 This argument assumes that the Elections Clause authorized Congress to enact the NVRA as applied here. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, however, also raises a serious question concerning whether the NVRA’s application here interferes with the States’ excusive authority to define the qualifications for voting in federal elections. See § 1(C) infra.

30
officials can comply with both Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement and the NVRA’s requirement that they “accept and use” the Federal Form. If state officials can comply with both, there is no conflict between the laws. That test is met in this case.
The Elections Clause expressly authorizes the States to establish the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, subject to superseding regulation by Congress:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl.1.
In Siebold, this Court applied concepts essentially identical to modern preemption doctrine under the Supremacy Clause to describe preemption under the Elections Clause. In Siebold, the petitioners challenged their prosecutions for violations of a federal statute that criminalized certain conduct that interfered with federal elections. Id. at 378-82. This Court rejected petitioners’ argument that if Congress enacted regulations under the Elections Clause, those regulations “must take the place of all State regulations of the subject regulated.” Id. at 383.

31
This Court recognized that the Elections Clause provided “concurrent authority of the two sovereignties, State and National, over the same subject-matter.” Id. at 384-85 (emphasis added); cf. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990) (“[U]nder our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause.”). The Siebold Court analogized Congress’s Elections Clause authority with its Commerce Clause authority over interstate commerce, as both provide “concurrent authority of the State and national government, in which that of the latter is paramount.” 100 U.S. at 385.
Unlike the Ninth Circuit’s new approach to preemption, under Siebold a state election law is preempted when it “conflicts” with federal law and, even then, preemption extends only “so far as the conflict extends,” id. at 384, and “no farther” id. at 386. Siebold further instructed that, when considering a question of preemption under the Elections Clause, courts “are bound to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious manner; that it has endeavored to guard as far as possible against any unnecessary interference with State laws and regulations, [or] with the duties of State officers.” Id. at 393 (emphasis added).
Put in modern preemption parlance, that means “in all preemption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has legislated in a field which the States have traditionally occupied, [the Court] start[s]

32
with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). For purposes of preemption, then, a conflict arises “if both” the state and federal laws at issue “cannot be performed.” Siebold, 100 U.S. at 386. Under Siebold, a federal regulation affecting the administration of elections “does not derogate from the power of the State to execute its laws at the same time and in the same places . . . [unless] both cannot be executed at the same time.” Id. at 395.
More recently, this Court followed Siebold and applied Supremacy Clause preemption principles in Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). In Foster, this Court considered whether federal statutes setting a uniform date for federal elections preempted a Louisiana open primary system that allowed for conclusive congressional elections in October, in advance of the national November election date. This Court observed that the “Fifth Circuit’s conception of the issue here as a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes is exactly right,” id. at 71, and that “[w]hen Louisiana’s statute is applied to select from among congressional candidates in October, it conflicts with federal law and to that extent is void,” id. at 74. In affirming the Fifth Circuit’s analysis as “exactly right,” this Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s application of preemption principles under the Supremacy Clause. See Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026, 1031 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying the test for conflict preemption under the Supremacy

33
Clause and concluding that “the Louisiana election system . . . must yield under the Supremacy Clause”).6
Nothing in the Court’s analysis in Foster suggests that the Court did not find an actual conflict between state and federal law or that it used a more vague “same subject matter” approach to preemption under the Elections Clause. Rather, Foster reiterated that federal elections laws are paramount where they conflict with state law and only “so far as the conflict extends.” Foster, 522 U.S. at 69 (quoting Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384).
II. UNDER ORDINARY CONFLICT PREEMPTION PRINCIPLES, THE NVRA DOES NOT PREEMPT PROPOSITION 200’S EVIDENCE-OF-CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT.
The only form of preemption even potentially applicable here is conflict preemption, which “includes cases where compliance with both the federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility and those
6 The Ninth Circuit relied on Foster for its conclusion that preemption under the Elections Clause operated differently than preemption under the Supremacy Clause, noting that “instead of adopting the Fifth Circuit’s Supremacy Clause analysis, the Court analyzed the claim under the Elections Clause, without ever mentioning a presumption against preemption or a plain statement rule.” (Pet. App. 17c.) The Court did not need to apply those rules in Foster, however, because it found that no possible interpretation of “federal election day” permitted Louisiana’s open primary law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected a month before the federal election day. 552 U.S. at 70-72. Therefore, there was no reason for the Court to invoke the presumption against preemption or the plain statement rule.

34
instances where the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2501 (2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted);7 see also Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 716 (1985) (under conflict preemption, the challenger must “present a showing of . . . conflict between a particular local provision and the federal scheme, that is strong enough to overcome the presumption that state and local regulation . . . can constitutionally coexist with federal regulation”) (emphasis added). Under that test, Arizona’s evidenceof-citizenship requirement is not preempted. It is undisputed that the NVRA allows the States to require the inclusion of state-specific information on the Federal Form. And requiring evidence of citizenship as part of such state-specific information submitted in connection with the Federal Form does not conflict with the NVRA.
Finally, the EAC’s failure to include Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement in the statespecific instructions on the Federal Form carries no preemptive force, because Congress did not give the EAC the authority to preempt state law. Further, because a majority of the EAC’s Commissioner’s did not vote to reject the inclusion of Proposition 200’s
7 Other types of preemption not relevant here are express preemption, in which Congress expressly preempts States’ authority to regulate, and field preemption, in which Congress comprehensively occupies the field of a given area to the exclusion of the States. See id. at 2501.

35
requirement, the EAC’s rejection is invalid.
A. The NVRA Does Not Preclude States from Requiring that Applicants Supply State-Specific Information with the Federal Form.
It is undisputed that the NVRA contemplates that the States may require that applicants provide statespecific information with the Federal Form. Section 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7 provides that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Consistent with the statutory requirement that the Federal Form requires that applicants submit such “other information as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant” under state-specific qualifications, the EAC’s regulations expressly contemplate that the States can require state-specific information on the Federal Form. The EAC’s own regulations define the term “form” as “the national mail voter registration application form, which includes the registration application, accompanying general instructions for completing the application, and state-specific instructions.” 11 C.F.R. § 9428.2(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, of the twenty-five pages comprising the Federal Form, seventeen pages are devoted exclusively to a description of the “state-

36
specific” criteria for voter registration. The Federal Form requires all applicants to “review [their] state’s instructions” and to “swear/affirm” that they “meet the eligibility requirements of [their] state.” (Pet. App. 63c at Box 9.)
As the sheer length of the state-specific instructions suggests, States have adopted widely varied identification and eligibility requirements beyond what is minimally required of applicants by the Federal Form. (Pet. App. 67c-89c.) The EAC’s inclusion of such widely varied, state-specific instructions as a “component” of the Federal Form belies the claim that the NVRA preempts all state requirements that seek additional or supplemental evidence to support a voter registration application. To the contrary, the EAC has generally included all state-specific registration criteria as a matter of course so long as they do not conflict with any of the NVRA’s express prohibitions.
The EAC’s practice of including state-specific requirements in the Federal Form dates back to the early implementation of the NVRA by its predecessor, the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Immediately following its enactment, the FEC issued detailed implementation guidelines.8 In so doing, the FEC meticulously reviewed the text of the NVRA as well as its legislative history and highlighted Congress’s desire to avoid a construction of the NVRA that would
8 FEC Guide to Implementing the NVRA, available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Implementing%20th e%20NVRA%20of%201993%20Requirements%20Issues%20Approa ches%20and%20Examples%20Jan%20Jan%201%201994.pdf.

37
displace the role of state officials with respect to voter registration. Id. (citing House Report, Section 5 at 8, providing that “[t]his bill should not be interpreted in any way to supplant [the] authority” of state officials to “make determinations as to applicants’ eligibility”). The FEC was careful to distinguish between the submission of a registration application and voter registration itself—“an application received by the local voter registration official is only an application and may be subject to whatever verification procedures are currently applied to all applications.” Id.
In short, it is undisputed here that it is possible for state officials to require applicants to submit statespecific information in connection with the Federal Form and that doing so does not “stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505.
B. The NVRA Does Not Preclude States from Including Evidence of Citizenship as Part of the State-Specific Information that Applicants Are Required to Submit with the Federal Form.
Putting aside for the moment the EAC’s attempt to control the content of the state-specific instructions included on the Federal Form, there can be no serious dispute that that the NVRA on its own terms allows the States to include evidence of citizenship in the state-specific information applicants are required to submit with the Federal Form.
First, the NVRA explicitly provides that the

38
Federal Form may require such “other information as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). As this Court has observed, this statutory language leaves the “policy choice” to the States by not listing “all the other information the State may—–or may not—provide or request” in determining voter eligibility. Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 286 (1997). It is precisely because the NVRA left this “discretionary” policy choice open to the States that the choices made by covered jurisdictions are subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. Id. Indeed, Arizona as a covered jurisdiction, submitted its evidence-of-citizenship requirement for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, and the Justice Department precleared it. In order to obtain preclearance, Arizona had the burden of showing that Proposition 200’s “new voting policy did ‘not have the purpose [or] the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.’” Purcell, 549 U.S. at 3 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1973(c)).
Second, the NVRA specifically forbids States from including “any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(3). Generally, under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, a statute that explicitly prohibits one thing does not implicitly prohibit another. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 1076 (2011) (such a legislative decision represents “‘deliberate choice, not inadvertence’”) (quoting Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003)); see also Gonzalez II, Pet. App. 98a ((Kozinski, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The inclusion of a specific

39
prohibition is a strong indication that other prohibitions weren’t intended.”). In expressly forbidding only a requirement of notarization or authentication, Congress left open other “policy choice[s]” for States to make in requiring applicants to demonstrate their qualification to vote. Young, 520 U.S. at 286.
Finally, Section 1973gg-4(a)(2) allows the States, “in addition to accepting and using the [Federal Form],” to develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b) of this title for the registration of voters in federal elections.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2) (emphasis added). Arizona’s state form developed pursuant to this authority requires evidence of citizenship. If Congress did not prohibit States from requiring applicants to submit evidence of citizenship when using the state form to apply for registration, then Congress could not have intended to prohibit applicants to submit the same information when using the Federal Form to apply for registration, because the statute employs the same substantive standards for both forms. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2); id. -7(b).
C. Arizona “Accepts and Uses” the Federal Form for Purposes of § 1973-gg-4(a)(1) by Requiring that Evidence of Citizenship Be Submitted with the Federal Form As Permitted by § 1973-gg7(b)(1).
Given their ordinary meaning, the words “accept and use” in § 1973gg-4(a)(1) do not require Arizona to treat the Federal Form conclusive of voter eligibility

40
upon submission without allowing verification from outside sources. The word “accept” ordinarily means “to receive willingly” or “to be able or designed to take or hold.”9 In turn, “to use” means “to employ” or “to derive service from.” Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228-29 (1993). Because the words “accept and use” are not defined in the NVRA, the Court construes them in accordance with their ordinary meaning and in light of the terms that surround them. Id. at 228.
An airline may advertise that it “accepts and uses” e-tickets and that paper tickets are not needed, yet may still require photo identification before one could board the airplane. Prospective employers may “accept and use” a form application to consider qualified candidates, but still decline to give some of those applicants a job. Similarly, Arizona “accepts” the Federal Form by receiving it willingly and “uses” the form by employing it as a tool to verify voter eligibility. Moreover, Arizona officials notify applicants who have not provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship and give them the opportunity to supply that information.
Using the Federal Form to deny registration to those who have not provided evidence of citizenship is also fully consistent with Section § 1973-gg-7(b)(1), which expressly authorizes Arizona to “require . . . information . . . necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973-gg-7(b)(1). In interpreting a statute, a court “will not look merely to a
9 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept

41
particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute.” Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, 573 (1989) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit erred by construing § 1973-gg-4(a)(1) in isolation, rather than as part of a larger statutory scheme that permits States to require evidence of citizenship.
Indeed, the NVRA by its terms contemplates that some applicants who use the Federal Form will be rejected as it requires that applicants be notified of the “disposition of [his or her] application.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(2). Hence, Arizona “accepts and uses” the Federal Form, even if it denies an application because it does not contain the requisite evidence of citizenship.
D. Proposition 200 Is Consistent with Congress’s Purpose of Protecting Election Integrity.
In addition, Proposition 200’s evidence-ofcitizenship requirement is consistent with Congress’s express purposes for enacting the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b). While the NVRA’s goals indicate Congress’s intent to increase voter registration, they also emphasize Congress’s concern with the integrity of the election process, including ensuring that only eligible voters are registered. Id. (the four express purposes include Congress’s intent that the NVRA enhance participation of eligible voters and protect the integrity of the electoral process). Because only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, Proposition 200’s evidence-ofcitizenship requirement is consistent with the NVRA’s

42
express goals.
Congress’s concern that only eligible voters register is evidenced throughout the NVRA. For example, the NVRA requires administrators of federal elections to “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg6(a)(1) (emphasis added). It also requires election administrators to conduct “a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” under certain circumstances. Id. § 1973gg-6(a)(4); see also Common Cause of Colo. v. Buescher, 750 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1275-76 (“eligibility is the definitive criterion for registration and list maintenance obligations” and as a result, “States must strive to add eligible voters and to remove ineligible ones”). Because Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement is consistent with the congressional goal of registering eligible voters, it does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s purposes in enacting the NVRA.
Indeed, the district court’s factual findings on remand regarding Proposition 200’s evidence-ofcitizenship requirement further demonstrate that the requirement is not an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s purposes in enacting the NVRA. Justice Stevens noted two factual resolutions as key in resolving this case: (1) The scope of the disenfranchisement that the evidence requirements will produce, and (2) the prevalence and the character of the fraudulent practices that allegedly justify those requirements. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 6 (Stevens, J.

43
concurring).
Following a trial on the remaining claims, including Equal Protection, the district court granted judgment in favor of the State. (Pet. App. 8c-9c.) The district court found that the burdens on potential registrants were not excessive. (JA 291.) Plaintiffs were able to produce only “one person … who [was] unable to register to vote due to Proposition 200’s proof of citizenship requirement” and did not “demonstrate[] that … persons rejected are in fact eligible to register to vote.” (Id. at 292) The district court also found that voter fraud was a significant problem. (Id. at 294.) The district court’s factual findings demonstrate that Proposition 200 is not inconsistent with Congress’s purposes in enacting the NVRA.
Instead of paying attention to the district court’s findings that voter fraud is a significant problem in Arizona and that Proposition 200 did not significantly burden potential registrants, the court of appeals erroneously concluded that Proposition 200 is “seriously out of tune” with the NVRA. (Pet. App. 30c.) Arizona should be permitted to require evidence of citizenship because it is consistent with the NVRA’s purpose of protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Otherwise, the only protection is the applicant’s sworn statement that he or she is a citizen. But someone who is willing to commit voter fraud is likely to be willing to attest to false information. This honor system deprives the State of the ability to protect the integrity of its electoral process. Cf. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4 (fraud in voting pollutes the democratic process by “driv[ing] honest citizens out . . .

44
and breed[ing] distrust of our government”).
E. The EAC’s Failure to Include Arizona’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement in the Federal Form’s State-Specific Instructions Has No Preemptive Force.
The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the EAC possesses the “ultimate authority” to determine the contents of the Federal Form. (Pet. App. 34c.) Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit effectively gave the EAC preemptive power by reasoning that “[o]nce the EAC determined the contents of the Federal Form, Arizona’s only role was to make that form available to applicants.” (Id. at 36c.) In so doing, the Ninth Circuit drastically expanded the scope of the EAC’s authority under the NVRA beyond what Congress ever prescribed or intended.
The EAC is a federal agency of extremely limited powers. Unlike other federal regulatory agencies,10 Congress explicitly denied the EAC the authority “to issue any rule, promulgate any regulation, or take any other action which imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local government except to the extent permitted under section 1973gg-7(a) of this title.” 42
10 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 253(d) (authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the enforcement of state and local statutes, regulations, or legal requirements interfering with the development of competitive telecommunications services) and 49 U.S.C. § 5125(d) (authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether particular state, local, or tribal requirements respecting the transportation of hazardous materials are preempted).

45
U.S.C. § 15329. In turn, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a) permits only the development of the Federal Form, and “provid[ing] information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under [the NVRA].” Congress did not give the EAC authority to preempt State law.
The Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the notion that the EAC exercised its “ultimate authority” by “rejecting” Arizona’s request to include the evidence-ofcitizenship requirement as a part of its other statespecific instructions already contained in the Federal Form. (Pet. App. 34c). But pursuant to the Help American Vote Act (HAVA), “[a]ny action” taken by the EAC in furtherance of its statutory authority “may be carried out only with the approval of at least three of its members.” 42 U.S.C. § 15328. Notably, the EAC’s purported “rejection” of Arizona’s evidence-ofcitizenship requirement has never been supported by a majority of its members. Rather, the Commission’s only vote resulted in a deadlock, with two Commissioners voting in favor of including the requirement and two voting against it. (JA 225.)
The Ninth Circuit’s reference to EAC’s “rejection” of Arizona’s requirement was really based upon an informal letter from the EAC’s executive director relaying his opinion that the NVRA preempted state law because he believed that “[a]ny Federal Registration Form that has been properly and completely filled-out by a qualified applicant and timely received by an election official must be accepted in full satisfaction of registration requirements.” (JA 186) (emphasis added). As noted, this would require

46
registration even if there were irrefutable extrinsic evidence that the applicant is not a citizen. That cannot be the law.
In addition, this Court does not typically defer to “agency proclamations of preemption,” but “perform[s] its own conflict determination” based upon “the substance of state and federal law.” Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 576. This is especially true where, as here, there is no “agency proclamation” but merely an informal letter written by an agency staff member. Although “[t]he federal balance is remitted, in many instances, to Congress,” it is rarely conferred to “a single agency official.” Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461, 517 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Rather, this Court has “rightly reject[ed]” the argument that a state law may be preempted “not by any federal statute or regulation, but simply by the Executive’s current enforcement policy.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. at 2524 (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Accordingly, Mr. Wilkey’s letter lacks “the force of law,” see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001), just as the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on it as the “ultimate authority” governing preemption in this case lacks the force of logic.
III. The NVRA Should Be Read As Not Preempting Proposition 200 to Avoid Raising a Serious Doubt as to the NVRA’s Constitutionality.
Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, “when deciding which of two plausible statutory

47
constructions to adopt, a court must consider the necessary consequences of its choice. If one of them would raise a multitude of constitutional problems, the other should prevail.” Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 380-81 (2005); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001) (“It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation . . . that when an Act of Congress raises a serious doubt as to its constitutionality, this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
As explained below, interpreting the NRVA to preempt Proposition 200’s requirement of evidence of citizenship would raise a “serious doubt” as to the constitutionality of the NRVA so applied, because the Constitution reserves to the States the exclusive power to determine the qualifications for voters in federal elections. That problem can be avoided, however, by interpreting the NRVA as not preempting Proposition 200’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for applicants using the Federal Form. That construction is much more than “fairly possible,” because Arizona can “accept and use” the Federal Form as required by § 1973gg-4(a)(1) and still require voter registration applicants to provide evidence of citizenship. As Chief Judge Kozinski recognized below, the statutory language is “readily susceptible” to this broader interpretation. (Pet. App. 89c.). Adopting this construction will avoid a possible collision between the NVRA and the Constitution.
A. If the NVRA Is Construed to Preempt

48
Proposition 200’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement, the Construction Raises Serious Question Concerning the Constitutionality of the NVRA Because Such a Construction Intrudes upon the States’ Exclusive Power to Define and Enforce Voter Qualifications in Federal Elections.
1. The Voter Qualifications Clauses assign to the States the exclusive power to define and enforce voter qualifications in federal elections.
The Constitution expressly assigns to the States the exclusive power to define and enforce the qualifications to vote in federal elections. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 2., cl. 1 (“the Electors [for U.S. House elections] in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature”); U.S. Const., amendment XVII (“The electors [for U.S. Senate elections] in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.”); U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of [Presidential] Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress[.]”).11
Under the foregoing provisions (collectively, the
11 A state legislature’s power to “appoint” presidential electors must necessarily incorporate the authority to set qualifications of voters if popular election is chosen as the mode of appointment.

49
Voter Qualifications Clauses”), the qualifications for voting in federal elections are those “which may be established by the State itself” and are not subject to the “occasional regulation of the Congress.” The Federalist No. 52, at 354 (James Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “[P]rescribing qualifications” for voters in federal elections “forms no part of the power . . . conferred upon the national government” by the Elections Clause, which is “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections.” The Federalist No. 60, at 408-09 (Alexander Hamilton) (emphasis in the original). Therefore, “the Constitution indeed makes voters’ qualifications rest on state law even in federal elections.” Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379 (1963); see also Lassiter v. Northampton Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 51 (1959); U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 806 (1995) (noting Madison’s contrast in the Federalist No. 52 of “state control over the qualifications of electors with the lack of state control over the qualifications of the elected”).
This Court explained that “Hamilton expressly distinguished the broad power to set qualifications from the limited authority under the Elections Clause.” U.S. Term Limits, 514 U.S. at 833 (emphasis added). The Elections Clause’s power to regulate the “manner” of elections has a limited “procedural focus” that “‘only’” allows the States—and Congress if it chooses to exercise that authority—“‘to determine how [voters] shall elect—whether by ballot, or by vote, or any other way.’” Id. (quoting 4 Elliot’s Debates 71 (Steele statement at North Carolina ratifying convention) (emphasis in original)). The Elections Clause, then, is

50
a “grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not a source of power to . . . evade important constitutional restraints.” Id. at 833-34 (emphasis added).
Just as the Elections Clause did not authorize Arkansas in U.S. Term Limits, 514 U.S. at 828-36, to evade the restraints of the Constitution by establishing member qualifications beyond those established in the Constitution, the same Elections Clause power does not authorize Congress here to evade the restraints of the Voter Qualifications Clauses, which reserve to the States the power to set voter qualifications in federal elections. See ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 795 (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding Congress’s power under the Elections Clause to enact the general voter registration provisions of the NVRA, but suggesting that if the State could show that the NVRA made “it impossible for the state to enforce its voter qualifications . . . we might have a different case”) (Posner, J.). Here, if the NVRA precludes Arizona from requiring registrants to show satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the NVRA intrudes on Arizona’s determination that only citizens are qualified to vote.
Finally, this Court’s highly fractured decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), provides no support for the proposition that the Elections Clause authorizes Congress to prevent Arizona from enforcing its evidence-of-citizenship qualification for voting in federal elections. In Mitchell, the Court considered various States’ challenges to Congress’s power to, inter alia, set a minimum voting age of eighteen in all federal elections.

