1

Spencer G. Scharff (Bar No. 028946)

Goddard Law Office PLC

502 W. Roosevelt Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

(602) 258-5521

scharff@goddardlawplc.com

Attorney 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,

No.

COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 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.

1. This is an action challenging Arizona’s arbitrary dual voter registration 

policies that irrationally disenfranchise thousands of eligible Arizona voters 

and further no legitimate state interests. After the Supreme Court held that 

the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) did not allow Arizona to reject 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 29
2

federal registration forms for lack of documentary proof of citizenship 

(“DPOC”), the Secretary of State implemented a dual registration system in 

order to enforce its DPOC requirement for state election voter registration. 

The design of this system, however, is so fundamentally flawed that it 

disenfranchises tens of thousands of Arizonans without furthering the state 

policies, however tenuous, behind the original DPOC requirement. 

2. Arizona’s current registration policies arbitrarily disenfranchise 

eligible voters depending on whether they happen to complete the Arizona 

Voter Registration Form (“State Form”) (attached as Exhibit 1) or the 

National Mail Voter Registration Form (“Federal Form”) (attached as Exhibit 

2) even though Arizona holds out its state form as an omnibus option for 

registering for all elections.

3. If the voter completes the Federal Form without DPOC, the voter is 

registered to vote in federal elections but not state elections and advised to 

submit DPOC to vote in state elections. However, if the voter completes the 

State Form without DPOC, the voter is not registered for state or federal 

elections and, in violation of prior court order, is not advised of the Federal 

Form option.

4. The Secretary’s policies also impose unjustified burdens on access to 

the right to vote by rejecting voter registration forms for lack of DPOC even 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 2 of 29
3

when the Secretary of State’s office already has the type of evidence 

necessary to satisfy the statutory DPOC requirement readily available to it.

5. The impact of these unjustified policies on eligible Arizona voters is 

undeniable. Upon information and belief, at least 26,000 voters in Maricopa 

County alone have been disenfranchised by these policies. Moreover, based on 

a sample of over 2,000 rejected State Form registrations for lack of DPOC

across eight counties, less than fifteen percent of the rejected voters 

successfully re-registered after receiving notice of the rejection of their 

registrations. Therefore, many eligible voters across Arizona have been 

disenfranchised by these unnecessary bureaucratic policies. 

6. These policies violate prior federal court orders, have disenfranchised 

tens of thousands of Arizonans, and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1343. 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Secretary of 

State Reagan, an elected official for the State of Arizona and resident of the 

State of Arizona.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Maricopa 

County Recorder Fontes, an elected official for Maricopa County and resident 

of Maricopa County.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 3 of 29
4

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

11. This Court has authority to issue declaratory and injunctive relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

FACTS

Proposition 200

12. In 2004, Arizona passed a state initiative, Proposition 200, that would 

require voters to present documentary proof of citizenship—in addition to the

already-existing attestation of U.S. citizenship requirement on federal and 

state registration forms—to register to vote. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-166(F), 16-

152(A)(23).

13. Under the law, sufficient DPOC includes: 

• 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.

• A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that 

verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.

• 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.

• 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 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 4 of 29
5

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.

• Other documents or methods of proof that are established 

pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.

• The applicant’s bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal 

treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F).

14. Proposition 200’s DPOC requirements are not the only proof of 

citizenship required for applying to register to vote. Both the Federal Form 

and the State Form require attestations, under penalty of perjury, of an 

individual’s citizenship of the United States and residency in Arizona.1

 1 This case challenges the Secretary of State’s dual registration policies, which cannot be 

justified even assuming a legitimate state interest in requiring DPOC of voters before they 

can register for state elections. However, Plaintiffs do not concede that Arizona has any 

such legitimate interest in requiring DPOC. There is no evidence of significant noncitizen 

voting anywhere in the country. In Kobach v. United States Election Commission, Arizona 

sought to force the Election Assistance Commission to include its DPOC requirement on the 

state-specific instructions for the Federal Form by arguing that it was necessary for it to 

determine the eligibility of voters. 772 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014). Applying traditional APA 

review standards, the Tenth Circuit held that the record established that Arizona “failed to 

advance proof that registration fraud in the use of the Federal Form prevented Arizona and 

Kansas from enforcing their voter qualifications.” Id. at 1188. Since then, further litigation 

in Kansas has led to additional court findings that DPOC requirements do not address any 

meaningful problem of noncitizen voting and result in large-scale disenfranchisement of 

eligible voters. Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710, 749, 755 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Here, 

Secretary Kobach offers us nothing more than the meager evidence of noncitizens 

registering to vote that he proffered in connection with his statutory arguments supra—

evidence that we deemed insufficient to show that substantial numbers of noncitizens had 

registered to vote.”); (“On the other side of the equation is the near certainty that without 

the preliminary injunction over 18,000 U.S. citizens in Kansas will be disenfranchised for 

purposes of the 2016 federal elections—elections less than one month away.”).

