1

2

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

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

Danielle Lang (CA Bar No. 304450)

Paul M. Smith (DC Bar No. 358870) 

J. Gerald Hebert (VA Bar No. 38432) 

Adav Noti (DC Bar No. 490714) 

Mark Gaber (DC Bar No. 988077) 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

1411 K Street NW Suite 1400 

Washington, DC 20005 

Tel: (202) 736-2200 

Email: dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

(additional counsel below)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

League of United Latin American Citizens 

Arizona; Arizona Students’ Association,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Michele Reagan, in her official capacity as 

Secretary of State of Arizona; Adrian 

Fontes, in his official capacity as Maricopa 

County Recorder,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

CONSENT DECREE

(Expedited Relief Requested)

Come now, Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona (“LULACArizona”), Plaintiff Arizona Students’ Association (“ASA”), Defendant Michele Reagan, in her 

official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona (the “Secretary”), and Defendant Adrian Fontes, 

in his official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder (“Recorder Fontes”), hereinafter the 

“Parties,” by and through their attorneys of record, and hereby request that the Court approve and 

enter the attached Consent Decree (Exhibit A) as an Order of this Court. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 7
1

2

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

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

On November 7, 2017, LULAC-Arizona and ASA initiated this action against the 

Secretary and Recorder Fontes. The complaint alleged that Arizona’s dual voter registration 

policies violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Specifically, LULAC-Arizona and ASA alleged that Arizona treats voter registration applicants 

differently depending on whether they use Arizona’s state registration form (the “State Form”) or 

the national registration form (the “Federal Form”). At the time the lawsuit was filed and currently, 

fourteen of Arizona’s County Recorders reject State Form applications submitted without valid

documentary proof of citizenship (“DPOC”). Federal law requires the County Recorders to accept 

Federal Form applications, even when they are submitted without DPOC. The Motor Vehicles 

Department (“MVD”) Proxy Table is then electronically checked through an automated process 

to determine whether the Federal Form applicants have a valid driver’s license, which indicates 

that DPOC is supposed to be on file with the MVD. Those with DPOC on file are eligible to vote 

in both state and federal elections (“Full Ballot Voter”). Those who do not have DPOC on file 

with the MVD remained as Fed Only Voters, able to vote in federal elections.

As a result, whether one who does not present valid DPOC is registered to vote in federal 

elections is entirely dependent on which form the applicant uses to register. Those using the 

Federal Form, but not providing DPOC, are registered to vote in federal elections; and, depending 

on the results of the Secretary’s automated review of the MVD database, may be registered to 

vote in state elections as well. But those using the State Form, and not providing valid DPOC, are 

not registered to vote in any elections because the application is rejected in its entirety. LULACArizona and ASA alleged that this dual voter registration process violated the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 2 of 7
1

2

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

3

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

The Secretary denies that Arizona’s voter registration policies violate the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments or are otherwise illegal under state or federal law. The Secretary asserts

that Federal and State Form applicants are not similarly situated for equal protection purposes.

The Secretary asserts that Arizona is constitutionally permitted to require those applying to 

register to vote using the State Form to personally provide DPOC at the time that they submit their 

State Form. The Secretary further asserts that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement 

that Arizona election officials register applicants for federal elections when they have chosen to 

use the State Form to register to vote rather than the Federal Form.

Nevertheless, the Secretary and Recorder Fontes desire to make it as easy possible for 

Arizona’s citizens to register to vote, while remaining consistent with Arizona and federal law 

and also providing necessary safeguards to deter those who would commit voter registration fraud.

Having reviewed the applicable law, the Secretary and Recorder Fontes have concluded that 

current technology allows the Secretary, Recorder Fontes, and the other Arizona County 

Recorders to treat State Form applications exactly as they treat Federal Form applications, and 

that because of current technology such treatment is consistent with the provisions of Arizona 

law, including the requirements of Proposition 200, codified at A.R.S. §§ 16-166(F) and 16-

152(A)(23). The Secretary and Recorder Fontes agree that treating Federal Form and State Form 

applications the same will make it easier for Arizona’s citizens to register to vote, while also 

providing important safeguards to prevent unlawful voter registration. Accordingly, on February 

8, 2018, the Secretary and Recorder Fontes through their counsel notified counsel for LULACArizona and ASA of their desire to enter into an agreement that will resolve the underlying 

litigation and also benefit Arizona’s citizens.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 3 of 7
1

2

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

4

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

The Parties have negotiated in good faith and agree to the entry of this Consent Decree as 

an appropriate resolution of all claims. The Consent Decree would resolve all substantive claims 

of the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case.1 The Court should approve the Consent Decree 

because it is fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and will benefit Arizona’s voters and elections. 

Of note, the deadlines and compliance timelines included in the Consent Decree were carefully 

negotiated to ensure that eligible voters in Arizona would benefit from the Consent Decree before 

the upcoming August 2018 Primary Elections. In light of the foregoing, the Parties respectfully 

request that this Court approve the Consent Decree and enter it as an Order of this Court as soon 

as possible.

Dated: June 4, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Danielle Lang________________

Danielle Lang (CA Bar No. 304450)

Paul M. Smith (DC Bar No. 358870)

J. Gerald Hebert (VA Bar No. 38432)

Adav Noti (DC Bar No. 490714)

Mark Gaber (DC Bar No. 988077)

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER

1411 K Street NW Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 736-2200

Email: dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org

Spencer G. Scharff (AZ Bar No. 028946)

GODDARD LAW OFFICE PLC

502 W. Roosevelt Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Tel: (602) 258-5521

Email: scharff@goddardlawplc.com

 

1 The matter of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs has not been fully resolved. As agreed upon 

in the consent decree, the Parties will continue to negotiate in good faith and if the matter is not 

resolved, Plaintiffs will file a motion for fees and costs within 45 days after entry of this 

Consent Decree. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 4 of 7
1

2

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

5

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

Ezra D. Rosenberg (DC Bar No. 360927)

Arusha Gordon (DC Bar No. 1035129)

Jon M. Greenbaum (DC Bar No. 489887)

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL 

RIGHTS UNDER LAW

1401 New York Avenue NW Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 662-8345

Email: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org

Andrew W. Schwartz (CA Bar No. 87699)

Winter King (CA Bar No. 237958)

Stephanie L. Safdi (CA Bar No. 310517)

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Tel: (415) 552-7272

Email: schwartz@smwlaw.com

Manuel G. Escobar, Jr. (TX Bar No. 06665800)

LULAC

National Legal Advisor

201 W. Poplar St.

San Antonio, TX 78212

Tel: 210-225-1400

Email: Escobarm1@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARK BRNOVICH

Attorney General

/s/ Joseph E. La Rue (With Permission) 

Kara M. Karlson 

Joseph E. La Rue

Assistant Attorneys General 

2005 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.

John D. Wilenchik, Esq.

David A. Timchak, Esq.

The Wilenchik & Bartness Building

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 5 of 7
1

2

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

6

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

2810 North Third Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

admin@wb-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Arizona Secretary of 

State Michele Reagan

WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

/s/ Talia J. Offord (With Permission)

M. Colleen Connor 

Talia J. Offord

connorc@mcao.maricopa.gov

offordt@mcao.maricopa.gov

Attorneys for Defendant Maricopa County 

Recorder Adrian Fontes

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 6 of 7
1

2

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

7

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04102-DGC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on June 4, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of 

record. 

/s/ Danielle Lang 

Danielle Lang

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 7 of 7