51
In three separate opinions, none of which commanded a majority, five Justices concluded (for different reasons) that Congress had the power to set a minimum voting age in federal elections. Three Justices reasoned that such authority resided in Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and did not discuss the Elections Clause. See Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 229-281 (joint opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, J.J.). Justice Douglas, writing separately, agreed that such authority resided in the Fourteenth Amendment, id. at 135-44 (opinion of Douglas, J.), but expressly rejected the contention that the Elections Clause gave Congress such power. See id. at 143 (acknowledging that the Elections Clause gives “Congress only the power to regulate the ‘Manner of holding Elections,’ not the power to fix qualifications for voting in Elections”). Justice Black, writing separately, concluded that the Elections Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate voting qualifications, see id. at 117, 118-124 (opinion of Black, J.), but expressly rejected the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of such authority, see id. at 125-31.
Four Justices dissented from the Court’s judgment upholding Congress’s power to set a minimum voting age in federal elections, reasoning in two separate opinions that neither the Elections Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment so authorized Congress to establish voter qualifications in federal elections, as the Voter Qualifications Clauses assign this authority to the States exclusively. See id. at 118, 152-219 (opinion of Harlan, J.); id. at 293-96 (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Blackmun, J.).

52
In expressly rejecting the Elections Clause as a source of congressional authority to regulate voter qualifications in federal elections, the four dissenters, as noted above, were joined by Justice Douglas. And in expressly rejecting the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of such authority, the four dissenters, as noted above, were joined by Justice Black.
Hence, the significance of Mitchell for Elections Clause purposes is that a majority of five Justices expressly concluded that the Elections Clause does not authorize Congress to regulate qualifications for voting in federal elections, and only Justice Black found such authority. Three Justices (Brennan, White, and Marshall) also implicitly rejected the Elections Clause as a source for such authority by declining to join Justice Black’s separate opinion.
In sum, as Alexander Hamilton recognized in the Federalist and this Court confirmed in U.S. Term Limits, the Elections Clause has a limited “procedural focus” that does not extend to setting qualifications of voters or members of Congress. This Court’s decision in Mitchell is consistent with that conclusion, as five Justices expressly rejected the Elections Clause as a source of authority to regulate voter qualifications in federal elections.12 As such, there is a persuasive
12 In Arizona’s application to Justice Kennedy for a stay of mandate, Petitioners stated that “[t]here is, of course, no dispute that the Elections Clause permits Congress to alter state laws respecting federal elections. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (Black, J., announcing the judgment of the Court) (age of voters in federal elections).” As discussed above, Mitchell’s judgment only applies to Congress’s power to set a voting age and (Continued)

53
argument that the Elections Clause does not authorize the NVRA to preclude Arizona from enforcing its evidence-of-citizenship qualification for voting in federal elections. Therefore, to avoid the constitutional question of whether the Elections Clause authorized Congress to enact the NVRA’s provision that precludes Arizona from enforcing its evidence-of-citizenship qualification for voting in federal elections, this Court should adopt Arizona’s interpretation of term “accept and use” the Federal Form in the NVRA.13
B. The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Congress to Prohibit Proposition 200’s Non-Discriminatory Requirement of Evidence of Citizenship.
________________________(Continued).
the highly fractured rationale of that decision does not support the Elections Clause as a source of authority to for Congress to preclude Arizona from enforcing its voter qualification of citizenship by requiring applicants to verify claims of citizenship. To the extent that Petitioner’s stay application overstated Mitchell, Petitioners withdraw it. 13 Similarly, this Court need not address whether the NVRA’s general voter registration provisions exceed Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause. Cf. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932) (stating in dicta that the Elections Clause “embrace[s] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved”). In any event, Smiley did not go so far as to include voter qualifications among the subjects within the Clause’s scope.

54
In the absence of the Elections Clause as a source of constitutional authority for the NVRA to prevent Arizona from requiring evidence of citizenship as a qualification for voting, the only other possible source of such authority is Congress’s power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to “enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5. As discussed above, a majority of the Court in Mitchell expressly rejected this authority as a source of power to set a minimum national age in federal elections.
Moreover, the rationale of the four Justices in Mitchell who found that the Fourteenth Amendment authorized Congress to set a minimum voting age in federal elections does not support the conclusion that such a power extends to prohibiting Arizona from requiring evidence of citizenship in federal elections. In Mitchell, Justices Douglas, Brennan, White, and Marshall all concluded that Congress could reasonably determine that persons in the eighteen-to-twenty-oneage group were mature enough to vote, and that Congress was within its authority to act to protect their fundamental right to vote. See 400 U.S. at 14244 (opinion of Douglas, J.); 400 U.S. at 240 (joint opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, J.J.). Arizona has a vital state interest in protecting the integrity of its elections by requiring voter registrants to provide evidence of citizenship, and Congress made no findings that requiring such evidence has any discriminatory effect. Arizona does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. The district court

55
specifically found that there was no Fourteenth Amendment violation here.
In any event, this Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) forecloses the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of authority for the NVRA to preempt Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement. In Flores, this Court explained that Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment “extends only to enforcing the provisions” of that Amendment, a power which is “remedial.” Id. at 519. This power does not include the power to determine “what constitutes a constitutional violation.” Id. There must be “a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id. at 520.
Denying non-citizens the right to vote inflicts no cognizable constitutional injury. Citizenship is a legitimate voter qualification, and requiring evidence of citizenship is a reasonable means of enforcing that qualification. If the NVRA preempts Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, “it is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventative object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” Flores, 521 U.S. at 532. Instead, so construed, the NRVA attempts “a substantive change in constitutional protections” by denying Arizona the ability to enforce its legitimate voter qualification of citizenship. Id. As such, the NVRA exceeds Congress’s enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that it is read to preempt Proposition 200.
In sum, this Court should find that the NVRA does

56
not preempt Proposition 200’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement to avoid the serious constitutional question of whether, as so applied, it intrudes upon the States’ power to under the Voter Qualifications Clauses to define and enforce voter qualifications in federal elections.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the State requests that the Court reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remand for proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas C. Horne Attorney General of Arizona
David R. Cole Solicitor General Counsel of Record Paula S. Bickett Chief Counsel, Civil Appeals Thomas M. Collins Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone (602) 542-3333
Melissa G. Iyer Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. 702 E. Osborn Rd, Suite #200 Phoenix, AZ 85014

57
Phone (602) 234-8767
M. Miller Baker McDermott Will & Emery The McDermott Building 500 N. Capitol St., NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone (202) 756-8233
Counsel for Petitioners

 
 No. 12-71

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., Petitioners,
v.
INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., et al., and JESUS M. GONZALEZ, et al., Respondents.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA
ADVOCACY NETWORK, STEVE M. GALLARDO, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARIZONA, AND HOPI
TRIBE

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
JON M. GREENBAUM Counsel of Record
ROBERT A. KENGLE MARK A. POSNER R. ERANDI ZAMORA 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 662-8315 jgreenbaum@
lawyerscommittee.org

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP PATRICIA A. MILLETT MICHAEL C. SMALL CHRISTOPHER M. EGLESON 1333 New Hampshire
Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000

[Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover]

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP DAVID J. BODNEY Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 (602) 257-5212
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. DAVID B. ROSENBAUM THOMAS L. HUDSON 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 (602) 640-9345
INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC. JOE P. SPARKS THE SPARKS LAW FIRM, P.C. 7503 First Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 (480) 949-1339
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 230 Peachtree Street NW Suite 1440 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 523-2721
AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION DANIEL B. KOHRMAN 601 E Street, N.W., Suite A4-240 Washington D.C. 20049 (202) 434-2064

i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; and League of Women Voters of Arizona are nongovernmental corporations. They have no parent organizations and no stock.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................v
INTRODUCTION ........................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................3
I. The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993, And The Help America Vote Act Of 2002............................................................3
A. Overview of the NVRA...........................3
B. The National Mail-In Registration System ....................................................5
C. The Federal Form Prescribed by the EAC ................................................10
II. Arizona’s Supplemental Verification Of Citizenship Requirement .............................14
A. Arizona’s Change in Procedures for Voter Registration Applicants to Verify U.S. Citizenship ........................14
B. Arizona’s Request That the EAC Incorporate the State’s “Evidence of Citizenship” Procedure into the Federal Form........................................19
III. Other States’ Voter Registration Procedures For Verifying U.S. Citizenship ...................................................20

iii

PROCEDURAL HISTORY........................................21 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................28 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 30

I. The Elections Clause, Not The Supremacy Clause, Governs Whether The Arizona Supplemental Verification Procedure Is Superseded By The NVRA .....30

II. Arizona’s Supplemental “Evidence Of Citizenship” Procedure, As Applied To The Federal Form, Conflicts With The NVRA, And Therefore Is Superseded Under The Elections Clause ........................34

A. Arizona Does Not “Accept and Use” the Federal Form Within the Meaning of the NVRA..........................34

1. The NVRA, by its terms,

precludes Arizona from

implementing

its

supplemental verification

procedure for Federal Form

applicants................................... 36

2. Other provisions of the

NVRA confirm the conflict

between the statute and

Arizona’s

supplemental

procedure. ..................................38

3. The conflict between the NVRA and the Arizona

iv
procedure is further shown by Congress’ purpose in enacting the NVRA and by the statute’s legislative history. .......................................40
B. Arizona’s Criticisms of the EAC’s Decisionmaking Are Misplaced ...........43
C. The NVRA Provisions Addressing the Role of the States in Conducting Voter Registration for Federal Elections Do Not Authorize States to Add a Citizenship Verification Procedure to the Federal Form........................................46
III. The Elections Clause Gives Congress Power Over “Registration” Of Federal Voters, So The NVRA’s Supersession Of The Arizona Procedure Presents No Constitutional Concern................................48
CONCLUSION ..........................................................53
ADDENDUM
National Voter Registration Act (selected provisions) .......................................................1a
Help America Vote Act (selected provision) ........4a
EAC Regulations ..................................................6a
Arizona Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ......................................................12a

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995) .........................................................50, 52, 53

ACORN v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997) .......50

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) ....................................................................18

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, (1989) ....................................................................38

Condon v. Reno, 913 F. Supp. 946 (D. S.C. 1995) .....................................................................50

Crawford v. Marion County, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ....................................................................43

Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993)...............36

Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) ..........24, 30, 49

Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) ..................... passim

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) ..................45

Goodluck v. Apache County, 417 F. Supp. 13 (D. Ariz. 1975) ........................................................4

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) ..................32

vi
Harrison v. Laveen, 67 Ariz. 337, 196 P.2d 456 (1948) ......................................................................4
John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 510 U.S. 86 (1993) .........41
Klahr v. Williams, 339 F. Supp. 922 (D. Ariz. 1972) .......................................................................4
Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026 (1996)...........................33
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988)....................37
Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343 (2011) .....................................................50
Porter v. Hall, 34 Ariz. 308, 271 P. 411 (1928) ...........4
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) ..........28, 42, 43
Rice v. Santa Fe Elec. Corp. 331 U.S. 218 (1947) ....................................................................33
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000)......................36, 37
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) ............30, 48, 49
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) ...........................................30, 31, 51, 52
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) .........50
Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................50
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)........................33

vii
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997)......................48
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND REGULATIONS
U.S. Const. amend. X ..........................................31, 32
U.S. Const. amend. XVII ...........................................50
U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ........................................50
U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 2 ........................................52
U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 3 ........................................52
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (“Elections Clause”)......................................................... passim
U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2 (“Supremacy Clause”).........................................23, 24, 32, 33, 34
2 U.S.C. § 7 ................................................................32
5 U.S.C. § 702 ......................................................19, 45
Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15483.............8, 9
National Voter Registration Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg .............................1, 3, 4, 40, 42 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2 ..............................................3 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-3 ..........................................3, 6 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4 .................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5 ..........................................3, 6 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6 ........................................9, 39 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7 .................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10 ....................................10, 42

viii
Pub. L. No. 103-31, § 9, 107 Stat. 77 (1993) ...............6
Pub. L. No. 107-252, § 802(b), 116 Stat. 1666 (2002) ......................................................................6
Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa .................................................5 42 U.S.C. § 1973c ...........................................20, 48
Election Assistance Commission Regulations 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3 ..........................................12, 35 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4 ........................ 10, 11, 12, 44, 47 11 C.F.R. § 9428.5 ................................................12 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6 ................................................12
Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2 ......................................17, 51
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-101...................................17
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-166.............2, 14, 15, 16, 35
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(u).....................................20
Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141 ........................................20
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
H.R. Rep. No. 103-9 (1993)......................................4, 5
H.R. Rep. No. 103-66 (1993)......................................41
S. Rep. No. 103-6 (1993) ..............................................5
139 Cong. Rec. H2276 (daily ed. May 5, 1993) .........41
139 Cong. Rec. S5747-48 (daily ed. May 11, 1993) .....................................................................41

ix OTHER AUTHORITY THE FEDERALIST, No. 59 (Hamilton) .........................31

INTRODUCTION
The Elections Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1) grants Congress plenary authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” In 1993, Congress concluded that action was necessary to address a national problem regarding a complicated and restrictive maze of State voter registration laws for Federal elections, and so enacted the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. Congress’ object was to reduce the obstacles to voter registration to a minimum, while protecting the integrity of the election process.
The NVRA establishes, inter alia, a mail-in system of voter registration for Federal elections. The NVRA charges a Federal agency, the United States Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), with the responsibility to “develop” a uniform, national mail-in registration form (“Federal Form” or “Form”). 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2). The EAC is to undertake this task “in consultation with” the States, id., but the States may not alter the Form once prescribed. With regard to verification of voting eligibility, the NVRA provides that Federal Form applicants must attest, under oath, to their voting qualifications, including U.S. citizenship. The NVRA further requires the States to “accept and use” the EACprescribed Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1).
This case concerns an Arizona law, adopted in 2004, which requires election officials to “reject” all voter registration applications, including Federal

2
Forms, not accompanied by the newly-defined “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). The State-mandated “evidence” is more than that required by the Federal Form. Applicants who do not comply with this procedure must file an entirely new registration application, providing the “satisfactory evidence,” before they are registered to vote. Arizona asked the EAC to revise the Federal Form (for use in the State) to incorporate the new procedure. The EAC declined. Arizona, however, continued to routinely reject fullycompleted Federal Forms which did not satisfy the State’s supplemental verification provision.
The Arizona law, insofar as it is applied to Federal Form applicants, conflicts with the NVRA and, under this Court’s Elections Clause jurisprudence, is void to that extent. Neither Arizona nor the other States may unilaterally supplement the Federal Form requirements established by the EAC by refusing to “accept and use” the EAC-prescribed Form. Arizona, however, seeks to do precisely that. This conduct, if allowed, would substantially eviscerate the mail-in registration system established by Congress since that system, in significant part, relies upon the establishment and use of a national, uniform registration form.

3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993, And The Help America Vote Act Of 2002
A. Overview of the NVRA
Congress enacted the NVRA to “establish procedures to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote,” while “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained” and “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b). The NVRA expands the methods by which persons may register to vote in Federal elections, and also specifies procedures to ensure that citizens have full access to the new registration methods. In particular, the NVRA mandates three registration methods – registration by mail, registration through motor vehicle offices, and registration at other governmental offices (including public assistance and disability offices), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a) – and provides specific procedures for implementation of each of these registration methods.1 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-3 to -5.
1 Congress exempted from NVRA coverage certain States that do not employ a voter registration system or that allow socalled “same-day” voter registration when individuals appear to vote at an election. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(b). As a result, the NVRA does not apply to six States: Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. U.S. Dept. of Justice, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/nvra_faq.php (last visited Jan. 11, 2013).

4
Congress premised the NVRA on three findings: first, “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right”; second, governments at all levels have “the duty . . . to promote the exercise of that right”; and, third, “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(a).2 With regard to the latter of these findings, Congress explained that it sought to remedy the “complicated maze of local [registration] laws and procedures, in some cases as restrictive as the . . . practices [outlawed by the Voting Rights Act] . . . to reduce these obstacles to voting to the absolute minimum while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-9, at 3 (1993),
2 The district court below found that American Indians have suffered from a history of discrimination in voting in Arizona, citing the State’s denial of the right to vote to American Indian citizens between 1924 and 1948, the State’s use of a literacy test from 1909 until it was banned by the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, and the State’s use of English-only elections until Arizona was covered by the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act. App. 316-317. See Porter v. Hall, 34 Ariz. 308, 271 P. 411, 419 (1928) (holding American Indians residing on reservations are “not entitled to vote”), overruled by Harrison v. Laveen, 67 Ariz. 337, 196 P.2d 456 (1948). See also Goodluck v. Apache County, 417 F. Supp. 13 (D. Ariz. 1975) (county supervisorial districts discriminated against Navajo citizens); Klahr v. Williams, 339 F. Supp. 922, 927 (D. Ariz. 1972) (state redistricting plan intentionally discriminated against Navajo Nation).

5
reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 105, 106-07 (“House Rep.”).3
B. The National Mail-In Registration System
The integral components of the NVRA’s mailin registration system, as subsequently modified by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), include a national and uniform voter registration application prescribed by a Federal agency, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg7(a)(2), and the requirement that States “accept and use the mail voter registration form prescribed by the [agency].” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1).4 In addition, States must “make [Federal Forms] available for distribution through governmental and private entities, with particular emphasis on making them
3 Previously, in 1975, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to establish a permanent, nationwide ban on certain enumerated discriminatory “tests and devices” for conducting voter registration for Federal, State, and local elections. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa.
4 Congress explained the utility of the new national, uniform form as follows:
The requirements that States use a uniform mail registration application form serves to augment the extensive outreach features of the “motor-voter” and agency-based registration procedures. Uniform mail forms will permit voter registration drives through a regional or national mailing, or for more than one State at a central location, such as a city where persons from a number of neighboring States work, shop or attend events. House Rep. at 10, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 114; S. Rep. No. 103-6, at 26 (1993) (same).

6
available for organized voter registration programs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(b).5
Congress adopted several measures to ensure that the new voter registration Form is (1) national and uniform, (2) harmonized with the pre-existing system whereby each State and the District of Columbia has its own voter registration form, and (3) simple and easy to use while allowing only eligible persons to register to vote.
First, to ensure that the Federal Form is national and uniform, the NVRA includes two complementary requirements. The statute delegates exclusive authority to “develop” the Federal Form to a Federal agency, acting pursuant to the content guidelines specified by Congress. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg7(a)(2) & (b). Specifically, the NVRA provides that: “The Election Assistance Commission – . . . shall develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office.” Id.6 In addition, the
5 The NVRA similarly mandates procedures for citizen access to the other two new registration methods. This includes the requirement that applications for a driver’s license “serve as an application for voter registration . . . unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-3(a)(1), and the requirement that the Federal Form or a State “equivalent” form be used for voter registration at other State and local offices where registration for Federal elections is required. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(6).
6 The NVRA originally granted this authority to the Federal Election Commission. Pub. L. No. 103-31, § 9, 107 Stat. 77, 87 (1993). In 2002, HAVA transferred this authority to a new agency created by that statute, the United States Election Assistance Commission. Pub. L. No. 107-252, § 802(b), 116 Stat. 1666, 1726, amending 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a).

7
NVRA mandates that States “shall accept and use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the [EAC] . . . for registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg4(a)(1) (emphasis added).7
Second, to ensure coordination with the States, the NVRA gives States a voice in the process by which the Federal Form is developed, but not control over the Federal Form or authority to supplement the Federal Form requirements. The NVRA specifies that, in “develop[ing] a mail voter registration application form,” the EAC shall act “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a). The NVRA also authorizes States to “develop and use [their own] mail voter registration form . . . for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office,” subject to two conditions: States may use their own form only “[i]n addition to accepting and using” the Federal Form; and the State form must “meet[] all of the [content] criteria” the NVRA specifies for the Federal Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2).
Third, to ensure that the Federal Form is simple and easy to use, and to ensure that only eligible persons register to vote, the NVRA provides both general and specific directions to the EAC with regard to its development of the Form. The general directions are as follows:
7 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4 and § 1973gg-7 are quoted in full in the Addendum to this brief, at 1a-4a.

8
The mail voter registration form developed [by the EAC] – (1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1).
The specific content-directions address the manner in which Federal Form applicants verify their qualifications to vote. The NVRA provides that the Form “shall include a statement that – (A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship); (B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and (C) requires the signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(2). The NVRA further provides that the Federal Form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(3).
Subsequently, in HAVA, Congress also required that the Federal Form include the questions, “‘Are you a citizen of the United States of America?’” and “‘Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?’,” along with “[t]he statement ‘If you checked “no” in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form.’” 42 U.S.C. §

9
15483(b)(4)(A).8 HAVA provides that if an applicant fails to answer the citizenship question, “the registrar shall notify the applicant of the failure and provide the applicant with an opportunity to complete the form in a timely manner to allow for the completion of the registration form prior to the next election for Federal office (subject to State law).” 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(4)(B).9
In sum, the NVRA and HAVA address the manner of conducting elections for Federal office insofar as use of the Federal Form for voter registration is concerned. In so doing, the statutes specifically recognize the States’ universal requirement of United States citizenship as a
8 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(4) also is quoted in the Addendum, at 4a-6a.
9 HAVA provides an additional content requirement for registration applications for Federal elections, which applies to both the Federal Form and State registration forms, which is that applicants are to provide their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number, if available, or in certain States their full social security number, if available. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5). Also, HAVA specifies that individuals who register by mail, and who are registering for the first time in a State, must provide certain identification at the time of voting to verify their identity and, in the alternative, may provide this verification with their mail-in registration application. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b)(1)-(3). The NVRA includes detailed provisions relating to the administration of voter registration lists for Federal elections, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6, and HAVA requires States to implement computerized statewide lists of registered voters for Federal elections. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a).

10
qualification for voting, while not prescribing the qualifications for voting in Federal elections.10
C. The Federal Form Prescribed by the EAC
The EAC has defined by regulation the requirements for applicants to successfully complete the Federal Form in order to register to vote. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4.11 The current version of the Federal Form is included in an appendix to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision, Pet. App. 63c-64c, and is available on the EAC’s website.12
The EAC regulations identify all items of information that an applicant may need to provide in order to register using the Federal Form. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(a). Consistent with the NVRA and HAVA, this does not include any requirement that individuals provide any evidence of their qualifications to vote beyond their attestation of eligibility, under penalty of perjury. Id. Specifically,
10 The NVRA further provides for criminal penalties for “knowingly and willfully” submitting a registration application that is “false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(2).
11 The EAC regulations regarding the Federal Form are quoted in full in the Addendum to this brief, at 6a-11a.
12 http://www.eac.gov (follow “National Voter Registration Act” hyperlink, then follow “National Mail Voter Registration Form”). In addition to English, the EAC makes the Form available in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Id.