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 5 of 29
6

15. Initially, Arizona applied this additional step for voter registration to 

both state and federal elections. 

16. However, Arizona residents and non-profit organizations (including 

Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona) filed suit 

alleging, among other things, that Proposition 200 violated the National 

Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) by requiring additional information beyond 

that required on the Federal Form. The NVRA requires that all states “accept 

and use” the Federal Form for voter registration for federal offices. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 20505(a)(1). The purpose of this provision and the NVRA overall was to 

“establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who 

register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1). 

17. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the NVRA’s requirement that all 

states “accept and use” the uniform Federal Form for registration in federal 

elections, 52 U.S.C. § 20505(a)(1), preempted the law, at least insofar as it 

applied to Federal Form registrants. See Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of 

Arizona (“Inter Tribal”), 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013).

18. Therefore, Arizona is no longer permitted to restrict access to voting in 

federal elections based on provision of DPOC. 

19. After Inter Tribal, the Arizona Attorney General issued an opinion, at 

the request of Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, finding that Arizona 

law allows for a dual registration system for state and federal elections and 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 6 of 29
7

determining that voters who do not attach DPOC should not be registered for 

state elections pursuant to state law. Ariz. Op. Atty. Gen. No. I13-011 (2013).

20. In June 2014, the Secretary of State published a new Election 

Procedures Manual to implement the bifurcated voter registration system 

proposed by the 2013 Attorney General Opinion. See State of Arizona 

Elections Procedures Manual (2014) (attached as Exhibit 3). 

21. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State’s procedures do not solely 

implement the Attorney General’s command that “[f]or state and local 

matters, registration is contingent on each applicant’s providing evidence of 

citizenship.” Ariz. Op. Atty. Gen. No. I13-011 (2013). The Secretary of State’s 

procedures unnecessarily create a system that distinguishes and 

disenfranchises individuals in federal elections based solely on which 

registration form they use, not their eligibility to vote or what information 

they provide, and disenfranchises voters in state elections even when the 

required DPOC for those voters is readily available to the Secretary of State. 

Arbitrary Failure to Register Voters for Federal Elections

22. The State Form and Federal Form collect the exact same information 

about voter registrants. If a voter uses a Federal Form and does not attach 

DPOC, she is registered for federal elections only and notified to submit 

DPOC in order to vote in state elections. But if that voter registrant happens 

to use a State Form—which Arizona election officials hold out as a universal 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 7 of 29
8

form for state and federal elections—she is not registered for any elections, 

federal or state. The State Form does not inform the voters of this critical 

distinction, nor do nearly all county recorders’ offices, in clear violation of the 

District Court judgment in Inter Tribal, see infra at ¶¶ 28-36. There is no 

basis for this arbitrary treatment of voters. 

23. Arizona disseminates its State Form as an omnibus option for 

registering for state and federal elections, pursuant to the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. 

§ 20505(a)(2). 

24. The 2014 Election Procedures Manual instructs registrars that “a 

federal form may not be rejected because the applicant has not provided 

evidence of citizenship.” Ex. 3 at 22. If the registrar is unable to verify 

citizenship through relevant MVD records, see infra, the registrant is still 

registered for federal elections. 

25. Yet, the same manual instructs registrars to disregard State Form 

applications completely if they do not contain DPOC: “If the 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.” Id. at 17. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 8 of 29
9

26. Apart from the DPOC requirement, there is no meaningful difference 

between the information provided on the State Form and the Federal Form 

with respect to proving eligibility to vote. Both forms include an attestation of 

citizenship, under penalty of perjury, and all the other necessary information 

to register to vote for federal elections. 

27. Thus, in the absence of DPOC, the rejection of one citizen’s registration

and the acceptance of another’s registration to vote in federal elections hinge

entirely on what form the citizen submits, not whether they attach DPOC. 

28. Defendants further exacerbate the harms of this arbitrary system by 

failing to educate voters about this critical distinction in violation of the 

District Court’s order in Inter Tribal. 