11
the EAC regulations address verification of voting eligibility as follows:
The form shall . . . :
(1) Specify each eligibility requirement (including citizenship). The application shall list U.S. Citizenship as a universal eligibility requirement and include a statement that incorporates by reference each state's specific additional eligibility requirements (including any special pledges) as set forth in the accompany[ing] state instructions; (2) Contain an attestation on the application that the applicant, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, meets each of his or her state's specific eligibility requirements.
11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(b).
The EAC regulations further identify three narrowly-defined items of applicant information which may vary by the applicant’s State of residence. These are: the “[v]oter identification number”13; the voter’s “[p]olitical party preference, for an applicant in a closed primary state”; and the voter’s “[r]ace/ethnicity, if applicable for the applicant’s state of residence.” 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(a)(6-8). To accommodate these variations, the regulations provide that the EAC shall incorporate State-specific instructions in the Federal Form to explain these
13 See supra note 9.

12
registration requirements. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b); 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(a). The State-specific instructions also serve to identify the voting eligibility requirements of each State. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b). The EAC regulations do not allow for any variance in the procedures by which applicants verify their voting eligibility, and thus the State-specific instructions do not include any directions regarding such verification. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4.14 The EAC regulations also specify that the Form is to include general instructions, as well. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(a).
The Federal Form follows the format specified in the EAC’s regulations. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.5. The Form has a postcard format with four sections that fold together, including a front section for the address and stamp, two sections for entry of information by the applicant, and one section reserved for potential use by registration officials. Pet. App. 63c-64c. The principal section for applicant-entry begins by asking whether the applicant is a citizen, and whether the applicant will be 18 years old on or before election day, and instructs persons who check “no” to either or both of these questions to not complete the Form. This section also provides for such information as name, address, and date of birth, and includes a place for the applicant to sign the Form to attest,
14 Consistent with these provisions, the regulations also require that States promptly inform the EAC of any change in their requirements concerning voting eligibility, voter identification number, statement of party preference, and statement of race/ethnicity, but do not require that States provide any information concerning verification of voting eligibility. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6.

13
under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the information provided and to the individual’s voting eligibility (including U.S. citizenship). The second applicant-entry section includes space for the applicant to potentially address several specialized circumstances (e.g., a prior registration address).
The Federal Form includes general instructions, Pet. App. 61c-62c, and State-specific instructions, Pet. App. 67c-84c, prepared by the EAC. The general instructions walk applicants through the information to be provided on the Form that does not vary by State. The general instructions include, with regard to U.S. citizenship, an instruction that only individuals who are U.S. citizens may use the Form, Pet. App. 61c, an instruction to answer the questions at the top of the application with regard to U.S. citizenship and age-eligibility before filling out the form, Pet. App. 62c, and an instruction that applicants should make sure they meet their State’s qualifications to vote before signing the Form. Id. The State-specific instructions for Arizona provide information about applicants entering an identification number and a choice of a political party, and specify that applicants should not provide race/ethnicity information. These instructions also identify the State’s deadline for registering for an election, the State’s qualifications for voting, and the mailing address for the Arizona Secretary of State. Pet. App. 67c-68c. Neither the general instructions nor the Arizona-specific instructions make any reference to the “evidence of citizenship” procedure Arizona enacted by Proposition 200.

14
II. Arizona’s Supplemental Verification Of Citizenship Requirement
A. Arizona’s Change in Procedures for Voter Registration Applicants to Verify U.S. Citizenship
In November 2004, Arizona voters amended the state election code by adopting Proposition 200, one portion of which added a new procedure by which voter registration applicants are to verify that they meet Arizona’s pre-existing qualification of United States citizenship. Prior to the adoption of Proposition 200, applicants verified their citizenship (and compliance with Arizona’s other voting qualifications) by signing the Federal Form, or by signing the State registration form which likewise required that applicants attest that the information provided was accurate, subject to potential felony prosecution for making a false statement. App. 165, 249.
Proposition 200 requires that applicants, in addition to attestation, verify their eligibility to vote by submitting “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F). Under Proposition 200, county election officials must “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by [the required evidence of citizenship].” Id. Proposition 200 generally “grandfathered-in” all Arizona residents who were registered to vote on the law’s effective date, i.e., these individuals were “deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship” by having complied with the former attestation procedure, and

15
were not required to comply with the new procedure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(G).15
Prior to the district court’s entry of an injunction in these cases on August 15, 2012 (pursuant to the Ninth Circuit mandate), App. 38184, Arizona required that applicants completing the Federal Form comply with Proposition 200’s supplemental verification procedure. This meant that, if an applicant submitted the Federal Form without “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship, county election officials rejected the Form entirely, and the applicant was required to submit a new application, with the requisite evidence, in order to register to vote. App. 251 (“the applicant is mailed a letter explaining why the application was rejected and instructing the applicant to submit a new registration form with proper proof of citizenship”).
The particular type of evidence required by Proposition 200 varies depending on the circumstances of individual citizens. Individuals possessing a driver’s license or state identification card which “indicates . . . that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship” (which includes those issued in Arizona after October 1, 2006) may comply by entering their
15 However, individuals registered on Proposition 200’s effective date who subsequently “chang[e] voter registration from one county to another,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(G), must comply with the new “evidence of citizenship” procedure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F) & (G) are quoted in the Addendum, at 13a-14a.

16
license or identification card number on the application. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F)(1).
Proposition 200 states that applicants who are members of an Indian tribe may provide a “bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F)(6). However, Bureau of Indian Affairs cards and tribal treaty cards are not in use in Arizona. App. 260. Moreover, the Havasupai Tribe and Navajo Nation do not issue tribal enrollment cards, and cards issued by the Hopi Tribe, YavapaiApache Nation, and Tonto Apache Tribe do not include enrollment numbers. Id.16
Applicants who are unable to satisfy the “evidence of citizenship” requirement by the preceding means must furnish documentation of citizenship, such as a copy of their birth certificate, a copy of their passport, or their naturalization documents, together with the voter registration application. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F)(2)-(5). Proposition 200 provides no exception for indigency or for reimbursement of costs incurred in obtaining the requisite documentation.17
16 Tribal enrollment cards are free for most tribes, but for the Hopi Tribe, the first card is free and an additional card is $15; for the Yavapai-Apache Nation, a card costs $5; and for the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the first card is free and an additional card is $12. App. 260.
17 The district court below found that, after Proposition 200 became effective on January 25, 2005, App. 248, and until September 2007, the new “evidence of citizenship” requirement resulted in the rejection of 31,550 registration applications (in the 14 of Arizona’s 15 counties reporting data); this number

17
Proposition 200 did not alter the qualifications for voting in Arizona, which are specified by Article VII, section 2(A) of the Arizona Constitution (entitled “Qualifications of voters; disqualification”). In particular, the Arizona Constitution provides that each voter must “be a citizen of the United States.”18 This requirement has been part of the Arizona Constitution since Arizona gained statehood on February 14, 1912.19
Arizona does not require that registration applicants provide verification of compliance with the State’s other voting qualifications beyond the attestation of eligibility under penalty of prosecution. Thus, the State does not require any documentation that applicants are 18 or older, or that those
excluded forms where the applicant answered “no” to the U.S. citizenship question. App. 263. Only approximately 30% of the 31,550 applicants went on to successfully register as of the time of trial, in July 2008. App. 264.
18 Article VII, section 2 is quoted in the Addendum, at 12a. In addition to U.S. citizenship, voters also must be at least 18 years old and satisfy any statutory durational residency requirement, may not be “adjudicated [as] incapacitated,” and may not be “convicted of treason or felony, . . . unless restored to civil rights.” The citizenship requirement, and the other qualifications set forth in Article VII, section 2 are repeated in the Arizona Elections and Electors Code, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16101 (that section also defines what it means to be a resident of Arizona, provides for a general durational residency requirement of 29 days preceding an election, and specifies that a voter must be “able to write his name or make his mark, unless prevented from so doing by physical disability”).
19 Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2 (1910) available at http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ar chgov/id/218/rec/4, at p. 27.

18
individuals who were disqualified from voting because of a felony conviction have had their civil rights restored.20
The “Findings and declaration” section of Proposition 20021 states that the initiative was placed on the ballot in 2004 as part of the ongoing debate in Arizona regarding the issue of persons residing in the State “who do not have a lawful right to be in this country.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2497 (2012).22 The ballot pamphlet prepared by the Secretary of State included arguments submitted by various individuals and organizations in support of and in opposition to the initiative.23
20 Arizona Secretary of State, Voter Registration and Education, http://www.azsos.gov/election/VoterRegistration.htm #How (last visited Jan. 11, 2013) (includes link to Arizona State registration form).
21 Arizona Secretary of State, 2004 Ballot Propositions— Proposition 200, available at http://www.azsos.gov/election/ 2004/info/PubPamphlet/english/prop200.htm.
22 That case dealt with a statute enacted by the Arizona Legislature in 2010 which sought to directly regulate immigration policy. The Court held that the law was preempted, in significant part, by Federal immigration law. 132 S. Ct. at 2510. The 2010 law did not deal with any issue relating to the regulation of elections for Federal office in Arizona.
23 Proposition 200, supra note 20.

19
B. Arizona’s Request That the EAC Incorporate the State’s “Evidence of Citizenship” Procedure into the Federal Form
On December 12, 2005, over a year after Proposition 200 was passed and in response to an inquiry from the EAC, the Arizona Secretary of State sent an e-mail to the EAC asking the agency to alter the Federal Form, insofar as it is used in Arizona, to incorporate the State’s new procedure. App. 181. On March 6, 2006, the EAC responded, in a multi-page letter written by its Executive Director, denying the Secretary’s request and explaining the basis for the denial. App. 181-87. The EAC stated its conclusion as follows: “While Arizona may apply Proposition 200 requirements to the use of its state registration form in Federal elections (if the form meets the minimum requirements of the NVRA), the state may not apply the scheme to registrants using the Federal Registration Form.” App. 187. The Arizona Secretary of State then wrote two letters to the EAC asking that this decision be reconsidered, App. 18889 & 216-20, but the EAC declined. App. 225.
Despite the EAC’s determination, Arizona employed the Proposition 200 verification procedure for individuals completing a Federal Form both before and after its request to the EAC. Arizona did not challenge, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, the EAC’s determination not to alter the Federal Form.

20
III. Other States’ Voter Registration Procedures For Verifying U.S. Citizenship
In addition to Arizona, three States recently have adopted “evidence of citizenship” procedures for registering to vote which go beyond the attestation procedure set forth by Congress for the Federal Form – Alabama (2011), Georgia (2009), and Kansas (2011). Brief of Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, at 20.24 Arizona, however, is the only State which conducted the 2012 general election using the supplemental procedure.25
24 This amicus brief incorrectly advises that Tennessee also recently adopted such a provision. The Tennessee procedure does not govern the information that registration applicants must provide, and instead requires that the state coordinator of elections review the State registration list to identify individuals who are registered to vote and who potentially may not be U.S. citizens. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2141.
25 Neither Alabama nor Georgia has implemented its “evidence of citizenship” procedure. See State of Alabama Mailin Voter Registration Form, available at http://www.sos.state. al.us/downloads/election/vr/nvra-2.pdf (does not mention the statutory “evidence of citizenship” procedure) (last visited Jan. 11, 2013); State of Georgia Application for Voter Registration, available at http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/ GA%20VOTER%20REGISTRATION%20%20APP%28Fill_2007 %29.pdf (likewise makes no mention of the applicant satisfying the statutory “evidence of citizenship” procedure) (last visited Jan. 11, 2013). (The Georgia procedure was administratively precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, but the Alabama provision apparently has not. Br. of Ala. et al. at 20, n.10.) The Kansas provision did not become effective until January 1, 2013. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(u).

21
Accordingly, the vast majority of the States to which the NVRA applies, and the District of Columbia, rely on the attestation procedure Congress set forth in the NVRA and HAVA for individuals to verify their U.S. citizenship (and their compliance with other voting eligibility requirements).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2006, two groups of plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging, inter alia, Arizona’s refusal to “accept and use” the Federal Form, in violation of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a). ITCA, et al. v. Brewer, no. 2:06-cv-1362, Complaint at ¶¶ 81-83 (May 24, 2006) (Docket 1); Gonzalez, et al. v. Arizona, et al., no. 2:06cv-1268, Complaint at ¶¶ 101-03 (May 9, 2006) (Docket 1). The cases were immediately consolidated by the district court.
The ITCA group includes: American Indian citizens represented by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (a nonprofit corporation which advocates on behalf of its 20-member Indian Tribes) and the Hopi Tribe; three nonpartisan advocacy groups which seek to increase citizen participation in Arizona’s electoral process (the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona (“LULAC”), and the Arizona Advocacy Network, which is a coalition of nonprofit public interest organizations); and an individual member of the Arizona Legislature. ITCA, et al. v. Brewer, no. 2:06-cv-1362, Complaint at ¶¶ 1-

22
7.26 The ITCA Complaint alleges that imposing the new “evidence of citizenship” procedure on persons using the Federal Form injures individual members of ITCA’s constituent Tribes, the Hopi Tribe, and LULAC because of the difficulties many members face in obtaining the requisite evidence, and also injures the Hopi Tribe and the plaintiff organizations because it causes them to expend additional resources to carry out their voter registration programs. Id. at ¶¶ 27-32. The Gonzalez plaintiffs include several individuals and advocacy organizations (the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle Del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., and the Arizona Community Forum), who similarly allege that the supplemental procedure injures individuals and voter registration programs. Gonzalez, et al. v. Arizona, et al., no. 2:06-cv-1268, Complaint at ¶¶ 5-14, 68-70.27
Defendants include the State of Arizona and the Arizona Secretary of State, sued in his official capacity (hereinafter, “Arizona”). Defendants also include Arizona County Recorders and Elections Directors for 13 of Arizona’s 15 counties, also sued in their official capacities (hereinafter, “Arizona Counties” or “Counties”).
Arizona and the Counties take the instant appeal from an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit
26 One nonprofit organization that originally was named was voluntarily dismissed from the case.
27 Two of the original individual plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed, and another organizational plaintiff, Project Vote, was added after suit was filed.

23
in which that court held, by a vote of eight to two, “that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s conflicting registration requirement for federal elections,” as applied to the Federal Form. Pet. App. 59c.28 The preceding Ninth Circuit panel also reached the same conclusion, Pet. App. 78a, in a decision authored by Circuit Judge Ikuta and joined by Justice O’Connor, sitting by designation. Pet. App. 5a.29
The en banc court, in an opinion by Judge Ikuta, undertook a three-step analysis of whether the NVRA supersedes the Arizona procedure, as applied to the Federal Form. The Ninth Circuit “first consider[ed] whether the framework of the Elections Clause or the Supremacy Clause [Art. VI, cl. 2] properly governed [the] question [presented].” Pet. App. 11c. The court undertook a detailed analysis of both clauses, Pet. App. 11c-17c, and concluded that the Elections Clause provided the proper basis for analysis. Pet. App. 17c. The court explained that the “Elections Clause affects . . . an area in which the states have no inherent or reserved power: the regulation of federal elections,” Pet. App. 16c; States lack such power since “federal elections did not exist prior to the formation of the federal government.” Id. The Ninth Circuit contrasted the Elections Clause
28 The en banc court affirmed the district court’s ruling that another provision of Proposition 200, concerning voter identification at the polls, is lawful. Pet. App. 59c. Plaintiffs did not petition this Court for a review of that ruling.
29 Chief Judge Kozinski dissented from the panel decision. Pet. App. 79a. However, as discussed below, Judge Kozinski then joined in the en banc holding. Pet. App. 89c.

24
with the very different Supremacy Clause. Whereas the Elections Clause functions in the Federal sovereign’s own particular realm, the Supremacy Clause functions in “our system of dual sovereignty,” id., to mediate the relationship between the Federal government and the States. Thus, “special guidelines” apply to addressing issues in that context, id., but those guidelines do not apply to Elections Clause questions. Pet. App. 16c.
Second, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the “approach for determining whether federal enactments under the Elections Clause displace a state’s procedures for conducting federal elections.” Pet. App. 19c-20c. After reviewing this Court’s decisions – particularly, Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879), and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) – the Court identified the following governing principles: Federal and State laws should be understood to “comprise a single system of federal election procedures”; whether Federal law supersedes a particular State law should be “based on a natural reading of the two laws”; and Federal law supersedes in those instances where “the two statutes do not operate harmoniously in a single procedural scheme.” Pet. App. 20c.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit applied this Elections Clause analysis to the NVRA and the Arizona procedure, and concluded that these provisions not only “do not operate harmoniously,” they “are seriously out of tune with each other.” Pet. App. 30c. In particular, the court held that, “under a natural reading of the NVRA,” Pet. App. 31c, there was a “direct conflict” between the NVRA’s mandate

25
that Arizona election officials “accept and use” the Federal Form, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1), and “Arizona’s rejection of every Federal Form submitted without proof of citizenship.” Id. Furthermore, “Arizona’s insistence on engrafting an additional requirement on the Federal Form, even in the face of the EAC’s rejection of its proposal, accentuates the conflict between the state and federal procedures.” Pet. App. 34c. More broadly speaking, the court concluded that “Proposition 200’s registration provision is discordant with the NVRA’s goal of streamlining the registration process,” Pet. App. 36c, because it “makes the Federal Form much more difficult to use. . . . [M]uch of the value of the Federal Form in removing obstacles to the voter registration process is lost under Proposition 200’s registration provision.” Pet. App. 36c-37c.30
30 The en banc court rejected the argument, relied upon heavily by the two dissenters, that Arizona may incorporate its supplemental procedure into the Federal Form because the NVRA allows States to implement their own mail-in form for Federal elections, and because the NVRA purportedly allows States to implement a supplemental verification procedure as part of such a form. The majority disagreed, citing the fact that the NVRA specifically provides that use of any State form must be “in addition to” the Federal Form, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2), Pet. App. 33c-34c, and that the NVRA “entrusted . . . to the EAC,” not the States, the decision as to what provisions may be incorporated into the Federal Form. Pet. App. 35c-36c. The court also noted that it was not deciding whether the NVRA allows Arizona to incorporate its procedure into its State mail-in form for Federal elections, Pet. App. 35c, since neither group of plaintiffs “challenge[d] Proposition 200’s registration provision as applied to Arizona’s State Form.” Pet. App. 29c n.24.

26
The Ninth Circuit recognized the validity of “Arizona’s concern about fraudulent voter registration.” Pet. App. 41c. As a factual matter, however, “Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the [NVRA] and provided for numerous fraud protections in the [Act].” Id. The Ninth Circuit listed many of these protections, including the requirement that registration applications for Federal elections be signed under penalty of perjury. Id. n.28. As a legal matter, moreover, “the Elections Clause gives Congress the last word on how [the voter fraud] concern will be addressed” regarding elections for Federal office. Pet. App. 41c.
Chief Judge Kozinski filed a concurring opinion. He agreed that the result turned on the meaning of the NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement as to the Federal Form. Pet. App. 89c. Unlike the other Ninth Circuit judges in the majority, however, he believed that this language, “as a linguistic matter,” could be read either way, as precluding or not precluding Arizona from applying its supplemental procedure to the Federal Form. Id. He therefore proceeded to examine the NVRA’s legislative history, and concluded that this history plainly demonstrates that Arizona was violating the “accept and use” requirement because “both chambers [of Congress had] affirmatively rejected efforts to authorize precisely what Arizona is seeking

27
to do.” Pet. App. 94c. Accordingly, Judge Kozinski joined in the en banc ruling. Pet. App. 95c.31
Judge Rawlinson, joined by Judge N.R. Smith, dissented from the NVRA ruling. Pet. App. 100c.32 They concluded that Arizona is allowed to apply Proposition 200 to the Federal Form under the NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement, Pet. App. 105c-106c, and under the NVRA provision specifying that States may implement their own mail-in registration form for Federal elections “in addition to” the Federal Form. Pet. App. 102c-103c.
Arizona and the Arizona Counties sought a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which was denied by the en banc court and then by this Court. 133 S. Ct. 55 (2012). Arizona and the Counties petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
31 Judge Kozinski explained that his en banc concurrence was consistent with his prior dissent as a member of the earlier three-judge panel because the two courts were called upon to decide different legal issues. The en banc court was required “to construe the [NVRA] de novo.” Pet. App. 94c. On the other hand, the panel was “bound by the law of the circuit and the law of the case,” Pet. App. 94c-95c, because an earlier Ninth Circuit panel had held (at the preliminary injunction stage of these cases) that the NVRA did not supersede Proposition 200 as to the Federal Form. Accordingly, in his panel dissent, Judge Kozinski simply “deferred to the earlier panel’s construction.” Pet. App. 95c. That, of course, was no longer a consideration once the cases were heard en banc. In their merits briefs, Arizona and the Counties repeatedly cite to Judge Kozinski’s panel dissent rather than to his en banc concurrence.
32 They concurred in the majority’s decision upholding Proposition 200’s voter identification requirement at the polls. Pet. App. 100c.

28
133 S. Ct. 476 (2012). While the petition was pending, the district court, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit mandate, entered an injunction on August 15, 2012 barring Arizona from applying the supplemental verification procedure to registration applicants using the Federal Form. App. 381-84.33
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Congress has plenary authority under the Elections Clause to make or alter the procedures for conducting elections for Federal office, including the procedures for voter registration. The Constitution grants this authority to Congress in order to advance the unique interest of the Federal government in regulating the manner by which its officials are selected.
The Arizona “evidence of citizenship” procedure conflicts with the NVRA insofar as Arizona conditions its acceptance of completed Federal Forms upon compliance with that procedure. The NVRA requires the State to “accept and use” the Federal Form as prescribed by the EAC, and the Arizona procedure is not incorporated into the Federal Form. Nonetheless, Arizona law requires that election
33 As detailed by Arizona and the Arizona Counties in their briefs, the procedural history of these consolidated cases also includes rulings by the district court and several earlier rulings by the Ninth Circuit, as well as a decision by this Court. State Br. at 21-22; County Br. at 25-27. In Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), this Court vacated a preliminary injunction entered by a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit shortly before the 2006 general election. The Court in Purcell did not address the Elections Clause and NVRA issues presented here.

29
officials “reject” Federal Forms not accompanied by the State-defined “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship, thus rendering inoperable in Arizona the Federal Form prescribed by the EAC. This usurps the EAC’s authority and conflicts with a natural reading of the NVRA’s “accept and use” mandate, and thus is void under the Elections Clause.
This conflict in the respective statutory provisions is sufficient to resolve the instant dispute. However, an examination of Congress’ object in enacting the NVRA further confirms the existence of the conflict. Arizona’s claim to a supervening State authority over the Federal Form directly contravenes Congress’ purpose to create a single, national, and uniform voter registration form for Federal elections. Moreover, Congress specifically considered and rejected a provision that would have allowed States to do precisely what Arizona has proposed, i.e., Congress rejected an amendment to the NVRA that would have permitted States to incorporate an “evidence of citizenship” procedure into the Federal Form that goes beyond the attestation procedure.
The NVRA’s supersession of the Arizona procedure presents no constitutional concern. Under the Elections Clause, Congress indisputably has the authority to regulate voter registration for Federal elections, and the Arizona provision at issue here is, by its terms, a voter registration procedure. While the Constitution grants States the authority generally to prescribe voter qualifications for Federal elections, neither the NVRA nor the Arizona procedure alters Arizona’s voting qualifications. Preemption of the Arizona procedure likewise would

30
not alter that State’s voting qualifications or prevent their enforcement. In short, NVRA preemption in these cases involves an unremarkable application of Congress’ Elections Clause authority.
ARGUMENT
I. The Elections Clause, Not The Supremacy Clause, Governs Whether The Arizona Supplemental Verification Procedure Is Superseded By The NVRA
The Elections Clause provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1. Accordingly, under the Elections Clause, State law controls in the absence of Congressional regulation of the “Times, Places, and Manner” of Federal elections. But when Congress acts in this arena, “[t]he regulations made by Congress are paramount to those made by the State legislature; and if they conflict therewith, the latter, so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384. Accord, Foster v. Love, 552 U.S. at 69; U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832-833 (1995); Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366-67 (1932).
As this Court explained in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Elections Clause was a central component of the Framers’ conception of a “revolutionary . . . [new] Government,” 514 U.S. at 803: “the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a

31
collection of States, and instead creat[ed] a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States.” Id. The Framers concluded that one defect of the Articles of Confederation was that the States had full authority to refuse to conduct Federal elections, and thus could frustrate the operation of the national government. Id. at 808-09. To guard against potential abuse, the Framers gave Congress paramount authority to prescribe national election procedures. Id. at 809, citing The Federalist No. 59, at 363 (Alexander Hamilton).
The Court in U.S. Term Limits held that “[t]he Tenth Amendment,” with its reservation of powers to the States, “provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add [Federal election provisions] to those that are fixed in the Constitution,” because “electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself.” Id. at 805. As Justice Kennedy similarly observed in his concurring opinion in that case, the election of Federal officials is a “sovereign federal province,” id. at 841, and “[n]othing in the Constitution . . . supports the idea of state interference with the most basic relation between the National Government and its citizens, the selection of legislative representatives.” Id. at 842.
Thus, in its most recent Elections Clause decision, Foster v. Love, supra, the Court summarily rejected the claim that state sovereignty is a factor in an Elections Clause analysis when Congress acts within the “ample limits of the Elections Clause's

32
grant of authority.” 522 U.S. at 71. Foster held that Congress’ fixing of a date for Federal elections in 2 U.S.C. § 7 superseded a Louisiana “open primary” law that allowed Senators and Representatives to be elected on a different date. Simply put, the State law “conflict[ed] with federal law and to that extent [was] void.” 522 U.S. at 74. The Court’s holding that the State law had to give way to the Federal law turned entirely on a comparison of the two measures. Id. at 71. Louisiana’s “invocations of state sovereignty” in support of its election date law presented “no colorable argument” under the Elections Clause. Id.34
This is a different analysis than under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause embodies the Framers’ vision of “a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government” regarding the exercise of governmental police powers. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). Under that system, “[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers,” id., where, as specified by the Tenth Amendment, the national government’s powers are those “‘delegated to [it] by the Constitution,’” and authority otherwise is “‘reserved to the States . . . or to the people.’” Id. (quoting the Tenth Amendment). In light of this constitutional design, respect for state sovereignty and a reluctance to intrude upon the exercise of a
34 The Court’s conclusion in Foster that the State law conflicted with the Federal law did “not depend on discerning the intent behind the federal statute,” although the conclusion that the State and Federal statutes conflicted was “buttressed by an appreciation of Congress's object.” Foster, 522 U.S. at 74.

33
State’s police powers long have animated the Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence. See Rice v. Santa Fe Elec. Corp. 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
As the Ninth Circuit observed, Pet. App. 16c17c, this Court has never relied upon Supremacy Clause principles in its Elections Clause decisions. That is as it should be. This Court has recognized, for example, a presumption against preemption under the Supremacy Clause in light of the sovereignty concerns that arise under that Clause. E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). But “invocations of state sovereignty” have no place under the Elections Clause. Foster, 522 U.S. at 71. The only question under the Elections Clause, as Foster shows, is whether the State and Federal statutes, naturally construed, conflict with one another.35 Arizona is thus wrong to ask the Court to import the more elaborate Supremacy Clause preemption analysis into the straightforward conflict analysis that the Elections Clause demands.36 The
35 This also is how the Ninth Circuit analyzed the preemption question, Pet. App. 20c, in concluding that the Arizona law conflicts with the NVRA. Pet. App. 31c, 34c, 59c.
36 Nonetheless, Arizona claims that the Court “applied Supremacy Clause preemption principles in Foster.” State Br. at 32. The State claims to detect the Supremacy Clause at work in Foster based upon the Court’s statement that “[t]he Fifth Circuit's conception of the issue here . . . [was] exactly right,” 522 U.S. at 71, and the fact that the Fifth Circuit discussed the Supremacy Clause in its Foster opinion, 90 F.3d 1026, 1031 (1996). State Br. at 32-33. However, what the Court said the Fifth Circuit got “exactly right” was not its Supremacy Clause analysis, but only that “the issue here [was] a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal

34
Court should reject Arizona’s attempt to conflate these distinct provisions of the Constitution.37
II. Arizona’s Supplemental “Evidence Of Citizenship” Procedure, As Applied To The Federal Form, Conflicts With The NVRA, And Therefore Is Superseded Under The Elections Clause
A. Arizona Does Not “Accept and Use” the Federal Form Within the Meaning of the NVRA
The NVRA gives the EAC responsibility and authority to “develop” a uniform Federal Form for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2). The EAC must “consult[]” with the States in developing the Federal Form, id., but final authority to determine the contents of the application, including the Form’s instructions, belongs to the EAC alone. As defined by the EAC,
statutes,” 522 U.S. at 71; the Court did not refer to the Fifth Circuit’s mode of analysis at all. Arizona also argues that the Foster Court did not mention the Supremacy Clause’s “presumption against preemption or the plain statement rule” because the Court “did not need to.” State Br. at 33 n.6. Be that as it may, it is plainly the case that this Court would have included at least a general discussion of Supremacy Clause principles in Foster if the Supremacy Clause had been the basis
for, or otherwise bore upon, its decision.
37 In any event, Arizona concedes that if there is a conflict between the NVRA and the Arizona procedure, the State procedure is preempted regardless of whether the Elections Clause is read in light of this Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence. State Br. at 31-34.

35
the Federal Form “consist[s]” of the portion that registrants fill out, and also “general instructions” and “state-specific” instructions. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(a). The NVRA commands that “[e]ach State shall accept and use the mail voter registration application prescribed by the [EAC] . . . for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1).
As provided by the NVRA and HAVA, the Federal Form “prescribed” by the EAC, for use by Arizona and the other covered States in conducting Federal elections, requires that registration applicants attest to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury. The Form does not require that applicants provide any additional evidence of citizenship, and does not reference the Arizona supplemental procedure in any manner.
Arizona claims that rejecting every fullycompleted Federal Form that does not provide “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship,” as defined by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F), is consistent with the NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement. The en banc Ninth Circuit disagreed, concluding that “under a natural reading of the NVRA, Arizona’s rejection of every Federal Form submitted without proof of citizenship does not constitute ‘accepting and using’ the Federal Form.” Pet. App. 31c. That reading is compelled by the statutory text, its context and structure, and the foundational legislative purpose and intent.

36

1. The NVRA, by its terms,

precludes Arizona from

implementing

its

supplemental

verification

procedure for Federal Form

applicants.

The straightforward provisions of the NVRA demonstrate the conflict between the registration procedure mandated by Congress and Arizona’s supplemental verification procedure. It is a “fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.” Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132 (1993). Accordingly, this Court should look to what Congress meant when it commanded the States to “accept and use” a specified voter registration form for Federal elections. What the words “accept and use” might mean in the abstract is not what is at issue in these cases.

The natural way for election officials to “accept and use [a specified form] for . . . registration,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1), which has been fully and correctly filled out according to the instructions that accompany the form, is to register the applicant without requiring anything more from that individual. That is what Congress commanded the States to do with the Federal Form “develop[ed]” by the EAC.

In administrative practice, it is standard for a form with its instructions to constitute a complete package, with nothing else required. Cf. Sims v.

37
Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 111–12 (2000) (finding no exhaustion requirement where form provided to Social Security claimants required only the identification of a grievance). This practice also is commonplace in judicial procedure. For example, the instructions to a jury must correctly and fully tell the jury how to fill out the verdict form. See, e.g., Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 384 (1988) (vacating and remanding judgment imposing death penalty on grounds there was “a substantial probability that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge's instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance.”). Similarly, if the Court were to direct its clerk to “accept and use” a particular form, with prescribed instructions, for parties seeking membership in the Court’s bar, the Court would be justifiably frustrated if the Clerk then rejected applicants based on additional criteria not included in the form or disclosed in the instructions that the Court had prescribed.38
38 This is all quite different from the analog suggested by Judge Rawlinson below and those included in Arizona’s brief. Judge Rawlinson, for example, notes that “merchants may accept and use credit cards, but a customer’s production of a credit card in and of itself may not be sufficient. The customer must sign and may have to provide photo identification to verify that the customer is eligible to use the credit card.” Pet. App. 105c. Those examples, however, avoid the issue here, which is the sufficiency of a stand-alone form.

38
Congress decided to delegate to the EAC – and not to the individual States – the ultimate authority to “develop” the Form, and thus decide what information was “necessary” to assess eligibility in using the Federal Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2) & (b)(1). Congress could have elected to give the States the power to dictate their own State-specific instructions for use of the Federal Form. In that regard, the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2), authorizes States to use their own mail-in forms for Federal elections but only “[i]n addition to” the Federal Form. Accordingly, it would render Section 4(a)(1) superfluous to construe it as doing no more than allowing States to implement a derivative mailin registration form to the exclusion of the Federal Form prescribed by the EAC.
2. Other provisions of the NVRA confirm the conflict between the statute and Arizona’s supplemental procedure.
The NVRA as a whole reinforces the conflict. As Arizona acknowledges, this Court construes a “particular clause” of a statute, not on its own, but by “tak[ing] in connection with it the whole statute.” State Br. at 40 (quoting Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, 573 (1989)).
The NVRA contemplates that the Federal Form – which Arizona has never challenged – is sufficient to allow election officials to assess eligibility. As the text of the statute indicates, the EAC is to include “such identifying information . . .

39
and other information . . . necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant,” 42 U.S.C. §1973gg7(b)(1); and the EAC shall “specif[y] each eligibility requirement (including citizenship),” and include “an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement.” 42 U.S.C. §1973gg-7(b)(2).
The statute also requires each State, “[i]n the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office,” to “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . in the case of registration by mail under section 1973gg-4 of this title, if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is [timely] postmarked.” 42 U.S.C. 1973gg6(a)(1)(B). The statute provides that the Federal Form is “valid” and the Form includes the procedures mandated by Congress for applicants to verify that they are “eligible,” and so States generally must “ensure” that persons properly and fully completing the Federal Form are registered.39
39 None of this suggests that a State would be forced to register a person even if it had “absolute documented proof,” extrinsic to the Federal Form, that an applicant was not a citizen (or was otherwise eligible). Contra State Br. at 2-3. The NVRA addresses what may be demanded from an applicant in order to decide if the applicant is eligible. If the State has “absolute” extrinsic evidence that shows that an applicant is not eligible, nothing in the statute bars the State from using it.

40
3. The conflict between the NVRA and the Arizona procedure is further shown by Congress’ purpose in enacting the NVRA and by the statute’s legislative history.
Because the text of the NVRA reveals that the Arizona procedure conflicts, the Court need not “discern[] the intent behind the federal statute.” Foster, 522 U.S. at 73. However, the conclusion that that the NVRA and Arizona law conflict “is buttressed by an appreciation of Congress’s object.” Id.
In order to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1), Congress concluded that an integral component of by-mail registration is the development and use of a uniform, national registration form. Arizona’s construction of the phrase “accept and use” frustrates that congressional purpose. As Chief Judge Kozinski explained, Arizona’s “construction defers to state and local interests while sacrificing national uniformity.” Pet. App. 89c. It thus would reinstate the status quo that Congress sought to replace: a disharmonious array of State registration forms and procedural requirements with no national and uniform alternative method of voter registration for elections for Federal office.
Moreover, Congress was fully cognizant of the fact that citizenship is a universal qualification for voting, provided specific citizenship verification

41
procedures for the Federal Form in the NVRA and HAVA, and affirmatively rejected a proposal to allow for the type of “evidence of citizenship” procedure enacted by Arizona. See John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 510 U.S. 86, 101 (1993) (this Court is “directed by th[e] words” Congress enacted, “not by the discarded draft.”).
As described by Chief Judge Kozinski, the Senate version of the legislation that became the NVRA included a provision specifically allowing States to implement a citizenship verification procedure beyond attestation of voting eligibility, while the House version did not. H.R. Rep. No. 10366, at 23-24 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 148-49. Specifically, the Senate would have provided that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to preclude a State from requiring presentation of documentary evidence of the citizenship of an applicant for voter registration.” Id. at 23, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 148. The Conference Committee rejected the Senate provision, explaining that not only was it “not necessary,” it was “not . . . consistent with the purposes of this Act.” Id. The Conference Committee was “concern[ed]” that the Senate’s provision “could be interpreted by States to permit registration requirements that could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the mail registration program of the Act,” and worried that it would “adversely affect the administration of the other registration programs as well.” Id. The House and Senate then adopted the Conference Committee’s version of the legislation. 139 Cong. Rec. H2276 (daily ed. May 5, 1993); 139 Cong. Rec. S5747-48 (daily ed. May 11, 1993).

42
Arizona and the Counties, as well as those filing amicus briefs on their behalf, contend that Proposition 200 is not superseded by the NVRA because one of Congress’ purposes was “to protect the integrity of the electoral process.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(3), which also is the given rationale for Proposition 200. However, Arizona’s unilateral implementation of its “evidence of citizenship” procedure is not consistent with Congress’ object since it directly undermines Congress’ desire to establish a national, uniform, simple, and easy-to-use by-mail system for registering for Federal elections. Furthermore, Congress did enact specific procedures in both the NVRA and HAVA, “to protect the integrity of the electoral process” – including specifying procedures for verification of voting eligibility, and providing substantial criminal penalties for making false or fraudulent statements in connection with voter registration (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10) – and, as just discussed, Congress explicitly rejected the type of supplemental verification procedure adopted by Arizona.
Finally, Arizona’s and the Counties’ reliance on Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), is misplaced. To be sure, the Court there said that States, including Arizona, have a “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of [their] election process.” Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court’s decision, however, was a limited one. The question presented was only whether a twojudge motions panel of the Ninth Circuit, earlier in the instant cases, properly entered an interlocutory injunction (on appeal from the district court’s denial of motions for a preliminary injunction). This Court

43
evaluated the propriety of preliminary relief in terms of the district court’s analysis, and cautioned that it “express[ed] no opinion . . . on the ultimate resolution of these cases.” Id. at 5. In particular, the Court did not discuss, or indeed make any reference to, the NVRA or the Elections Clause. Accordingly, the Court’s decision in Purcell does not speak to the preemption issue now before the Court.40
B. Arizona’s Criticisms of the EAC’s Decisionmaking Are Misplaced
Arizona attempts to impugn the decision of EAC to deny Arizona’s request to incorporate the Proposition 200 procedure into the Federal Form. These criticisms do not defeat the textual conflict between the NVRA and the Arizona procedure.
First, Arizona contends that the EAC has “extremely limited powers.” State Br. at 44. This is beside the point, however, since it is undisputed that Congress specifically delegated to the EAC, and not to the States, the authority to “develop” the Federal Form.
40 The Counties also cite to this Court’s decision in Crawford v. Marion County, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), in support of their argument that the Arizona procedure is consistent with Congress’ policy goals in enacting the NVRA. County Br. at 3133. However, Crawford also neither addressed Congress’ authority under the Elections Clause nor the validity of the NVRA, and instead dealt with the entirely distinct legal issue of whether a State election procedure (concerning voter identification at the polls, and not voter registration) imposed a facially unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

44
Second, Arizona faults the internal procedures followed by the EAC in denying its request to incorporate the Proposition 200 procedure into the Federal Form. Id. at 45-46. But this fails to address the textual conflict since the NVRA allows Arizona to apply its procedure to the Federal Form only with the EAC’s approval, and there is no dispute that the EAC has not granted the requisite approval. Furthermore, as detailed above, the EAC regulations – whose adoption Arizona does not question – specifically limit State discretion to vary the procedural requirements for registration applicants to successfully complete the Federal Form, and that discretion does not include any State authority to change the procedure by which applicants verify their eligibility to vote. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(a).41
Third, Arizona argues that this Court should not defer to the EAC’s conclusion that the Arizona procedure is incompatible with the NVRA. State Br. at 46. The issue here, however, is not the EAC’s conclusion per se or any deferral to it, but rather the NVRA’s allocation of control over the Federal Form to a Federal agency, and not to the States.
Finally, Arizona never has sought to challenge either the EAC’s initial rulemaking, which omitted citizenship verification procedures from the Federal Form procedures States may alter, or the EAC’s specific denial of Arizona’s request concerning the
41 Neither Arizona nor the Counties include any citation in their briefs to the principal EAC regulation governing the requirements for completing the Federal Form, 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4 (entitled “Contents” of the Federal Form).

45
Proposition 200 procedure. This case is not a proper forum for Arizona to indirectly challenge the EAC’s decisions regarding the Federal Form, particularly since the EAC is not a party and Arizona has not given any reason why it could not have raised any such challenge directly in a lawsuit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (in response to U.S. Attorney General’s interpretive rule under federal Controlled Substances Act, which would have negated the newly-enacted Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Oregon sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act on grounds that the interpretive rule exceeded delegated authority and infringed upon state sovereignty). Rather than pursue the avenue of relief available to it, Arizona resorted to an inappropriate self-help remedy: it simply forged ahead and used the version of the Federal Form that it had lobbied for but that the EAC had rejected. Because Arizona failed to utilize the channels of the Administrative Procedure Act to make its case against the EAC’s decision, it should not be heard now to argue that the agency’s decision was wrong.

46
C. The NVRA Provisions Addressing the Role of the States in Conducting Voter Registration for Federal Elections Do Not Authorize States to Add a Citizenship Verification Procedure to the Federal Form
As noted by Arizona, the NVRA confers certain voter registration powers for Federal elections on the States, but those powers do not include the right to override the EAC determination regarding what is necessary for a registration applicant to complete the Federal Form.
Arizona points to a provision of the NVRA which says that the Federal Form “develop[ed]” by the EAC shall include “information as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). State Br. at 35, 38. Arizona further notes that, as provided by the NVRA, the EAC has acted “in consultation with . . . the States,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2), by including State-specific instructions with the Federal Form. State Br. at 35-37; see also County Br. at 33.
These provisions unquestionably show that the NVRA mandates that the EAC address State-specific qualifications by requiring applicants to provide the information “necessary” to assess compliance, but they provide no textual authorization for Arizona to supplement the EAC-prescribed Federal Form by

47
insisting upon its own verification procedure. Moreover, in requiring that “necessary” information be included in the Federal Form, the NVRA and HAVA go on to identify specific procedures for verifying applicants’ citizenship, which do not include the Proposition 200 procedure. Likewise, with regard to the Federal Form’s State-specific instructions, the EAC regulations specifically limit those instructions to issues other than verification of voting eligibility. 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4
Additionally, Arizona and the Counties cite to the NVRA provision that allows States to implement their own mail-in registration form for Federal elections “[i]n addition to accepting and using” the Federal Form, so long as the State form “meets all the criteria stated in 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)]” regarding the contents of the Federal Form. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(2). State Br. at 39; County Br. at 35. Arizona contends that this provision means that it may incorporate its “evidence of citizenship” procedure into its State mail-in registration form for Federal elections, and that this, in turn, should logically mean that Arizona may incorporate that procedure into the Federal Form as well. State Br. at 39.
This argument ignores the plain language of the NVRA, which specifies that States only may implement a State form “in addition to” the Federal Form, and not “instead of” that Form. Furthermore, the State form provisions cannot determine what may be incorporated into the Federal Form, since the NVRA specifically provides that States are limited to

48
a “consultation” role in the development of the Federal Form.42
III. The Elections Clause Gives Congress Power Over “Registration” Of Federal Voters, So The NVRA’s Supersession Of The Arizona Procedure Presents No Constitutional Concern
The NVRA properly regulates the “Manner” in which Federal elections are conducted, as this Court has construed that term. Accordingly, the NVRA’s supersession of Arizona’s supplemental verification procedure for Federal Form applicants does not present any constitutional concern.
The Court long has recognized that the “ample limits of the Elections Clause's grant of authority to Congress,” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. at 71, include the authority to establish voter registration procedures for Federal elections. As explained in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. at 366, “[i]t cannot be
42 Both Arizona and the Counties cite to this Court’s decision in Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997). State Br. at 38-39; County Br. at 34-35. But that decision is inapposite. It dealt with the application of the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, to measures adopted by the State of Mississippi to implement the NVRA. The Court did not address Congress’ authority under the Elections Clause, the EAC’s authority to “develop” the Federal Form, or States’ obligation to “accept and use” the Form. Also, as the Ninth Circuit noted, Pet. App. 29c n.24, the instant cases do not present the question whether Arizona may implement its “evidence of citizenship” procedure for persons who apply to register for Federal elections using the State of Arizona’s mail-in registration form.