29. The District Court’s order in Inter Tribal required Defendants, 

including the Secretary of State and all Recorders and Election Directors of 

Arizona’s counties, to “ensure that all written materials regarding the 

process for registering to vote, that Defendants distribute or make available 

to the public (including websites), include a statement that individuals may 

apply to register to vote in elections for Federal office using the Federal 

Form, and that, in using the Federal Form, applicants are not required to 

provide the documentary proof of citizenship information . . . in order to 

register to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. CV-06-1268, 2013 WL 7767705, at 

*1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 11, 2013) (emphasis added).

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 9 of 29
10

30. But this notification is absent from nearly all written materials 

distributed by election officials regarding voter registration. 

31. First and foremost, the State Form lacks any notification of the Federal 

Form option, which does not require DPOC. See Ex. 1. To the contrary, the 

State Form instructs voters that DPOC is an unqualified requirement for 

voter registration. Id.

32. Therefore, when the State Form is distributed to voters at local 

agencies, registration drives, libraries, and other locations, voters are not 

aware of the Federal Form option. 

33. Second, this notification is also absent from the instructions on voter 

registration given by election officials on most county recorders’ websites in all 

but two counties, Apache County, which has a population under 100,000, and 

Yavapai County, which has a population under 225,000. See Exhibit 4

(collecting the information provided on each county recorders’ website).2

34. Indeed, most recorders’ websites have instructions regarding the DPOC 

requirement that inform voters that they “must also include proof of 

citizenship or the form will not be processed” while failing to explain that this 

 2 The Pima County Recorder website includes information about the Federal Form in its 

Voter FAQs section under the following question: “Is there more than one form to register 

to vote in Arizona and are there differences between the forms?” However, on its voter 

registration page, it does not include any information about the Federal Form option and 

instead links to a document titled “New Voter Registration Requirements” that states that 

voter registration “must also include proof of citizenship” and does not include any 

information about the Federal Form option. Ex. 4 at 23-25.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 10 of 29
11

is not the case with respect to Federal Forms for federal elections. See, e.g., 

Pima County Recorder, Notice: New Voter Registration Requirements, 

https://www.recorder.pima.gov/docs/prop200.pdf; Ex. 4. 

35. Finally, notification of the Federal Form option is notably absent from 

the Secretary of State’s proposed mail notification to voters that submit a 

State Form without DPOC. Ex. 3 at 316, 322. These potential voters, who 

were not able to attach DPOC when turning in the State Form, are the most 

relevant audience for this notification. But the Secretary’s proposed mail 

notification to these potential voters does not instruct officials to advise 

registrants of the Federal Form option. Instead, the sample letter states that 

the “law now requires that all NEW voter registration forms must be 

accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States Citizenship” and 

“[y]our name will not be added to the voter registration file until we have 

received the new enclosed voter registration form with the required 

information.” Id. at 322 (emphasis added).

36. As a result, county recorders’ offices send notices to voters who submit 

State Forms without DPOC that do not explain the option of using the 

Federal Form to register for federal elections and instead suggest that 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 11 of 29
12

providing DPOC is the only option to register to vote in any elections. See 

Exhibit 5 (form letters from eleven county recorders).3

37. The option to register to vote in federal elections without DPOC is 

particularly important for those voters who lack the underlying 

documentation, easy access to copying services, and/or transportation to a 

registration office to deliver DPOC.

38. It is also crucial for those voters who are only able to register prior to 

the deadline at a local registration drive, local library, or agency and do not 

have their birth certificate or other DPOC on their person at the time. 

39. Upon information and belief, this system has barred at least 26,000 

otherwise eligible voters who used the State Form from participating in 

federal elections in Maricopa County alone and thousands more in other 

counties.

Failure to Register Voters When MVD Records Confirm Citizenship

40. The Secretary of State’s policies also instruct election officials to reject 

the registrations of voters even when satisfactory DPOC for those voters is 

 3 Defendant Secretary of State’s website includes one notification on its website of the 

Federal Form option: “Individuals may apply to register to vote in elections for Federal 

office using the Federal Voter Registration Form (link is external). In using the Federal 

Form, applicants are not required to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote 

in elections for Federal office.” Arizona Secretary of State, Register to Vote or Update Your 

Current Voter Information, https://www.azsos.gov/elections/voting-election/register-vote-orupdate-your-current-voter-information (last visited Nov. 2, 2017).

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 12 of 29
13

readily available to the Secretary of State through the ordinary voter 

registration process.

41. As part of the ordinary voter registration process, the Secretary of 

State’s office coordinates with the MVD to check every new voter registration, 

from both State and Federal Form registrants, against the MVD database. 

Where a driver’s license or identification license number is not provided on 

the registration form, “[t]he Secretary of State will match available data with 

the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division. If there is a match, data from MVD will 

be added to the record.” Ex. 3 at 17. 

42. Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F), valid DPOC includes a 

“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.”

43. Thus, in the case of Federal Forms, the Secretary of State has a 

commonsense policy. Even if the voter does not affirmatively provide a 

driver’s license number, if there is a match with MVD that provides a driver’s 

license number and that driver’s license meets the statutory requirements 

above, election officials are instructed that “this constitutes proof of 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 13 of 29
14

citizenship . . . even if the registrant provided no other form of proof of 

citizenship.” Ex. 3 at 25. 

44. Yet, for State Form registrants that do not provide a driver’s license 

number or another form of proof of citizenship, election officials are 

instructed to reject outright the registration before the Secretary of State has 

the opportunity to conduct the MVD matching it would ordinarily perform 

and that could easily provide proof of citizenship. Id. at 17. (“If the form is not 

accompanied by proper proof of citizenship [including a Arizona driver’s 

license number], the voter registration is not valid and either will not be 

entered into the system or if it was entered into the system, the record shall 

be cancelled.”). 

45. Regardless of Arizona’s interest in obtaining DPOC from its voters 

prior to state election registration, see supra note 1, Arizona does not have 

any legitimate interest in rejecting the registration forms of eligible Arizona 

voters for lack of “proof of citizenship” when the statutorily required proof is 

readily available to it.

46. Upon information and belief, Defendant Maricopa County Recorder’s 

office has begun to match voters’ registration data with MVD data to 

determine if adequate proof of citizenship is readily available before rejecting 

a voter’s registration for lack of DPOC regardless of whether the voter used 

the State Form or Federal Form.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 14 of 29
15

47. Upon information and belief, Defendant Fontes is also retroactively 

using this process for the approximately 26,000 previously disenfranchised 

voters who submitted State Forms to the Maricopa County Recorder’s office 

yet were never registered to vote.

48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Fontes has determined that at 

least 8,000 of those disenfranchised voters have a match in the Arizona 

driver’s license database and, therefore, many of those individuals’ 

citizenship can be readily verified.

49. Upon information and belief, following Defendant Reagan’s manual, 

other county recorders do not match MVD data for State Form registrants 

before rejecting them for failure to provide proof of citizenship although they 

match MVD data for Federal Form registrants and register those voters for 

all elections where the MVD match provides proof of citizenship.

50. There is no rational basis for this distinction. 

51. There is no legitimate justification for disenfranchisement of voters 

where the statutory proof of citizenship is readily available to election 

officials.

52. Arizona’s DPOC statute and the Secretary of State’s DPOC policies 

impose additional unnecessary burdens on voters unrelated to the state’s 

asserted interest in obtaining DPOC from voters for registration. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 15 of 29
16

53. For instance, Arizona requires eligible voters to re-submit documentary 

proof of citizenship if a voter moves to another county within Arizona. See

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(G)-(H). Thus, once again, even where Defendants 

have voters’ proof of citizenship available to them in another county 

recorder’s office, election officials reject eligible voters’ registrations on the 

basis of lack of proof of citizenship. 

54. Defendant Secretary of State’s policies also require voters who failed to 

include DPOC with their initial voter registration form to re-submit their 

voter registration forms rather than merely providing the missing 

information, even if the submitted forms were facially valid. See Ex. 4 (county 

recorder notices requiring voters to resubmit their voter registration forms). 

This policy imposes an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on voters, 

particularly those with limited literacy who rely on assistance to complete 

forms.4

55. The Secretary of State’s policies also bar voters from updating their 

voter registration records with valid proof of citizenship after the voter 

registration deadline even though the Election Manual allows voters to 

 4 According to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, twelve percent of adults in 

the United States have below basic document literacy (defined as “the knowledge and skills 

needed to perform document tasks”). Nat’l Ctr. For Educ. Statistics, Assessment of Adult 

Literacy, A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century (2006), 

https://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF. An example of document literacy is the ability 

to fill out a certified mail receipt based on given information. Id. at 26.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 16 of 29
17

update other “missing key information” in their voter registration 

applications up to the day before an election. Ex. 3 at 13, 35. 

56. Finally, the Secretary of State has issued a draft chapter on 

registration of the 2017-2018 Election Procedures Manual (attached as 

Exhibit 6). Rather than developing policies that ensure that all voter 

registrants are registered so long as statutory DPOC is obtainable, the 

Secretary of State’s new proposed manual affirmatively requires election 

officials to reject State Form registrants for failure to provide DPOC before

the MVD matching process, which could easily provide the necessary 

statutory proof. See Ex. 6 at 42 (“A State Form without accompanying 

satisfactory proof of citizenship must be rejected. A County Recorder may not 

acquire proof of citizenship on the registrant’s behalf.”). Moreover, it proposes 

ceasing to use MVD matching to verify citizenship for Federal Form 

registrants. Id. at 46 (“If a registrant failed to provide an AZ DL/ID # on the 

Federal Form but the AZ DL/ID # is later ‘acquired’ from the MVD proxy 

table, this does not constitute satisfactory proof of citizenship that allows that 

registrant to become a ‘full ballot voter.’”). 