49
doubted that [the Election Clause’s] comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections.” Smiley set forth a nonexhaustive list of the “Manner” regulations which Congress may prescribe, including, notably, voter registration:
notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, . . . the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.
Id. (emphasis added).
In Siebold, the Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality under the Elections Clause of a Federal law that included comprehensive provisions relating to voter registration. That law provided for appointment of Federal officials to oversee (in person) the voter registration process for Federal elections, authorizing such officials to review the registration rolls prepared by local officials, and to directly undertake voter registration for such elections. Siebold, 100 U.S. at 379-80 (“‘The [officials] are authorized and required to attend all times and places fixed for registration of voters to challenge such as they deem proper; to cause such names to be registered as they may think proper to be so marked;

50
[and] to inspect and scrutinize such register of voters’”)(quoting Section 2016 Revised Statutes).
In light of these precedents, the lower courts uniformly have upheld the NVRA’s constitutionality under the Elections Clause. ACORN v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997); Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093 (1996); ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995); Condon v. Reno, 913 F. Supp. 946 (D. S.C. 1995).
Arizona does not dispute these fundamental propositions. It neither claims that Congress lacks the authority under the Elections Clause to regulate voter registration for Federal elections, nor that the NVRA is unconstitutional on its face. State Br. at 50. Nonetheless, it urges this Court – for the first time in this case – to avoid a supposed constitutional concern by narrowly construing the statute’s “accept and use” mandate.43
The State argues that the Elections Clause “does not authorize Congress here to evade the restraints of the Voter Qualifications Clauses.” State Br. at 50 (referring to the Constitution’s delegation of authority to the States to set voting qualifications for Federal elections, in Article I, section 2, clause 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment). The suggestion
43 Because Arizona has not previously raised any constitutional issue in these cases, it is precluded from now challenging the NVRA’s constitutionality directly. See Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343, 2351 (2011); United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 41 (1992).

51
apparently is that Arizona’s “sufficient evidence” provision is a “voter qualification” rather than a matter of registration procedure and hence does not collide with Congress’ authority to regulate the manner of Federal elections. State Br. at 53 (referring to the State’s “evidence-of-citizenship qualification for voting in federal elections”).
But Proposition 200, by its terms, did not alter the qualifications for individuals to vote in elections in Arizona. The Arizona Constitution (art. VII, § 2) specifies the State’s voting qualifications, including U.S. citizenship, and Proposition 200 did not amend the State constitutional provisions. Instead, it amended the Arizona Elections and Electors Code to alter the manner in which the voter registration system operates with regard to applicants verifying their U.S. citizenship. Accordingly, it is a misnomer for Arizona to contend that NVRA supersession of Proposition 200 involves anything other than Congress regulating the “Manner of holding [Federal] Elections.” See Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. at 72 (Louisiana’s claim that its “open primary” law did not prescribe the times for conducting Federal elections “is merely wordplay, and wordplay just as much at odds with the Louisiana statute as that law is at odds with [the Federal statute].”).
The State likens the instant cases to U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). But there is no resemblance. U.S. Term Limits dealt with an Arkansas law that sought to prescribe the qualifications for membership in Congress, by imposing term limits, and did not concern the “Manner” in which Senators and Representatives are

52
elected. Id. at 783. The asserted conflict with the Constitution, accordingly, was not with the authority delegated by the Elections Clause, but rather with Article I, section 2, clause 2 and Article I, section 3, clause 3, which prescribe the qualifications for serving in Congress. Id. at 782-83.
Arizona also claims that the NVRA “intrudes” on its voting qualifications, although it does not explain how this purported “intrusion” is constitutionally significant. State Br. at 50. The State cites to dicta in the Seventh Circuit’s ACORN v. Edgar opinion (upholding the constitutionality of the NVRA) that, if Congress had “’designed [the NVRA] with devilish cunning to make it impossible for [a] state to enforce its voter qualifications,’” then perhaps a colorable claim might exist that Congress exceeded its authority under the Elections Clause. Id. citing 56 F.3d at 795.
But even if that were the law, the NVRA does not make it “impossible” for States to verify that registration applicants are U.S. citizens, and Arizona makes no such claim here. State Br. at 50. The detailed procedures included in the Federal Form to exclude non-citizens from registering to vote are essentially the same as those which Arizona relied upon for decades prior to Proposition 200 for verifying the citizenship of registration applicants. Arizona, moreover, continues to rely upon these procedures today for those persons whose voter registrations were “grandfathered-in” by Proposition

53
200 based on their compliance with the verification procedure in use prior to Proposition 200.44
At most, the NVRA may have the “[i]ndirect effect[]” of “mak[ing] it more difficult to enforce some of the qualifications” to vote, which ACORN expressly held posed no constitutional problem. 56 F.3d at 794. As Judge Posner explained in ACORN, “[s]uch effects are bound to follow from any effort to make or alter state regulations of the times, places, and manner of conducting elections, including the registration phase.” Id. at 794-95. Since such effects are necessarily permitted by the Elections Clause’s grant of authority to Congress, they are not a reason to discard a Congressional statute.
In sum, the NVRA falls within Congress’ Elections Clause authority to prescribe voter registration procedures for Federal elections. Thus, no constitutional concern is presented here that would warrant departing from a proper interpretation of the NVRA, as enacted by Congress.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
44 The record shows that, prior to the enactment of Proposition 200, election officials were able to identify individuals who falsely registered to vote as non-citizens and referred them for potential prosecution. App. 321-26.

54
Respectfully submitted,
LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
JON M. GREENBAUM Counsel of Record
ROBERT A. KENGLE MARK A. POSNER R. ERANDI ZAMORA 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 662-8315
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
PATRICIA A. MILLETT MICHAEL C. SMALL CHRISTOPHER M. EGLESON 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP DAVID J. BODNEY Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite
1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 (602) 257-5212

55
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. DAVID B. ROSENBAUM THOMAS L. HUDSON 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite
2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 (602) 640-9345
INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC.
JOE P. SPARKS THE SPARKS LAW FIRM, P.C. 7503 First Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 (480) 949-1339
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 230 Peachtree Street NW Suite 1440 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 523-2721
AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION DANIEL B. KOHRMAN 601 E Street, N.W., Suite A4-240 Washington D.C. 20049 (202) 434-2064

1a
ADDENDUM
NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT (selected provisions)
42 USC § 1973gg-4 Mail registration
(a) Form
(1) Each State shall accept and use the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Federal Election Commission pursuant to section 1973gg–7 (a)(2) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.
(2) In addition to accepting and using the form described in paragraph (1), a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in section 1973gg–7 (b) of this title for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.
(3) A form described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be accepted and used for notification of a registrant’s change of address.
(b) Availability of forms
The chief State election official of a State shall make the forms described in subsection (a) of this section available for distribution through governmental and private entities, with particular emphasis on making them available for organized voter registration programs.

2a
(c) First-time voters
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a State may by law require a person to vote in person if—
(A) the person was registered to vote in a jurisdiction by mail; and
(B) the person has not previously voted in that jurisdiction.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in the case of a person—
(A) who is entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act [42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.];
(B) who is provided the right to vote otherwise than in person under section 1973ee–1 (b)(2)(B)(ii) of this title; or
(C) who is entitled to vote otherwise than in person under any other Federal law.
(d) Undelivered notices
If a notice of the disposition of a mail voter registration application under section 1973gg–6 (a)(2) of this title is sent by nonforwardable mail and is returned undelivered, the registrar may proceed in accordance with section 1973gg–6 (d) of this title.
42 USC § 1973gg-7 Federal coordination and regulations
(a) In general
The Election Assistance Commission—

3a
(1) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3);
(2) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office;
(3) not later than June 30 of each odd-numbered year, shall submit to the Congress a report assessing the impact of this subchapter on the administration of elections for Federal office during the preceding 2year period and including recommendations for improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms, and other matters affected by this subchapter; and
(4) shall provide information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under this subchapter.
(b) Contents of mail voter registration form
The mail voter registration form developed under subsection (a)(2) of this section—
(1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;
(2) shall include a statement that—

4a
(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);
(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and
(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;
(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and
(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application—
(i) the information required in section 1973gg–6 (a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;
(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and
(iii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
_______
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (selected provision)
42 U.S.C. § 15483
. . . .
(b) Requirements for voters who register by mail

5a
. . . .
4) Contents of mail-in registration
(A) In general
The mail voter registration form developed under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) shall include the following:
(i) The question “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is or is not a citizen of the United States.
(ii) The question “Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?” and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether or not the applicant will be 18 years of age or older on election day.
(iii) The statement “If you checked ‘no’ in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form.”.
(iv) A statement informing the individual that if the form is submitted by mail and the individual is registering for the first time, the appropriate information required under this section must be submitted with the mail-in registration form in order to avoid the additional identification requirements upon voting for the first time.
(B) Incomplete forms
If an applicant for voter registration fails to answer the question included on the mail voter registration form pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), the registrar shall notify the applicant of the failure and provide

6a
the applicant with an opportunity to complete the form in a timely manner to allow for the completion of the registration form prior to the next election for Federal office (subject to State law).
. . . .
_______
EAC REGULATONS
11 CFR § 9428, Subpart B – National Voter Registration Form
§ 9428.3 General information.
(a) The national mail voter registration form shall consist of three components: An application, which shall contain appropriate fields for the applicant to provide all of the information required or requested under 11 CFR 9428.4; general instructions for completing the application; and accompanying statespecific instructions.
(b) The state-specific instructions shall contain the following information for each state, arranged by state: the address where the application should be mailed and information regarding the state’s specific voter eligibility and registration requirements.
(c) States shall accept, use, and make available the form described in this section.
§ 9428.4 Contents.
(a) Information about the applicant. The application shall provide appropriate fields for the applicant’s:

7a
(1) Last, first, and middle name, any suffix, and (optional) any prefix;
(2) Address where the applicant lives including: street number and street name, or rural route with a box number; apartment or unit number; city, town, or village name; state; and zip code; with instructions to draw a locational map if the applicant lives in a rural district or has a non-traditional residence, and directions not to use a post office box or rural route without a box number;
(3) Mailing address if different from the address where the applicant lives, such as a post office box, rural route without a box number, or other street address; city, town, or village name; state; and zip code;
(4) Month, day, and year of birth;
(5) Telephone number (optional); and
(6) Voter identification number as required or requested by the applicant’s state of residence for election administration purposes.
(i) The application shall direct the applicant to consult the accompanying state-specific instructions to determine what type of voter identification number, if any, is required or requested by the applicant’s state.
(ii) For each state that requires the applicant’s full social security number as its voter identification number, the state’s Privacy Act notice required at 11 CFR 9428.6(c) shall be reprinted with the instructions for that state.

8a
(7) Political party preference, for an applicant in a closed primary state.
(i) The application shall direct the applicant to consult the accompanying state-specific instructions to determine if the applicant’s state is a closed primary state.
(ii) The accompanying instructions shall state that if the applicant is registering in a state that requires the declaration of party affiliation, then failure to indicate a political party preference, indicating “none”, or selecting a party that is not recognized under state law may prevent the applicant from voting in partisan races in primary elections and participating in political party caucuses or conventions, but will not bar an applicant from voting in other elections.
(8) Race/ethnicity, if applicable for the applicant’s state of residence. The application shall direct the applicant to consult the state-specific instructions to determine whether race/ethnicity is required or requested by the applicant’s state.
(b) Additional information required by the Act. (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(b) (2) and (4)). The form shall also:
(1) Specify each eligibility requirement (including citizenship). The application shall list U.S. Citizenship as a universal eligibility requirement and include a statement that incorporates by reference each state’s specific additional eligibility requirements (including any special pledges) as set forth in the accompany state instructions;

9a
(2) Contain an attestation on the application that the applicant, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, meets each of his or her state’s specific eligibility requirements;
(3) Provide a field on the application for the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury, and the date of the applicant’s signature;
(4) Inform an applicant on the application of the penalties provided by law for submitting a false voter registration application;
(5) Provide a field on the application for the name, address, and (optional) telephone number of the person who assisted the applicant in completing the form if the applicant is unable to sign the application without assistance;
(6) State that if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and
(7) State that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
(c) Other information. The form will, if appropriate, require an applicant’s former address or former name or request a drawing of the area where the applicant lives in relation to local landmarks.

10a
§ 9428.5 Format.
(a) The application shall conform to the technical specifications described in the Commission’s National Mail Voter Registration Form Technical Specifications.
(b) Size. The application shall consist of a 5” by 8” application card of sufficient stock and weight to satisfy postal regulations. The application card shall be attached by a perforated fold to another 5” by 8” card that contains space for the information set forth at 11 CFR 9428.4(c).
(c) Layout. (1) The application shall be sealable.
(2) The outside of the application shall contain an appropriate number of address lines to be completed by the applicant using the state information provided.
(3) Both sides of the application card shall contain space designated “For Official Use Only.”
(d) Color. The application shall be of ink and paper colors of sufficient contrast to permit for optical scanning capabilities.
(e) Signature field. The application shall contain a signature field in lieu of a signature line.
(f) Type size. (1) All print on the form shall be of the largest practicable type size.
(2) The requirements on the form specified in 11 CFR 9428.4(b)(1), (6), and (7) shall be in print identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application required by 11 CFR 9428.4(b)(2).

11a
§ 9428.6 Chief state election official.
(a) Each chief state election official shall certify to the Commission within 30 days after July 25, 1994:
(1) All voter registration eligibility requirements of that state and their corresponding state constitution or statutory citations, including but not limited to the specific state requirements, if any, relating to minimum age, length of residence, reasons to disenfranchise such as criminal conviction or mental incompetence, and whether the state is a closed primary state.
(2) Any voter identification number that the state requires or requests; and
(3) Whether the state requires or requests a declaration of race/ethnicity;
(4) The state’s deadline for accepting voter registration applications; and
(5) The state election office address where the application shall be mailed.
(b) If a state, in accordance with 11 CFR 9428.4(a)(2), requires the applicant’s full social security number, the chief state election official shall provide the Commission with the text of the state’s privacy statement required under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note).
(c) Each chief state election official shall notify the Commission, in writing, within 30 days of any change to the state’s voter eligibility requirements or other information reported under this section.

12a
ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2 Qualifications of voters; disqualification
A. No person shall be entitled to vote at any general election, or for any office that now is, or hereafter may be, elective by the people, or upon any question which may be submitted to a vote of the people, unless such person be a citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or over, and shall have resided in the state for the period of time preceding such election as prescribed by law, provided that qualifications for voters at a general election for the purpose of electing presidential electors shall be as prescribed by law. The word “citizen” shall include persons of the male and female sex.
B. The rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the state, or any political division or municipality thereof, on account of sex, and the right to register, to vote and to hold office under any law now in effect, or which may hereafter be enacted, is hereby extended to, and conferred upon males and females alike.
C. No person who is adjudicated an incapacitated person shall be qualified to vote at any election, nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony, be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights.

13a
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166 Verification of registration
. . . .
F. The county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Satisfactory evidence of citizenship shall include any of the following:
1. The number of the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by the department of transportation or the equivalent governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant’s driver license or nonoperating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship.
2. A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.
3. A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States passport.
4. A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant’s United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is verified with the United States

14a
immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.
5. Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.
6. The applicant’s bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.
G. Notwithstanding subsection F of this section, any person who is registered in this state on the effective date of this amendment to this section is deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship and shall not be required to resubmit evidence of citizenship unless the person is changing voter registration from one county to another.
H. For the purposes of this section, proof of voter registration from another state or county is not satisfactory evidence of citizenship.
I. A person who modifies voter registration records with a new residence ballot shall not be required to submit evidence of citizenship. After citizenship has been demonstrated to the county recorder, the person is not required to resubmit satisfactory evidence of citizenship in that county.
J. After a person has submitted satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the county recorder shall indicate this information in the person’s permanent voter file. After two years the county recorder may destroy all documents that were submitted as evidence of citizenship.
______________________

 
 No. 12-71

In the Supreme Court of the United States
──────────────────────────

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v.
THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL. Respondents.

────────────────────────── On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ──────────────────────────

BRIEF OF ALABAMA, GEORGIA, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS

────────────────────────── LUTHER STRANGE Alabama Attorney General

John C. Neiman, Jr. Ala. Solicitor General
Andrew L. Brasher* Dep. Ala. Solicitor General
OFFICE OF THE ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 abrasher@ago.state.al.us

December 14, 2012

*Counsel of Record Counsel for Amicus Curiae

(additional counsel listed on inside cover)

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
Samuel S. Olens Attorney General of Georgia 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
Derek Schmidt Attorney General of Kansas 120 S.W. 10th Ave. 2nd Fl Topeka, KS 66612-1597
Bill Schuette Attorney General of Michigan P. O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909
E. Scott Pruitt Attorney General of Oklahoma 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4894
Greg Abbott Attorney General of Texas P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548

i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Did the court of appeals err (1) in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to this Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions, and (2) in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................iv
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE AND INTRODUCTION ..........1
STATEMENT ................................................................... 3 A. The Controversial Enactment of the NVRA ..............................................................3 B. Mechanics of the NVRA .................................5 C. Proposition 200 ...............................................7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................10
ARGUMENT .................................................................. 12 I. The serious consequences of preemption in
the election context support the traditional presumption against it. ......................................12 A. All election-related preemption
compels States to change how they conduct federal, state, and local elections. .......................................................13 B. The federalism stakes of preemption are particularly high in this case.................17 II. Principles of constitutional avoidance compel a narrow reading of the NVRA. .............22 A. States have argued that the NVRA is not a lawful exercise of Congress’s power under the Elections Clause...............23

iii
B. States have argued that the NVRA is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. .................................................26
CONCLUSION ...............................................................29

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)................................................18
Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008)..................................................12
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)............................................18
Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 1995 WL 532120 (N.D. Ill. 1995)..........................16
Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995) ...............................5, 26
Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997);.......................5, 26, 27
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005)................................................23
Condon v. Reno, 913 F. Supp. 946 (D.S.C. 1995) ...............................5
Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008)............................................3, 28
Eu v. S.F. Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989)..................................................1
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................8, 20

v
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) .....................9, 19, 20
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................... passim
Haskins v. Davis, 253 F. Supp. 642 (E.D. Va. 1966) ..........................15
Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 525 U.S. 266 (1999)................................................17
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996)................................................12
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)................................................17
Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)............................................27
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932)................................................28
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)................................................13
Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1269 (N.D. Miss. 1987), aff'd sub nom. Operation Push v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991) .................................15
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)................................................24
Orr v. Edgar, 670 N.E.2d 1243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) ...............16, 17
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ...................................................................... 13

vi
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)......................................................1
Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000)................................................21
Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011)........................16
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986)................................................24
United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917)..................................................3
Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, Wilson v. Voting Rights Coal., 116 S. Ct. 815 (1996)....................................5, 23, 27
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008)..................................................2
Welker v. Clarke, 239 F.3d 596 (3d Cir. 2001) ...................................15
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)................................................18
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997)................................................16
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)................................................23
Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 15321 ........................................................6

vii
42 U.S.C. § 15323 ......................................................18 42 U.S.C. § 15532 ........................................................6 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg ............................................ passim Ala. Code § 31-13-28..............................................1, 20 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166 .............................................1 Fla. Stat. § 97.041 .....................................................21 Ga. Stat. Ann. § 21-2-216......................................1, 20 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309.....................................1, 20 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:104 .....................................21 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141........................................20 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 6.33................................................21
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. amend. XIX.............................................23 U.S. Const. amend. XVII...........................................24 U.S. Const. amend. XXVI..........................................25 U.S. Const. art. I....................................................1, 24 U.S. Const. art. II ......................................................24
Other Authorities
Cases Raising Claims Under the National Voter Registration Act, U.S. Dept. of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/litig ation/caselist.php#nvra_cases (last visited Dec. 7, 2012).................................................5

viii
Certification, In the Matter of Arizona Request for Accommodation, Before the Election Assistance Commission (July 31, 2006)...................................................................8
Commissioners, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/comm issioners.aspx (last visited Dec. 10, 2012) .......................................................................18
Eric S. Fish, Note, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment Enforcement Power, 121 Yale L.J. 1168, 1193-94 (2012)..............................25
Letter from Julie L. Flynn, Deputy Secretary of State to Election Assistance Commission (Aug. 1, 2012)......................................6
Letter from Thomas Wilkins to Arizona Secretary of State (Mar. 6, 2006) ............................8
Letter from Tom Schedler, Secretary of State, to Election Assistance Commission (July 16, 2012) ..................................21
National Mail Voter Registration Form, State Instructions ................................................6, 7
Position Statement of Commissioner Ray Martinez III (July 10, 2006) ....................................9
President George H. W. Bush’s Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the National Voter Registration Act of 1992 (S. 250, 102nd Cong. (July 2, 1992)), 1 PUB. PAPERS 1072 (1992)....................4, 22

ix
Richard S. Greene, Congressional Power over the Elective Franchise: The Unconstitutional Phrases of Oregon v. Mitchell, 52 B.U. L. Rev. 505 (1972) .....................25
Statement of EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio Regarding the EAC’s Tally Vote of July 6, 2006 .................................................9
The Federalist No. 52 (James Madison) (J. Cooke ed., 1961) .....................................................24
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107–252, 116 Stat. 1666 ..........................................................................5

1
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE AND INTRODUCTION
The amici curiae are States that have the constitutionally recognized authority to regulate the registration and qualification of voters. See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2 & 4. That power is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, and it pre-existed the establishment of the federal government. Several of the amici have invoked this authority to enact legislation that is materially identical to the state law at issue here. See Ga. Stat. Ann. § 21-2-216(g)(1) (2009); Ala. Code § 31-13-28(c) (2011); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(l) (2011). Others stand to have their own state laws negated by the Election Assistance Commission, a federal commission with the ministerial duty to prepare voter registration forms.
States’ control over elections will be diminished in law and in practice if the Ninth Circuit’s misapplication of the National Voter Registration Act is not reversed. Arizona’s Proposition 200 is a voter-approved referendum that “sought to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 8 (2006) (per curiam). The States, of course, “indisputably” have a “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of [their] election process[es].” Eu v. S.F. Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231 (1989). Proposition 200 furthers that purpose by directing election officials to “reject any application for [voter] registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(f) (2004).

2
Proposition 200 works hand in glove with the NVRA. Congress adopted the NVRA for several reasons: to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote,” “to protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and to “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b). Given these purposes, it is passing strange that the NVRA and Proposition 200 could be in conflict; Proposition 200 is itself designed to protect the electoral process for the benefit of eligible citizens. The lower courts’ decision is particularly ironic because its bottom line—that Arizona cannot enforce a law enacted by a popular referendum— nullifies the actual votes cast by Arizonans in the name of making it easier for Arizonans to register to vote.
The amici States disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that courts “need not be concerned with preserving a ‘delicate balance’ between competing sovereigns” in the area of elections. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 392 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Instead, in the States’ experience, there are few areas in which preserving the “delicate balance” between State and federal interests is more important. “The States possess a ‘broad power’” to regulate federal elections, “which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451 (2008). Although the effectiveness of Arizona’s law “may well be debatable,” there is “no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.” Crawford

3
v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 196 (2008).
The erroneous judgment below could have been avoided if the Ninth Circuit had properly applied traditional preemption doctrines. The NVRA should be construed consistent with these principles and in a manner that minimizes well-recognized constitutional concerns. This approach would maintain the proper state-federal balance and protect the States’ good-faith efforts to conduct free and fair elections.
STATEMENT
A. The Controversial Enactment of the NVRA
States have traditionally regulated the registration of voters and administration of elections with minimal interference by federal law. As this Court explained in United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917), with the notable exception of 24 years during Reconstruction, “it has been [Congress’s] policy to leave such regulations almost entirely to the States, whose representatives Congressmen are.” Id. at 482. “It is a matter of general as of legal history that Congress, after twenty-four years of experience, returned to its former attitude toward such elections, and repealed all of [the Reconstruction-era] laws with the exception of a few sections not relevant here.” Id. at 483-84. It was approximately 100 years from the

4
repeal of those laws before Congress again entered the field of election administration.
In 1992, Congress passed what became the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), but it was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush. In his veto statement, the President explained that the Act would intrude on “an area of traditional State authority” by imposing “constitutionally questionable Federal regulation.” See President George H. W. Bush’s Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the National Voter Registration Act of 1992 (S. 250, 102nd Cong. (July 2, 1992)), in 1 PUB. PAPERS 1072 (1992).1 The President further explained that it is “critical” for States to have authority “to tailor voter registration procedures to unique local circumstances.” Id. The NVRA could “forc[e] them to implement federally mandated and nationally standardized voter registration procedures,” which could “restrict severely” their ability to protect the integrity of their own state elections. Id. This restriction would “deny the States their historic freedom to govern their own electoral processes” and “contravene the important principles of federalism on which our country was founded.” Id. President Bush thus determined that Congress’s power to enact the bill was “suspect” and presented a “serious constitutional question.” Id.
The next year, Congress again passed the NVRA, and newly inaugurated President Clinton signed it into law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg. Several States—
1 available at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=453 3&year=1992&month=7.

5
including California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia—refused to implement the NVRA on the grounds of its asserted unconstitutionality. These disputes never reached this Court on the merits.2
B. Mechanics of the NVRA
Of particular import to this case, the NVRA prescribes three methods for registering voters for federal elections. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–2(a). These methods are: (1) “by application made simultaneously with an application for a motor vehicle driver’s license,” (2) “by mail application,” and (3) “by application in person.” Id. States must “establish procedures to register” voters through all three methods “notwithstanding any other Federal or State law.” Id.
Congress established the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) to develop and promulgate a federal form for use in registering voters by mail.3

2 See, e.g., Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Miller, 129

F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997); Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d

1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, Wilson v. Voting Rights

Coal., 116 S. Ct. 815 (1996); Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform

Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794-96 (7th Cir. 1995);

Condon v. Reno, 913 F. Supp. 946, 964-67 (D.S.C. 1995). See

generally Cases Raising Claims Under the National Voter

Registration

Act,

U.S.

Dept.

of

Justice,

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/litigation/caselist.php#nvra

_cases (last visited Dec. 7, 2012).

3 The responsibilities of the EAC were formerly held by the Federal Election Commission. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107–252, 116 Stat. 1666, created the

6
See 42 U.S.C. § 15321 et seq. (establishing the EAC). The NVRA directs the EAC to develop the federal form “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.” Id. § 1973gg–7(a)(2). The form must “enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” Id. § 1973gg– 7(b)(1). One of the express eligibility criteria that must be included on the form is a question about United States citizenship. Id. § 1973gg–7(b)(2).
When a State passes a voting law that changes its processing requirements, it can ask the EAC to include that requirement in the state-specific instructions the EAC provides with the federal form. See id. § 1973gg–7(a). For example, as of August 7, 2012, Maine had a request pending to change the registration deadline on the form to comply with a change in Maine law. See Letter from Julie L. Flynn, Deputy Secretary of State, to Election Assistance Commission (Aug. 1, 2012) (on file with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office). In accordance with the NVRA’s command that the form “specif[y] each eligibility requirement,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–7, the EAC has generally made the requested changes without controversy. See National Mail Voter Registration Form, State Instructions.4
The state-specific instructions provided with the federal form almost always require that the registrant provide specific identifying information on
EAC, 42 U.S.C. § 15321, which eventually absorbed the FEC’s duties under the NVRA, see 42 U.S.C. § 15532.
4 available at http://www.eac.gov/voter_resources/register_to_vote.aspx (last visited Dec. 13, 2012).

7
the form. For example, to register in California, “you must provide your California driver’s license or California identification card number.” Id. “Michigan law requires that the same address be used for voter registration and driver license purposes.” Id. Seven States require a registrant to supply his full Social Security Number. Id. Twenty-two States require registrants to indicate a “Choice of Party” in order to participate in the State’s primary or caucus. Id. Registrants must also review their States’ specific voter-registration qualifications and “swear/affirm that: I am a United States citizen, I meet the eligibility requirements of my state and subscribe to any oath required.” Id. at Voter Registration Application ¶ 9. The form contemplates and has always included state-specific eligibility criteria.
C. Proposition 200
Arizonans voted to approve Proposition 200 by popular referendum. After its passage, the Attorney General of Arizona requested preclearance of the law from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. And the Secretary of State of Arizona requested that the EAC modify Arizona’s state-specific instructions to require registrants to provide proof of citizenship with the federal form. DOJ precleared the law, see Pet. Br. 17, but the EAC took the extraordinary step of rejecting Arizona’s request to include the law in the state-

8
specific instructions, see Letter from Thomas Wilkins to Arizona Secretary of State (Mar. 6, 2006).5
Arizona nevertheless enforced Proposition 200, and several private plaintiffs sued the State to invalidate the law on preemption and other grounds. The trial court below denied a temporary restraining order and concluded that the NVRA did not preempt Proposition 200. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision on the issue of preemption. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (Gonzalez I).
Arizona returned to the EAC, which held a new vote on Arizona’s request to add Proposition 200 to its state-specific instructions on the federal form. See Certification, In the Matter of Arizona Request for Accommodation, Before the Election Assistance Commission (July 31, 2006).6 That vote was a 2-2 tie, and resulted in another denial. Id. The EAC Chairman and Vice Chairman both published explanations for voting, respectively, to approve and reject the request. Chairman Paul DeGregorio supported the change by arguing that “leaving out key instructions on the National Voter Registration Form was likely to cause more steps for the voters and possibly keep them from being able to cast a
5 available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/EAC%20Letter%20to%20Arizona%20 Secretary%20of%20State%20Jan%20Brewer%20March%206%202006.p df (last visited Dec. 13, 2012).
6 available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/EAC%20Tally%20Vote%20Regarding %20Arizona's%20Request%20for%20Accommodation%20July%2031% 202006.PDF (last visited Dec. 13, 2012).

9
ballot.” Statement of EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio Regarding the EAC’s Tally Vote of July 6, 2006, at 2.7 He also opined that “[f]urther clarification of the federal government’s role in developing the National Registration Form is needed to prevent future confusion.” Id. On the other hand, Vice Chairman Ray Martinez voted against adding to the instructions because “reversing [the EAC’s] current agency position at this time may cause uncertainty in other NVRA-jurisdictions throughout the country who are undoubtedly closely monitoring legal and policy developments on this issue.” Position Statement of Commissioner Ray Martinez III (July 10, 2006), at 3.8
The issue of preemption continued to be litigated on the merits and eventually reached the Ninth Circuit again. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1207 (9th Cir. 2010) (Gonzalez II). The en banc Ninth Circuit held in a divided opinion that the NVRA preempts Proposition 200 as applied in the federal form. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (Gonzalez III).
7available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Chairman%20Paul%20DeGre gorio%20Regarding%20Arizona%20and%20the%20Federal%20 Voter%20Registration%20Form%20August%208%202006.pdf (last visited Dec. 13, 2012).
8 available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/News/Vice%20Chairman%20Ray%2 0Martinez%20III%20Position%20Statement%20Regarding%20 Arizona%27s%20Request%20for%20Accomodation.pdf (last visited Dec. 13, 2012).

10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. Traditional preemption doctrines—such as the presumption against preemption and plainstatement rule—are a practical shorthand for Congressional intent, and they serve that useful function here just as well as they do in other contexts.
In the elections context, preemption is fraught with serious consequences for the state-federal relationship because Congress can commandeer the States’ officers to conduct federal elections according to federal law. Moreover, although Congress does not have the power to regulate state and local elections, federal preemption has that practical effect. At a minimum, States are forced to choose between (1) the expense of conducting elections for state and local officers separate from elections for federal officers or (2) adopting federal standards as their own. Often, however, States do not even have that choice. Instead, as in the cases of Mississippi and Illinois, lower courts (perhaps erroneously) prevent States from separately registering voters for state elections. Congress should be presumed not to intend such effects.
The federalism stakes are particularly high in this case. The lower court’s rule grants the power to preempt state election laws to a federal agency. That agency is uniquely unsuited to that task. It currently has no commissioners and the NVRA provides it no statutory mandate or guidance. Several state laws risk preemption if the lower court’s rule is adopted by this Court.

11
II. Serious doubts about the constitutionality of the NVRA also compel this Court to give it a narrow reading.
Several States have argued previously that Congress did not have the power to enact the NVRA because it effectively controls voter qualifications. Although the Elections Clause gives Congress power over the time, place, and manner of federal elections, the Qualifications Clause ensures that the federal electorate is the same as the electorate for the highest chamber of each States’ legislature. This Court’s leading precedent in this area did not command a majority and provides little guidance.
Several States have also argued that the NVRA violates the Tenth Amendment because it controls how States conduct elections for state and local offices. The States’ lawsuits on this subject left this question unresolved. The lower courts generally conceded that certain applications of the NVRA might unconstitutionally intrude on state sovereignty.
This Court has never passed on the merits of the concerns identified in the States’ previous lawsuits. These live constitutional issues support a rule that gives the NVRA a limited preemptive application.

12
ARGUMENT
I. The serious consequences of preemption in the election context support the traditional presumption against it.
It makes pragmatic sense to apply the traditional presumption against preemption and plainstatement rule when interpreting election-related legislation. This Court invokes these rules because they help the Court ascertain the “purpose of Congress” that “is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even where Congress plainly intends to preempt some state law, this Court has held that Congress can be presumed not to intend the broadest possible preemption. See Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76-77 (2008) (presumption against preemption applies to express preemption clause). Against this backdrop, the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to apply traditional preemption doctrines to this case makes no sense; these doctrines are no less useful in discerning the intent of Congress in an election-related case than in a case arising under the Supremacy Clause.
In fact, the pragmatic reasons for the presumption against preemption and plainstatement rule are especially compelling in the elections context and the circumstances of this case. Precisely because the Elections Clause may permit Congress to “‘conscript state agencies to carry out’ federal mandates,” the Court should be “concerned

13
with preserving a ‘delicate balance’ between [the States and the Federal Government].” Gonzalez III, 677 F.3d at 391-92. In this case, preemption means that several States will have to change their own laws to comply with federal law and likely change the way they register voters for state and local elections as well. Going forward, States will have to ask permission from a federal commission to register voters according to their own laws. In short, this is precisely the kind of case in which the presumption against preemption and plain-statement rule are important; Congress should not lightly be presumed to have intended these jarring effects.
A. All election-related preemption compels States to change how they conduct federal, state, and local elections.
Election-related preemption is a much more serious breach of the state-federal balance than police-power preemption. Preemption of state police powers displaces state regulation, but it does not compel States to change how they administer their own programs. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Preemption in the election context has much more serious effects.
1. Election-related preemption commandeers States to change their election practices. Although Congress clearly lacks the power to compel States to run the elections for their own officers in any particular manner, the practical effect of all federal election-related legislation is just that. The reality is that, for every election-related law that Congress

14
enacts, the States have to modify their own election statutes and practices. They have to do this in one of two ways.
One possibility is for a State to change its practices to enforce federal law as to federal elections, and state law as to state elections. Under the Ninth Circuit’s decision, for example, Arizona could create separate state-federal registration regimes to enforce both state and federal law. “[A]n Arizona applicant meeting the Federal Form requirements, but lacking proof-of-citizenship, would have to be allowed to vote for federal officials but could not vote for state officials.” Gonzalez III, 677 F.3d at 449 (Rawlinson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This system of “dual registration” would require Arizona to “track whether . . . residents are registered to vote for federal elections, state elections, or both” and to distinguish between these classes of voters on Election Day. Id. Given the concurrence of state and federal elections, moving to a two-tiered election system would itself involve changes in state law and practice, such as preparing separate state and federal ballots and developing election-day procedures to identify federal-only voters.
The only other option is for a State to change (or disregard) its own laws and use federal law for federal, state, and local elections. As the first President Bush’s veto message predicted, this is the “choice” that 48 of the 50 States were effectively forced to make immediately after President Clinton signed the NVRA. “[M]aintaining two sets of registration rolls would impose massive administrative and economic burdens” on the States.

15
Welker v. Clarke, 239 F.3d 596, 599 (3d Cir. 2001). For that reason, “most states [have] elected to adopt . . . a single, unified registration system and electorate.” Id. Here, Arizona’s election officials will be under intense economic pressure to adopt, in practice, the federal form for state and local elections, despite the fact that Arizona’s voters directly enacted Proposition 200.
2. Notwithstanding the above, the States often have no choice about whether to use preemptive federal election law for administering elections for their own officers. Even though the Elections Clause gives Congress the authority to control only federal elections, lower courts often hold (perhaps erroneously) that other federal laws prevent States from registering voters for their own state-level elections separately from elections for federal officers. See, e.g., Haskins v. Davis, 253 F. Supp. 642 (E.D. Va. 1966) (per curiam) (invalidating under the Equal Protection Clause a system that treated federal voters differently from those registered for state elections). The stories of Mississippi and Illinois are instructive.
Mississippi has twice tried to use separate twotiered election systems and has twice been stymied by federal law. Mississippi registered voters separately for municipal elections until 1987. In that year, a federal court found that the separate registration system was confusing and burdensome, and violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. See Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1269 (N.D. Miss. 1987), aff'd sub nom. Operation Push v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991). Then, after Congress enacted the NVRA, Mississippi tried

16
to use a different system of registration for federal elections than it did for state elections—in other words, the same kind of system Arizona would need to adopt in order to enforce Proposition 200. But DOJ refused to preclear the change to a two-tiered system under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. See Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424, 481 (D.D.C. 2011) (recounting this history). Mississippi fought that decision all the way to this Court, which held that DOJ had the right to prevent Mississippi from “changing” to a dual registration system even though the change was prompted by the NVRA. See Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997) (requiring preclearance before a change from a single registration system to dual registration). Like Mississippi, Arizona is covered by Section Five. In light of the lower court’s holding, if Arizona wants to give effect to the voter-approved Proposition 200, it would have to return to DOJ for permission to change to dual registration, even though DOJ already precleared Proposition 200 in 2005.
Illinois likewise decided to implement the NVRA through a dual registration system, instead of using the NVRA’s rules to register voters for state and local elections. See Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 1995 WL 532120, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (unpublished). That effort was also short-lived. The Illinois courts held that, “without a defensible distinction between the two electorates, the disparity violates equal protection under the federal constitution” and Illinois constitution. Orr v. Edgar, 670 N.E.2d 1243, 1253 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). The court recognized that complying with the NVRA was a “compelling interest” but held that, by altering

17
its practices for federal elections only, Illinois did not “employ[] the least restrictive means available in order to comply with NVRA.” Id. The court enjoined Illinois to “permit[] NVRA registrants to vote in state and local elections,” even though those NVRA registrants were not properly registered under Illinois state law. Id. at 1254. Precedents like these mean that the States may lose control over their own elections because of federal preemption, even if the States are willing to spend the money to run a dual system.
B. The federalism stakes of preemption are particularly high in this case.
If this Court affirms the Ninth Circuit, the result will have especially grave consequences for the statefederal balance in election administration. The NVRA “authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking, impos[ing] substantial ‘federalism costs’” in the mine run of cases. Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 525 U.S. 266, 282 (1999) (quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 926 (1995)) (discussing Section Five of the Voting Rights Act). The Ninth Circuit’s reading of the NVRA in this case invalidates numerous state-specific registration requirements and gives the EAC unbridled legal authority over state election practices.
1. As Petitioners’ brief explains, the Ninth Circuit’s decision erroneously gives the EAC “ultimate authority” over state election practices. Pet. Br. 43. The EAC is composed of an equal number of four members, no more than two of which can be of the same political party. 42 U.S.C.

18
§ 15323(a) & (b)(2). To make significant changes, the EAC needs an affirmative vote of three of these four members, which is why Arizona’s application to add Proposition 200 to its state-specific instructions was denied by a 2-2 tie. And, to make matters worse, there are currently no Commissioners serving on the EAC; all four positions are vacant. See Commissioners, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.9 These limitations make the EAC a uniquely ineffective body to be tasked with deciding which state laws are preempted and which ones can be enforced.
Especially in light of these features, the Ninth Circuit’s enlargement of the EAC’s power flouts wellfounded principles of federalism and separation of powers. Although “[t]he federal balance is remitted, in many instances, to Congress,” it is rarely vested in “a single agency official.” Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 517 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Instead, this Court has “rightly reject[ed]” the notion that a state law is preempted “not by any federal statute or regulation, but simply by the Executive’s current enforcement policy.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2524 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576 (2009) (no judicial deference to administrative agencies on questions of preemption). This tradition is no doubt why the EAC has regularly added state-specific instructions to the federal form,

9 available at http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/commissioners.aspx visited Dec. 10, 2012).

(last

19
without controversy and as a mere ministerial task. See Gonzalez II, 624 F.3d at 1207 (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (noting that a variety of state-specific requirements have been incorporated into the federal form).
This kind of anomaly—putting an unmanned ministerial commission in charge of election-law preemption—would be justifiable only if it were compelled by an express textual command. But the text of the NVRA does not purport to grant the EAC discretion to reject any state law or guide the exercise of that theoretical discretion. Cf. Statement of EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio regarding the EAC’s Tally Vote of July 6, 2006, at 2 (asking for clarification). Instead, the NVRA requires the EAC to develop the federal form “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–7(a)(2), and in such a way as to “enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” Id. § 1973gg–7(b)(1). Moreover, when Congress wanted to preclude States from requiring certain registration information, it expressly barred them from doing so. See, e.g., id. § 1973gg–7(b)(3) (prohibiting the States from requiring notarization). Thus, “the plain text creates a minimum standard through the Federal Form and allows a state to require more as long as it is within the bounds of § 1973gg–7(b).” Gonzalez III, 677 F.3d at 445 (Rawlinson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Only by rejecting the usual rules of statutory interpretation was the Ninth Circuit able to find a delegation of preemptive authority to the EAC.

20
2. The statutory preemption at issue here also threatens to upend legislation in several States. As Judge Kozinski has noted, the Ninth Circuit’s “reading of the NVRA casts doubt on the voter registration procedures of many states in addition to Arizona.” Gonzalez II, 624 F.3d 1162 at 1207 (Kozinski, J., dissenting).
In the years since the Ninth Circuit initially upheld Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement as not preempted by the NVRA, see Gonzalez I, 485 F.3d at 1050, state legislatures across the country have considered and enacted similar measures. Four States in three different federal circuits—Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee—have already enacted laws that are materially identical to Proposition 200. See Ga. Stat. Ann. § 21-2-216(g)(1) (2009); Ala. Code § 31-13-28(c) (2011); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(l) (2011); Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2141(a) (2011).10 These laws all require proof of citizenship as part of the registration process. And they all provide, like Proposition 200, that the proofof-citizenship requirement can be satisfied by providing a driver’s license number or a photocopy of one of several enumerated documents. See Ga. Stat. Ann. § 21-2-216(g)(2); Ala. Code § 31-13-28(k)-(l); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(l)(1)-(13); Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141(b).
10 Georgia’s, Alabama’s, and Kansas’s statutes are almost verbatim replicas of Arizona’s law. Tennessee’s law is phrased in terms of removing the registrant from the voting list instead of denying the application. Georgia’s law was approved by DOJ under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act in 2011.

21
Other States also have enacted laws that require applicants to provide proof of their eligibility. For example, as of August 7, 2012, Louisiana has requested that the EAC change its state-specific instructions to require applicants without a driver’s license number to submit either a copy of a different photo ID or another document that proves the applicant’s name and address. See Letter from Tom Schedler, Secretary of State, to Election Assistance Commission (July 16, 2012); see also La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:104(A)(16) (2009). Similarly, both Florida and Wisconsin require registrants to affirm that they are not previously convicted felons, see Fla. Stat. § 97.041(2)(b) (2008); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 6.33(1) (2011), but the EAC has previously rejected Florida’s request to include its felon-voting certification on the federal form. See Position Statement of Commissioner Ray Martinez III (July 10, 2006), at 4. Given that the EAC currently has no commissioners, it seems unlikely that the EAC will be able to act timely on States’ pending requests for changes to their state-specific instructions.
* * * The Court should be mindful not to “exacerbate” the “federalism costs” of the NVRA by reading it broadly to preempt state laws. Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 336 (2000) (discussing Section Five of the Voting Rights Act). There is no dispute that the Elections Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate state and local elections. But, in practice, the preemption of state election law often does just that. When Congress intends to “conscript state agencies to carry out

22
federal election mandates,” Gonzalez III, 677 F.3d at 391 (internal quotation mark omitted), it is not too great a burden for Congress to make that intention plain. In this case, preemption also means elevating the policy choices of a federal commission above the considered judgment of state voters and legislatures. If Congress had intended to depart from the traditional state-federal balance so markedly, Congress would have made its intent plain on the face of the statute.
II. Principles of constitutional avoidance compel a narrow reading of the NVRA.
There have always been grave doubts about the constitutionality of the NVRA. The first President asked to sign the NVRA vetoed it as a “constitutionally questionable Federal regulation on the States in an area of traditional State authority.” See President George H. W. Bush’s Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the National Voter Registration Act of 1992 (S. 250, 102nd Cong. (July 2, 1992)), in 1 PUB. PAPERS 1072 (1992).11 Similarly, some of the amici States have argued elsewhere that the NVRA is unconstitutional. The President and some of the States identified two potential constitutional problems with the NVRA: (1) whether Congress has the power to enact the NVRA at all and (2) whether certain applications of the NVRA violate the Tenth Amendment. This Court has
11 available at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=453 3&year=1992&month=7.

23
not resolved these issues on their merits. See Wilson v. Voting Rights Coal., 116 S. Ct. 815 (1996) (denying certiorari).
The amici States take no position on the constitutionality of the NVRA in this case. The amici States instead contend only that the lingering question of the NVRA’s constitutionality compels this Court to give the NVRA a narrow berth. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 380-81 (2005); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). Whatever one thinks about the constitutionality of the NVRA, there is no doubt that the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the statute increases its coercive interference on state governments and expands Congress’s power under the Elections Clause.
A. States have argued that the NVRA is not a lawful exercise of Congress’s power under the Elections Clause.
The NVRA’s first potential constitutional infirmity is that Congress’s power under the Elections Clause does not necessarily encompass the power to define the electorate for federal elections. The Elections Clause, of course, gives Congress the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of conducting elections for federal office. But a separate clause, the Qualifications Clause, gives States authority to define the electorate for federal offices, absent a specific amendment to the contrary. Cf., e.g., U.S. Const. amend. XIX (women’s suffrage).
Specifically, the Qualifications Clause defines the federal electorate as the same voters who are qualified to vote for “the most numerous Branch of

24
the State Legislature.” U.S. Const. art. I § 2, cl. 1; U.S. Const. amend. XVII; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (State control over presidential electors). In other words, the Constitution “adopts as the federal standard the standard which each State has chosen for itself.” Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 288 (1970) (Stewart, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). The Framers intended this compromise to prevent both the States and Congress from gaming the definition of the electorate for federal elections. “It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established . . . . It will be safe to the United States, because it is not alterable by the State governments . . . .” The Federalist No. 52 (James Madison) (J. Cooke ed., 1961).
This Court’s precedents on the relationship between the Elections Clause and Qualifications Clause provide little guidance on whether Congress has the power to define the electorate in federal elections. In the leading case on the subject, Oregon v. Mitchell, four Justices voted to uphold the power of Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment to set age 18 as a universal minimum voting age, while four voted against finding that authority. But “all eight of those Justices” concluded “that the Constitution requires the same qualifications for state and federal elections.” Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 233 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Only Justice Black read the Elections Clause to give Congress the authority to establish a different age qualification for federal elections than

25
for state elections.12 The real-world effect of Oregon v. Mitchell was quickly mooted by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which set the uniform age of 18 for both state and federal elections. U.S. Const. amend. XXVI.13
This Court has never directly addressed whether “the manner” of an election includes the subject of voter registration or whether registration is more akin to “qualification.” But “[i]t is difficult to see how words could be clearer in stating what Congress can control and what it cannot control.” Oregon, 400 U.S.
12 The U.S. Solicitor General actually conceded the point that Justice Black resolved in the United States’ favor. The Solicitor General told the Court at oral argument in Mitchell that “the executive branch did not support the validity of [the section of the statute] on any constitutional basis.” Richard S. Greene, Congressional Power over the Elective Franchise: The Unconstitutional Phrases of Oregon v. Mitchell, 52 B.U. L. Rev. 505, 565 (1972).
13 Although Oregon v. Mitchell produced no majority opinion or precedential constitutional principle, its judgment essentially coerced Congress and the States into amending the Constitution. It left 47 States “with a choice to make before the 1972 presidential election: they could either lower the voting age to eighteen for all elections, or they would have to implement a dual voting system with different ages for federal and state elections.” Eric S. Fish, Note, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment Enforcement Power, 121 Yale L.J. 1168, 1193-94 (2012). Dual systems would have “cost at least $10 million to $20 million throughout the country” and “roughly half of the states would be unable to change their minimum voting ages before the 1972 election because their voting ages were fixed by state constitution.” Id. at 1194. Ironically enough, amending the Federal Constitution—hardly an easy task—was, in this peculiar circumstance, the easiest way out.

26
at 210 (Harlan, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). Lower courts have generally avoided this issue when addressing States’ constitutional challenges to the NVRA. E.g., Ass’n of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794-95 (7th Cir. 1995) (conceding that the NVRA may be unconstitutional if it “ma[d]e it impossible for the state to enforce its voter qualifications”). In light of the uncertain legacy of Oregon v. Mitchell, the constitutionality of the NVRA is an open question and cautions against reading the NVRA broadly to preempt state law.
B. States have argued that the NVRA is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
The second potential constitutional infirmity in the NVRA is that it may unconstitutionally interfere with States’ reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. See, e.g., Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 836-37 (6th Cir. 1997) (describing Michigan’s Tenth Amendment claims against the NVRA). Specifically, States have argued that the NVRA “conscripts state agencies, personnel, and funds to further a federal purpose, thereby impinging upon basic principles of federalism and violating the Tenth Amendment.” Id. at 836. The NVRA was so coercive, the States alleged, that it had the intent and effect of controlling the manner in which the States conducted state and local elections as well as federal elections. See id. at 837. In other words, the cost of running a two-tiered system was “economic

27
dragooning that [left] the States with no real option but to acquiesce in” using the NVRA’s standards for their state and local elections. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2605 (2012).
The lower courts rejected these Tenth Amendment challenges, but this Court never reviewed them on the merits. There were also important limitations on the lower courts’ reasoning. Michigan’s Tenth Amendment challenge was rejected because the Sixth Circuit concluded that “[n]othing in the Act prohibits a state from adopting separate registration requirements for the election of state officials,” even if it would be financially difficult to do so. Miller, 129 F.3d at 837. As explained above, however, courts have invoked other federal laws to enjoin separate registration systems. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit panel that rejected California’s Tenth Amendment challenge to the NVRA held only that the Act was not facially unconstitutional. See Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1995). The court expressly “fores[aw] the possibility” that “a certain implementation of the statute sought by the United States, which is helpful but not essential to its interests, [would be] properly resisted by the state on substantial grounds related to its sovereignty.” Id.
To be clear, the amici States are not arguing in this particular forum that the NVRA is unconstitutional; neither the facial nor as-applied constitutionality of the NVRA is directly at issue in this case. Instead, the States believe that the unresolved challenges to the NVRA’s constitutionality should inform this Court’s judgment about how broadly the NVRA preempts

28
state law. The NVRA’s effects on the States’ ability to conduct elections may well “flout the Constitution’s express commitment of the task to the States.” Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 208 (2008) (Scalia, J., concurring). At the very least, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling exacerbates the NVRA’s potential constitutional infirmities; this Court should adopt a reading of the NVRA that minimizes them.
* * * The amici States respectfully request that this Court apply traditional principles of preemption and hold that the NVRA does not preempt Proposition 200. That each State can experiment with its own policy choices is “one of the happy incidents of the federal system.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). And the “[d]enial of [the States’] right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation.” Id. This Court can safely presume that Congress does not intend to stay state experimentation through preemption, especially when the experiment concerns the best way to administer free and fair elections. For its part, the NVRA recognizes that each State will have its own ideas about how best to “assess the eligibility of” potential voters. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg– 7(b)(1). And it requires the EAC to listen to those ideas and incorporate them into the federal registration form that States must “accept and use.” Id. § 1973gg–4(a)(1). Proposition 200 is consistent with the purposes of the NVRA and the States’ compelling interest in ensuring that only eligible

29
voters can cast a vote. The Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit and lift the injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 200.

CONCLUSION The Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

LUTHER STRANGE Ala. Attorney General

December 14, 2012

John C. Neiman, Jr. Ala. Solicitor General
Andrew L. Brasher* Dep. Ala. Solicitor Gen’l
OFFICE OF THE ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 abrasher@ago.state.al.us
Counsel for Amicus Curiae *Counsel of Record

 
 No. 12-71
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

ARIZONA, et al., v.

Petitioners,

INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., et al., and JESUS M. GONZALES, et al., Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

DEBO P. ADEGIBILE Acting President & Director-Counsel
ELISE C. BODDIE RYAN P. HAYGOOD
Counsel of Record NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 rhaygood@naacpldf.org

JOSHUA CIVIN NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005
MICHAEL B. DE LEEUW DEUEL ROSS VICTORIEN WU FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,
SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON INSIDE COVER

WADE HENDERSON LISA M. BORNSTEIN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1629 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20006
STEVEN M. FREEMAN LAUREN A. JONES JUSTINE K. FANAROF ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158

JEROME GOTKIN MICHAEL ARNOLD MINTZ LEVIN COHEN FERRIS
GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI .................................... 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................... 3

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5

I. States have a long and well-documented history of discriminating against voters of color ........................................................................ 5

A. Early federal efforts to enfranchise Blacks during Reconstruction were later undermined by state election laws ................................................................... 6

B. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished many of the barriers to full political participation for voters of color ................................................................. 10

C. Black registration rates remained significantly lower than those of Whites even after the enactment of the VRA........................................................... 12

II. Congress enacted the NVRA in response to persisting discriminatory voting laws and to equalize access to voter registration........................................................... 17

A. The NVRA is a civil rights statute

designed

to increase voter

registration among people of color

and the poor .................................................... 17

ii
B. Voter registration rates among people of color have increased significantly as a result of the NVRA ................................. 19
III.Arizona’s Proposition 200 is inconsistent with and preempted by the National Voter Registration Act......................................... 22
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 25

iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) ..................... 11 Beer v. United States,425 U.S. 130 (1976) ..................... 1 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) ................................. 1 Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991)......................... 1 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) ..................... 10 Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) ...................... 1 Ferrand v. Schedler, No. 11-926, 2012 WL 1570094
(E.D. La. May 3, 2012) .............................................. 20 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003) ....................... 1 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) .................. 2 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012)
(en banc) .............................................................. 23, 24 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-1268, slip op.
(D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2008)............................................. 23 Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections,
383 U.S. 663 (1966) ................................................... 10 Houston Lawyers’ Association v. Attorney General of
Texas, 501 U.S. 419 (1991).......................................... 1 Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) ................... 8 Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County,
Mississippi, 554 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977) .................. 2 League of United Latin American Citizens v.
Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc)...... 2

iv
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) ..................................................... 1
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965)......... 10
Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push, Inc. v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991)........................ 16
Mississippi State Chapter, Operation PUSH v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D. Miss. 1987) ........... 13
NAACP, DeKalb County Chapter v. Georgia, 494 F. Supp. 668 (N.D. Ga. 1980)....................... 15, 16
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009) ............................ 1
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) ........................................................................... 9
Schnell v. Davis, 336 U.S. 933 (1949) (per curiam) ...... 2
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996)................................ 1
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012)............................................................ 2
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).................. 2, 10
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) ..... 7
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) ............................. 2
Texas v. Holder, No. 12-128, 2012 WL 3743676 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2012) .............................................. 15
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) ..................... 1
United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (N.D. Fla. 2012) ......................................................... 21
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995)................... 1
United States v. Louisiana, No. 11-470, 2011 WL 6012992 (M.D. La. Dec. 1, 2011) .............................. 21

v White v. Regester, 422 U.S. 935 (1975) (per curiam)..... 2 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)....................... 3 Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973)... 2
Constitution, Federal Statutes, and Congressional Materials
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.................................................. 6 U.S. Const. amend. XV ................................................... 6 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg....................................................... 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(a)(3) ........................................... 3, 19 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1) ........................................... 3, 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a)(1)............................................ 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a)(2)............................................ 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a)(3)............................................ 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4..................................................... 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5..................................................... 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(6)............................................ 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(d) ................................................ 19 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(a)(2)............................................ 18 Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110,
79 Stat. 937................................................................ 11 139 Cong. Rec. H505 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1993) .............. 17 H.R. Rep. No. 53-18 (1893) ............................................. 7 H.R. Rep. No. 103-66 (1993) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in
1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140.............................................. 18

vi
H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 (2006), reprinted in 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 618....................................................... 12
S. Rep. No. 103-6 (1993) ............................................... 16 Voter Registration: Hearing Held Before the House
Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, 103rd Congress (1993)................... 17 The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Congress (2012) (statement of Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/1212-19PeralesTestimony.pdf. ............................... 23, 24
State Statutes Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F) .......................................... 23
Court Filings Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island,
No. 11-113S (D.R.I. Mar. 25, 2011), ECF No. 3....... 21 Consent Decree, United States v. Tennessee,
No. 02-0938 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 16, 2002)................... 21 Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed
Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Injunctive Remedy, Scott v. Schedler, No. 11-926 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2012), ECF No. 372 ....................... 21

vii
Other Authorities
Debo P. Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 19822006, 17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 413 (2008)........ 8
Agreement Between the United States Department of Justice and the Arizona Department of Economic Security Concerning Standards and Monitoring of Compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (May 15, 2008), http://www.justice.gov/crt/ about/vot/nvra/az_nvra_moa.php ............................... 2
James E. Alt, The Impact of the Voting Rights Act on Black and White Voter Registration in the South, in Quiet Revolution in the South 351 (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman ed., 1993) 9, 12, 14, 15
Robert Brown & Justin Wedeking, People Who Have Their Tickets But Do Not Use Them: “Motor Voter,” Registration, and Turnout Revisited, 34 Am. Pol. Res. 479 (2006) .......................................................... 19
William Crotty, The Franchise: Registration Changes and Voter Representation, in Paths to Political Reform 67 (1980) ....................................................... 14
Dayna L. Cunningham, Who Are to Be the Electors? A Reflection on the History of Voter Registration in the United States, 9 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 370 (1991) ......................................................... 9, 13, 14, 16
Chandler Davidson, The Recent Evolution of Voting Rights Law Affecting Racial and Language Minorities, in Quiet Revolution in the South 21 (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman ed., 1993) ............................................................................ 9

viii
Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman, The Voting Rights Act and the Second Reconstruction, in Quiet Revolution in the South 378 (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman eds., 1993) ................................... 12
Harry J. Enten, White Voter Decline in 2012: The Conundrum Behind the Cliché, The Guardian (Nov. 9, 2012), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/2012/nov/09/white-voter-decline2012 conundrum........................................................ 12
David J. Garrow, Protests at Selma: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (1978) ......................................................................... 10
Nathan V. Gemmiti, Note, Porsche or Pinto? The Impact of the “Motor Voter Registration Act” on Black Political Participation, 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 71 (1998)................................ 13, 17, 19, 24
Lani Guinier, Keeping the Faith: Black Voters in the Post-Reagan Era, 24 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393 (1989) ......................................................................... 14
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Address to Congress on the Voting Rights Act: We Shall Overcome (Mar. 15, 1965), available at www.historyplace.com/ speeches/johnson.htm ............................................... 11
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to the Congress: The American Promise, 1 Pub. Papers 281 (Mar. 15, 1965), available at http://lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/speechesfilms/president-johnsons-special-message-to-thecongress-the-american-promise.................................. 6
Stanley Kelley et al., Registration and Voting: Putting First Things First, 61 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 359 (1967) .................................................................. 13

ix
Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (2009) ..... 6
Youjin B. Kim & Lisa Danetz, Demos, 1 Million New Voters Among the 99%: How Agency-Based Voter Registration Gives Low-Income Americans a Voice in Democracy (2011), available at http://www.demos. org/sites/default/files/publications/Million_Mark_De mos.pdf....................................................................... 22
J.M. Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910 (1974) ........................... 8
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law & The Sentencing Project, The Discriminatory Effects of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws, Policies and Practices on Minority Civic Participation in the United States (2009), available at http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/ publications/fd_UNMinorityForum.pdf ..................... 8
Mark Thomas Quinlivan, Comment, One Person, One Vote Revisited: The Impending Necessity of Judicial Intervention in the Realm of Voter Registration, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2361 (1989) ............................. 8, 14
Sam Roberts, 2008 Surge in Black Voters Nearly Erased Racial Gap, N.Y. Times, July 21, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/ 07/21/us/politics/21vote.html .................................... 12
Estelle H. Rogers, The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On (2009), available at www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rogers__NVRA_at_15.pdf...................................................... 20
Richard Sammon, Deal May Speed Up “Motor Voter,” Cong. Q. Wkly. Rep., May 1, 1993...................... 19, 24

x
Richard M. Valley, The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement (2004)........... 6, 7
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. (1988) ..... 15
Voting, U.S. Department of Justice, http://www. justice.gov/crt/about/vot/ (last visited January 13, 2013) ............................................................................ 5

1
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI1
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is a non-profit legal organization established under the laws of New York to assist Black and other people of color in the full, fair, and free exercise of their constitutional rights. Founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, LDF focuses on eliminating racial discrimination in education, economic justice, criminal justice, and political participation.
LDF has been involved in nearly all of the precedent-setting litigation relating to minority voting rights before state and federal courts representing parties or as amicus curiae, including cases involving constitutional and legal challenges to discriminatory state voter registration laws. See, e.g., Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Hous. Lawyers’ Ass’n v. Attorney Gen. of Tex., 501 U.S. 419 (1991); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976);
1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have filed blanket consent letters with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3.

2
White v. Regester, 422 U.S. 935 (1975) (per curiam); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); Schnell v. Davis, 336 U.S. 933 (1949) (per curiam); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); Kirksey v. Bd. of Supervisors, 554 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977); Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973). As such, LDF has a significant interest in ensuring the full, proper, and continued enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is the nation’s oldest and largest civil and human rights coalition, consisting of more than 210 national organizations charged with promoting and protecting the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference was founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; and Arnold Aronson, a leader of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. The Leadership Conference works to build an America that is inclusive and as good as its ideals.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded in 1913—at a time when anti-Semitism was rampant in the United States—to advance good will and mutual understanding among all Americans of all creeds and races, and to combat racial and religious prejudice in the United States. ADL is vitally interested in protecting the civil rights of all persons, whether they are members of the minority or the majority, and in ensuring that each individual re-

3
ceives equal treatment under the law regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Consistent with its mission, ADL opposes ballot access requirements that disproportionately affect the voting rights of racial or ethnic groups.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Recognized by this Court as the right that is “preservative of all rights,” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. But America’s relationship with the right to vote is a contested one, characterized by periods of expansion of the electorate often followed by efforts to contract voter access.
Against this historical backdrop, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to expand America’s promise of democracy by the People by making voter registration opportunities more widely available and, ultimately, politically engaging, among others, the most marginalized in our democracy: people of color and the poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg(a)(3), (b)(1). As intended by Congress, voter registration increased dramatically, with 20 million new voters, nearly half of whom were Black, registering between 1995 and June 1996. Widely recognized for its pivotal role in ushering in a new, but not complete, period of democratic expansion in this Nation, the NVRA also led to significant improvements in disparities in registration rates between people of color and Whites.
As explained more fully below, however, following record participation by voters of color in several recent election cycles, and the substantial growth of communities of color in the last decade, several

4
states, including Arizona, have adopted voting measures to diminish access to the vote by people of color.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Latinos in Arizona increased substantially, by 600,000, and Latinos now comprise 30 percent of the state’s population. Citing a need to combat undocumented immigration, Arizona responded by adopting Proposition 200. This discriminatory measure requires county registrars to reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by certain types of documentary evidence of United States citizenship. While citizenship is a legal requirement to register and vote, laws like Proposition 200 erect onerous documentary proof requirements that inhibit the registration of eligible voters.
Although Arizona failed to identify a single instance in which an undocumented immigrant registered to vote or voted in the state, the impact of the law was clear: following the enactment of Proposition 200, Arizona rejected the registration applications of more than 30,000 individuals. Of these, nearly 17 percent were Latinos. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down Proposition 200 as applied to the Federal Form, a nationally uniform voter application that applicants can use to register by mail, recognizing that Proposition 200 was both inconsistent with and preempted by the NVRA.
Amici write separately to make three key points. First, this amicus brief provides the historical backdrop against which the NVRA was enacted and details various discriminatory measures that were employed by a number of states to prevent voters of color and the poor from exercising their voting

5
rights. Second, this amicus brief describes the manner in which Congress, responding to this antidemocratic period of exclusion in American history, enacted the NVRA to usher in a period of electoral expansion. Finally, this brief argues that, absent full enforcement of the NVRA, measures such as Arizona’s Proposition 200 will undermine the hardfought progress that has been made in combating discrimination in our political process.
Accordingly, amici respectfully urge this Court to uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
ARGUMENT
I. States have a long and well-documented history of discriminating against voters of color.
Nearly fifty years ago, in his speech proposing the bill that would become known as “the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted,” Voting, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/ crt/about/vot/ (last visited January 13, 2013), President Lyndon Johnson framed the challenge posed by our Nation’s lamentable tradition of racial discrimination in voting:
Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.

6
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to the Congress: The American Promise, 1 Pub. Papers 281, 282 (Mar. 15, 1965), available at http://lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/speechesfilms/president-johnsons-special-message-to-thecongress-the-american-promise.
As leading historians have explained, the extension of the right to vote in America has been contested, characterized by expansions often followed by swift contractions; gains in political participation by communities of color are too often met with corresponding efforts to constrict the franchise. See Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States xxiii (2009). The fight for the vote for Black Americans provides a prime example of this phenomenon. No other democracy in the world has enfranchised a large group, then disfranchised it—and then re-enfranchised it. See Richard M. Valley, The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement 1-2 (2004).
A. Early federal efforts to enfranchise Blacks during Reconstruction were later undermined by state election laws.
Following the Civil War, Congress moved swiftly to establish widespread Black suffrage. Between 1866 and 1867, the percentage of Black males eligible to vote “shot up from .5 percent to 80.5 percent, with all of the increase in the former Confederacy.” Valley, supra, at 3.
By 1870, the U.S. Constitution featured two new amendments, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth, enshrining the right to vote. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, amend. XV. With those constitutional amendments,

7
the first Reconstruction, a period of democratic expansion, was well underway. “Black office-holding emerged very rapidly” during Reconstruction. Valley, supra, at 3. “About half of the lower house of South Carolina’s legislature . . . was [B]lack; 42 percent of Louisiana’s lower [state] house was Black; and 29 percent of Mississippi’s state house was Black.” Id.
But the abrupt end of Reconstruction in 1877 offers a bitter lesson about the consequences of failed political will to sustain comprehensive voting rights for voters of color. Following the demise of Reconstruction, states and localities in the Old Confederacy engaged in decades of “unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution,” by promulgating numerous measures designed either to prevent Blacks from voting, or to cancel out the effect of the Black vote. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309 (1966).
By the 1890s, only “a generation after the great expansion in Black voting and office-holding,” Southern legislatures “extinguish[ed] voting rights for the great majority” of Blacks, as Congress dismantled Reconstruction-era statutes. Valley, supra, at 3. Indeed, “[a] House report from the Fifty-third Congress (1893-1895) demanded that ‘every trace of reconstruction measures be wiped from the books.’” Id. at 1 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 53-18, at 7 (1893)). Without the democratic protections of the Reconstruction-era statutes, discriminatory voting laws proliferated, as states implemented grandfather clauses, voter roll purges, poll taxes, strict voter identification requirements, and literacy and “understanding” tests—each of which was discriminato-

8
rily enforced against Black voters at the polls. See generally Debo P. Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 1982-2006, 17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 413, 416-19 (2008) (tracing the history of voting rights discrimination in Louisiana to the present day). Specifically, “‘the key disfranchising features of the southern registration laws were the amount of discretion granted to the registrars, the specificity of the information required of the registrant, the times and places set for registration, and the requirement that a voter bring his registration certificate to the polling place.’” Mark Thomas Quinlivan, Comment, One Person, One Vote Revisited: The Impending Necessity of Judicial Intervention in the Realm of Voter Registration, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2361, 2368 (1989) (quoting J. M. Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910 48 (1974)). To disfranchise voters of color further, states also tailored laws that disqualified people convicted of criminal offenses to apply to crimes thought to be committed by newly freed Blacks but not by Whites. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 224-27 (1985) (striking down Alabama’s 1901 felon disfranchisement law because it was enacted with a discriminatory purpose); Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law & The Sentencing Project, The Discriminatory Effects of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws, Policies and Practices on Minority Civic Participation in the United States 3-4 (2009), available at http://www.sentencingprject.org/doc/publications/ publications/fd_UNMinorityForum.pdf.
In addition, states passed “second generation” barriers—a seamless continuation of the previous

9
discrimination, akin to “pour[ing] old poison into new bottles,” Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 366 (2000) (Souter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)—to prevent Black participation in voting. These efforts enabled county councils and school boards, for example, to use at-large elections to submerge newly registered minority voters within White majorities, draw racial gerrymanders, close or secretly move polling stations in minority neighborhoods, and employ countless other strategies to minimize the voting strength of voters of color. See Chandler Davidson, The Recent Evolution of Voting Rights Law Affecting Racial and Language Minorities, in Quiet Revolution in the South 21, 2227 (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman eds., 1993).
Together, these schemes reduced minority participation to insignificance. By the early 1900s, the racially discriminatory application of these laws resulted in the disfranchisement of 90 percent of Blacks in the Deep South. See James E. Alt, The Impact of the Voting Rights Act on Black and White Voter Registration in the South, in Quiet Revolution in the South 351, 354-56 (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman eds., 1993). “In Virginia, the black electorate was reduced from 147,000 to 21,000. In Mississippi, after adoption of the postReconstruction constitution, 6% of eligible Blacks were registered to vote. One percent of eligible African-Americans were registered to vote in Alabama by 1902, compared with 75% of Whites.” Dayna L. Cunningham, Who Are to Be the Electors? A Reflection on the History of Voter Registration in the United States, 9 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 370, 380 (1991).

10
Over the course of the 20th century, this Court slowly invalidated many of these state-sponsored discriminatory voting practices. Nevertheless, states continued to systematically exclude Blacks from the political process. See, e.g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 359-60 (1972) (striking down durational residency requirements for voter registration in Tennessee); Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 (1966) (declaring poll taxes an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause); Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 (1965) (striking down Louisiana’s provision of an “interpretation test” to prospective voters as an unconstitutional device designed to disenfranchise Blacks); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 656-57, 664-65 (1944) (condemning the Democratic Party’s practice of all-White primaries, which completely excluded Blacks from the political process).
B. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished many of the barriers to full political participation for voters of color.
March 7, 1965 was a turning point, and a defining moment for civil rights in this Nation. That day, millions of Americans had their television programs interrupted with images of law enforcement officers brutally assaulting Black men, women, and children on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. The demonstrators were peacefully protesting a state trooper’s killing of a young Black man during a voter registration event. See David J. Garrow, Protests at Selma: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 61-62 (1978). A week later, President Johnson delivered a speech before a special joint session of Congress. He began:

11
I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of Democracy. I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that. At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man’s unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Address to Congress on the Voting Rights Act: We Shall Overcome (Mar. 15, 1965), available at www.historyplace.com/ speeches/johnson.htm.
President Johnson described the now-infamous tactics employed to prevent Blacks from voting in the South, and he shared his first-hand experience witnessing discrimination against Mexican Americans in Texas. Id. He urged the passage of a new voting rights act, but recognized: “even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over.” Id.
Congress responded by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 937, a milestone in “the struggle to end discriminatory treatment of minorities who seek to exercise one of the most fundamental rights of our citizens: the right to vote.” Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 6 (2009). Widely regarded as the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement, the VRA has proven to be one of the most successful federal civil rights statutes, if not statutes of any kind, in American history.

12

As a result of the VRA, Black registration rates

rose dramatically and, consequently, the number of

Black elected officials in this country increased

nearly fivefold within five years after its passage.

See H.R. Rep. No. 109-478, at 18, 130 (2006), , re-

printed in 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 618. Today, there are

over 9,000 Black elected officials. Id. at 18. Most of

these officials are elected from districts that were

created or protected under the VRA to remedy the

dilution of the votes of communities of color. See

Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman, The Voting

Rights Act and the Second Reconstruction, in Quiet

Revolution in the South 378, 381-86 (Chandler Da-

vidson & Bernard Grofman eds., 1993). Signifi-

cantly, the VRA helped lead to the election and then

the re-election of the first Black President of the

United States. See Sam Roberts, 2008 Surge in

Black Voters Nearly Erased Racial Gap, N.Y. Times,

July 21, 2009, at A14, available at

http://www.nytimes.com/

2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html; see also Harry J.

Enten, White Voter Decline in 2012: The Conundrum

Behind the Cliché, The Guardian (Nov. 9, 2012),

available

at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/

09/white-voter-decline-2012-conundrum.

And yet, while the VRA has proven to be a powerful remedy, voting discrimination has persisted.

C. Black registration rates remained significantly lower than those of Whites even after the enactment of the VRA.

The VRA helped to raise Black registration rates in the South to 60 percent by the late 1980s. See Alt,

13
supra, at 354 & 374. But even with this powerful tool, Black registration and turnout rates continued to lag far behind those of Whites.
In the mid-1980s in Mississippi, for example, Black registration rates were 25 percentage points below White registration rates. Miss. State Chapter, Operation PUSH v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 125455 (N.D. Miss. 1987). In the late 1980s, people of color and the poor were overrepresented among the 47 percent of eligible voters who remained unregistered. See Cunningham, supra, at 385 & n.97. Voter turnout for people of color also remained extremely low, as only 37 percent of eligible Black voters went to the polls in 1994. See Nathan V. Gemmiti, Note, Porsche or Pinto? The Impact of the “Motor Voter Registration Act” on Black Political Participation, 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 71, 73 (1998).2
These low registration and turnout rates were attributable in part to the restrictive registration laws that traced their origins to the discriminatory laws described above. See, e.g., Cunningham, supra, at 385-86 (“‘[R]egistration requirements are a more effective deterrent to voting than anything that normally operates to deter citizens from voting once they have registered, at least in presidential elections.’”) (quoting Stanley Kelley et al., Registration and Voting: Putting First Things First, 61 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 359, 362 (1967)). In a study published in 1980, 82 percent of nonvoters explained that they did not vote because they were not registered. Id. at
2 States were not mandated to implement the NVRA until 1996. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg; see also Gemmiti, supra, at 96.

14
386 n.98 (citing William Crotty, The Franchise: Registration Changes and Voter Representation, in Paths to Political Reform 67, 524 (1980)).
Before the passage of the NVRA, states, particularly in the South, prohibited absentee voter registration, permitted only county registrars or their deputies to register voters, limited registration to the least convenient hours for potential voters, and maintained registrar locations far from where many voters lived. See, e.g., Alt, supra, at 356 (“Even in 1970, of the eleven southern states only Tennessee and Texas had any provision for absentee registration, although twenty-seven of the thirty-nine nonsouthern states had such provisions.”); Cunningham, supra, at 386 & n.99 (noting that “[i]n some rural areas where only one site is used for voter registration, potential voters . . . must travel distances of over 100 miles to register”); Quinlivan, supra, at 2374-75 & n.93 (listing states that give the local registrars discretion to appoint deputies; “this practice results more often in greater power to inhibit registration than in increases in the ease of registration”). To make matters worse, forty states and the District of Columbia permitted purges of voters from registration rolls if those voters did not participate in a certain number of past elections. Id. at 2374.
These barriers to registration disproportionately impacted, and often were originally intended to target, voters of color and the poor, many of whom lacked access to transportation to travel long distances at inconvenient times to register to vote. See Lani Guinier, Keeping the Faith: Black Voters in the Post-Reagan Era, 24 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393, 419-20 (1989). For instance, the 1980 Census found

15
that 42 percent of Blacks, but only 9 percent of Whites, lacked access to transportation in rural Arkansas. Id. at 419 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. Table 96, Arkansas 5-117-119 (1988)).3 Moreover, people of color and the poor relied more heavily than Whites on voter registration drives—which were disfavored in many jurisdictions. See, e.g., NAACP, DeKalb Cnty. Chapter v. Georgia, 494 F. Supp. 668, 670 & n.2, 673 (N.D. Ga. 1980) (“During the month of January, 1980, at all DeKalb County voter registration sites, 2,700 people were registered. On the other hand, during a one-day voter registration drive conducted by plaintiff League [of Women Voters] . . . approximately one and one-half times as many people were registered”); cf. Alt, supra, at 368 (noting that, by 1968, 60 percent of Blacks in southern majority-minority counties visited by federal ex-
3 The discriminatory impact of those state registration laws that required voters to travel long distances to register to vote is strikingly similar to that of Texas’s voter photo identification law, which was rejected by a federal district court because it, among other things, required some rural voters to travel distances of over 200 miles to obtain acceptable identification. Texas v. Holder, No. 12-128, 2012 WL 3743676, at *27-29 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2012). A three-judge panel refused to preclear the law under section 5 of the VRA, id. at *1, finding that 13.1 percent of Blacks and 7.3 percent of Latinos lived in households without access to a motor vehicle, compared with only 3.8 percent of whites. Id. at *29. “If traveling over 200 miles constitutes a substantial burden on people without driver’s licenses who can nonetheless find a ride to a [Department of Public Safety] office, . . . imagine the burden for the predominantly minority population whose households lack access to any car at all.” Id.

16
aminers were registered to vote, whereas only 28 percent of Blacks were registered in similar, but unvisited counties).
Finally, purges of voter registration lists also disproportionately affected voters of color and the poor because they were more likely to be inactive voters, to move inter-county between elections, or to be under-educated and, thus, less likely to respond to letters requesting that they update their registration. See S. Rep. No. 103-6, at 17-20 (1993) (recognizing that purges of nonvoters had a disparate impact on minorities); Cunningham, supra, at 391-95 (discussing illiteracy and local mobility’s relationship to discriminatory purges of voter rolls).
VRA litigation successfully challenged some, but not all, of these registration barriers. See, e.g., Miss. State Chapter, Operation Push, Inc. v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400, 401, 412-13 (5th Cir. 1991) (affirming a district court’s finding that Mississippi’s dual registration system and prohibition on satellite registration violated the VRA and affirming the steps taken by the district court to cure those violations); see also NAACP, DeKalb Cnty. Chapter, 494 F. Supp. at 673, 676, 679 (holding that DeKalb County’s refusal to allow the plaintiff-nonprofits to operate satellite voter registration sites beyond the county registrar’s office was subject to the preclearance requirement of the VRA; and temporarily enjoining the county from blocking further third-party registration drives). During the same period, many in Congress recognized that broader, more meaningful voter registration laws were needed, and over the next 20 years introduced more than 44 reform bills. See Cunningham, supra, at 387-88 (discussing the various pro-

17
posed bills); Gemmiti, supra, at 89-94 (describing efforts to enact voter registration reform).
II. Congress enacted the NVRA in response to persisting discriminatory voting laws and to equalize access to voter registration.
Finally, after numerous attempts to expand the electorate and address longstanding and widespread discrimination in the voter registration context, Representative Al Swift (D-WA) introduced the NVRA in 1993. See Voter Registration: Hearing Held Before the H. Subcomm. on Elections, Comm. on H. Admin., 103rd Cong. 1-2 (1993) (statement of Rep. Swift). Representative Swift, who authored the NVRA, explained the bill’s purpose as:
the eradication of a rather unfortunate tradition in this country. We have used voter registration mechanisms in the United States throughout many, many decades to prevent various groups who were from time to time and by certain groups considered undesirable, to make it very difficult for them to vote. At various times those have been eastern Europeans and southern Europeans, the Irish, African-Americans, and others.
139 Cong. Rec. H505, H506 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1993) (statement of Rep. Swift).
A. The NVRA is a civil rights statute designed to increase voter registration among people of color and the poor.
The NVRA sought to eliminate barriers to registration and to affirmatively “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for

18
Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1). It was also adopted as a special effort to reach “the poor and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s licenses and will not come into contact with [motor vehicle agencies].” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 19 (1993) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140.
In particular, the NVRA requires states to make registration available: (1) “by application made simultaneously with an application for a motor vehicle driver’s license,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2(a)(1); (2) “by mail application” using the Federal Form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-2(a)(2), 1973gg-4; and (3) “by application in person” at sites designated in accordance with state law or state voter registration agencies, id. § 1973gg-2(a)(3). The Federal Form—a nationally uniform voter application that applicants can use to register by mail, id. §§ 1973gg-4, 1973gg7(a)(2)—was in part designed to facilitate registration drives.
Section 7 of the NVRA sets forth further obligations of certain state offices as “voter registration agencies.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 18-20; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5. Section 7(a)(6) of the NVRA requires all state offices that provide Medicaid, food stamps, and other public assistance benefits, to provide their clients “a mail voter registration application form,” and assistance completing the voter registration form, “with each application for [public] service or assistance, and with each recertification, renewal, or change of address form relating to such service or assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(6). The NVRA, which passed with broad bipartisan sup-

19
port and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993, Gemmiti, supra, at 95-96, also established limitations on voter purges. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(d).
Significantly, in passing the NVRA, Congress recognized that “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” Id. § 1973gg(a)(3). In that spirit, Congress took steps to ensure that the NVRA could not be used by states to enact discriminatory laws, like Arizona’s Proposition 200. In the Joint House-Senate Conference, members of Congress expressly rejected language from the bill that would have given states the power to require individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. See Gemmiti, supra, at 95 n.252 (citing Richard Sammon, Deal May Speed Up “Motor Voter,” Cong. Q. Wkly. Rep., May 1, 1993, at 1080).
B. Voter registration rates among people of color have increased significantly as a result of the NVRA.
As intended by Congress, voter registration increased dramatically following the NVRA’s passage, with 20 million new registrants, 9 million of whom were Black, being added to the voter registration rolls between 1995 and June 1996. See Robert Brown & Justin Wedeking, People Who Have Their Tickets But Do Not Use Them: “Motor Voter,” Registration, and Turnout Revisited, 34 Am. Pol. Res. 479, 484-87 (2006); Gemmiti, supra, at 97. Widely recognized for its pivotal role in ushering in a new period

20
of democratic expansion in this country, the NVRA led to significant improvements in disparities in registration rates between people of color and Whites. See Gemmiti, supra, at 97.
Efforts to enforce the NVRA in states have also led to dramatic increases in voter registration in more recent years. In 2004, for example, Iowa improved its agency-based voter registration and experienced a 700 percent increase in registrations over the previous presidential election cycle as well as a 3,000 percent increase over the previous year. See Estelle H. Rogers, The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On 2 (2009), available at www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rogers__NVRA_at_15.pdf.
Other states, however, have sought to frustrate the dictates of the NVRA, through measures similar to Arizona’s Proposition 200, and have been required to comply with the statute by court order. Missouri, for example, was compelled by a district court to comply with the NVRA. Id. Following the implementation of the court order, state public assistance agencies collected 26,000 voter registration applications in just six weeks. Id.
And just last year, LDF won partial summary judgment in a challenge to Louisiana’s failure to comply with the NVRA, with a court holding that the NVRA requires that all public assistance clients be provided with a voter registration application, whether they seek benefits in person or remotely by the internet, telephone, or mail. Ferrand v. Schedler, No. 11-926, 2012 WL 1570094, at *12 (E.D. La. May 3, 2012). In Louisiana, registrations from public assistance agencies had plummeted 88 per-

21
cent since the NVRA was first implemented, from 75,000 in 1995 to 1996 to a mere 9,000 in 2007 to 2008. See Pls.’ Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Injunctive Remedy at 10, Scott v. Schedler, No. 11-926 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2012), ECF No. 372. After LDF filed this lawsuit, however, voter registrations through public assistance offices spiked, with the number of new registrations increasing as much as sevenfold from previous years. See id. at 8-9.
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has also filed a number of lawsuits under the NVRA. See, e.g., United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1350-51 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (finding that a voter purge program in Florida “probably ran afoul” of the NVRA insofar as it identified many citizens as potential noncitizens); United States v. Louisiana, No. 11-470, 2011 WL 6012992, at *6 (M.D. La. Dec. 1, 2011) (denying in part the state’s motion to dismiss claims that it failed to offer registration at public assistance agencies); Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, No. 11-113S (D.R.I. Mar. 25, 2011), ECF No. 3 (consent decree requiring state officials to ensure that voter registration opportunities are offered at all state public assistance and disability services offices); Consent Decree, United States v. Tennessee, No 02-0938 (M.D. Tenn. Oct 16, 2002) (mandating that state officials develop and implement uniform voter registration application procedures and annual NVRA trainings for employees of state driver’s licenses and public services offices). Notably, in 2008, after the U.S. Department of Justice raised concerns about the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s compliance with Section 7,

22
the parties entered into an agreement establishing standards to ensure the proper implementation of the NVRA. See Agreement Between the United States Department of Justice and the Arizona Department of Economic Security Concerning Standards and Monitoring of Compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (May 15, 2008), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/az_nvra_m oa.php.
The prominent role that the NVRA has played in increasing registration and turnout rates among lowincome voters, who are disproportionately persons of color, is significant. Between 2007 and 2010, an astonishing one million low-income people in five different states registered to vote as a result of NVRA enforcement. See Youjin B. Kim & Lisa Danetz, Demos, 1 Million New Voters Among the 99%: How Agency-Based Voter Registration Gives Low-Income Americans a Voice in Democracy (2011), available at http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/ Million_Mark_Demos.pdf.
III. Arizona’s Proposition 200 is inconsistent with and preempted by the National Voter Registration Act.
Notwithstanding the long, exclusive, and sad history of voting discrimination in response to which Congress enacted the NVRA, and the important strides toward equality in the voter registration process that the NVRA has occasioned, Arizona has sought to return to the pre-NVRA era—and even the pre-VRA era—by mounting an assault on the voting rights of people of color, and Latinos in particular, through Proposition 200.

23
As noted earlier, between 2000 and 2010, the number of Latinos in Arizona grew significantly, by almost 600,000, from less than 1.3 million to approximately 1.9 million. The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2012) (statement of Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) [hereinafter Senate Hearing] at 1, available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-1219PeralesTestimony.pdf. Latinos now comprise 30 percent of the state’s population. Id. In response to this demographic trend, Arizona voters, citing a need to combat undocumented immigration, adopted Proposition 200, a discriminatory measure that requires county registrars to “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F).
For its part, Arizona failed to identify a single instance in which an undocumented immigrant registered or voted in the state. Senate Hearing, supra, at 3 (statement of Perales). The impact of the law was significant, however. Following the enactment of Proposition 200, Arizona rejected the registration applications of more than 30,000 individuals. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-1268, slip op. at 13 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2008). Nearly 17 percent of those rejected were Latinos, a figure measurably higher than the almost 14 percent of Latinos in the original registration applicant pool. See id.
Proposition 200 is foreclosed by the NVRA. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 388 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As discussed above, Congress en-

24
sured that the NVRA could not be used by states to enact discriminatory laws, like Arizona’s Proposition 200. Congress specifically rejected language in the bill that would have given states the power to selectively require individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. See Gemmiti, supra, at 95 n.252 (citing Sammon, supra, at 1080). In so doing, Congress also sought to prevent states from discriminating against voters with “foreign sounding” names. Id.
The NVRA’s preemption of discriminatory measures like Proposition 200 is especially important for Latinos in Arizona, who comprise the state’s fastestgrowing citizen voting-age population and who are engulfed in an often heated debate about immigrants from Mexico living in the state. Senate Hearing, supra, at 3 (statement of Perales). As Latinos in Arizona, and people of color more broadly, strive to overcome the effects of past exclusion from the political process, measures like Proposition 200 undermine that effort. Fortunately, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down Proposition 200, correctly recognizing that it was both inconsistent with and preempted by the NVRA. Gonzalez, 677 F.3d at 388.
Democracy in America is contested and has been characterized by periods of progress and retrenchment. For nearly a century before the enactment of the VRA and NVRA, many jurisdictions held tightly to discriminatory practices that excluded people of color from equal political participation. The NVRA ushered in a period of democratic expansion and has been extraordinarily effective at leading our nation toward becoming a more inclusive democracy. Ari-

25
zona’s Proposition 200, and other similar efforts that recall the discriminatory laws of the last century, threaten to undermine the hard-fought progress of the last fifty years.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, and those advocated by Respondents, we respectfully request that the decision of the Court of Appeals be affirmed.
Respectfully Submitted,
DEBO P. ADEGBILE Acting President & Director-Counsel
ELISE C. BODDIE RYAN P. HAYGOOD
Counsel of Record NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, 16th Fl. New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200 rhaygood@naacpldf.org
JOSHUA CIVIN NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I St., NW, 10th Fl. Washington, DC 20005
MICHAEL B. DE LEEUW DEUEL ROSS VICTORIEN WU FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

January 22, 2013

26
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
JEROME GOTKIN MICHAEL ARNOLD MINTZ LEVIN COHEN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017
WADE HENDERSON LISA M. BORNSTEIN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1629 K Street, NW, 10th Fl. Washington, DC 20006
STEVEN M. FREEMAN LAUREN A. JONES JUSTINE K. FANAROF ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158