57. If this new draft chapter goes into effect, it will further compound the 

constitutional harms of the current policies by increasing the number of 

eligible voters disenfranchised despite Arizona’s access to adequate DPOC for 

those voters. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 17 of 29
18

58. The impact of these policies on eligible Arizona voters is undeniable. 

Upon information and belief, at least 26,000 voters in Maricopa County alone 

have been disenfranchised by these policies. Moreover, based on a sample of 

over 2,000 rejected State Form registrations for lack of DPOC across eight

counties, less than fifteen percent of the rejected voters successfully reregistered after receiving notice of the rejection of their registrations.

Therefore, many eligible voters across Arizona have been disenfranchised by 

these unnecessary bureaucratic policies.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona

59. Plaintiff League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona (LULACArizona) is the Arizona-based branch of the oldest and largest national 

Latino civil rights organization. LULAC is a non-profit membership 

organization with a presence in most of the fifty states. Founded in 1929, it 

works to advance the economic condition, educational attainment, political 

influence, health and civil rights, including voting rights, of the Hispanic 

population of the United States.

60. LULAC-Arizona members live in all sectors of the State. LULAC has 

local councils throughout Arizona including in Phoenix, San Luis, Tucson, 

Tempe, Yuma and other smaller communities.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 18 of 29
19

61. LULAC-Arizona’s members are affected by the undue burdens 

Arizona’s voter registration policies place on eligible Arizona citizens. Over 

400,000 eligible Latino citizens in Arizona, or nearly half of eligible Latinos 

in Arizona, are not currently registered to vote. 

62. Voter registration activity is key to LULAC’s mission of increasing civic 

participation of its members. LULAC-Arizona has committed and continues 

to commit time, personnel, and resources to voter registration drives in 

Arizona.

63. Voter registration is an ongoing yearly project, organized by LULAC 

and LULAC-Arizona together with other organizations and LULAC-Arizona 

members throughout the State. LULAC-Arizona members participate in 

registration drives in various forums including schools, college and 

universities, malls, fairs and organized block walking activities registering 

citizens to vote.

64. Due to Arizona’s unconstitutional and differential treatment of voter 

registrations depending on the form used, LULAC has had to divert and 

continues to divert its resources, including staff and volunteer time, to 

helping voters navigate the dual voter registration system. 

65. Defendants’ disparate treatment of State and Federal Forms means 

that voter registration drive organizers must either use the State Form and 

forego registering voters without DPOC available to them, use the Federal 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 19 of 29
20

Form and require volunteers to inform every potential voter of the DPOC 

requirement orally, or engage in an individualized assessment of which form 

to give to a voter based on their DPOC access. All of these options impose 

severe limitations on the success of LULAC-Arizona’s voter registration 

activity. 

66. Since LULAC-Arizona conducts voter registration drives on-site in 

communities with the goal of completing voter registrations on-site, potential 

voters who do not have Arizona drivers’ licenses and/or do not have DPOC 

with them cannot fully participate. 

67. As a result of Defendants’ ongoing unconstitutional policies, LULACArizona’s voter registration drivers are less successful; LULAC-Arizona must 

dedicate more resources in order to register the same number of members; 

and fewer LULAC-Arizona members are able to successfully register to vote.

Arizona Students’ Association

68. Plaintiff Arizona Students’ Association (“ASA”) is a student-led, nonpartisan membership organization created to represent the collective interest 

of the over 140,000 university students and over 400,000 community college 

students in Arizona. ASA advocates at the local, state, and national levels for 

the interests of students. As a part of its mission, ASA encourages students 

throughout Arizona to register to vote through voter registration activity. 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 20 of 29
21

ASA has committed and continues to commit time and personnel to voter 

registration drives in Arizona.

69. ASA’s members, students throughout Arizona, are particularly affected 

by the undue burdens Arizona’s voter registration policies place on eligible 

Arizona citizens. Many students are young adults who are just becoming 

eligible to vote and therefore must register for the first time. Students in 

Arizona living on campuses often do not have easy access to their birth 

certificates or other underlying documentation. Many students eligible to 

vote in Arizona have out-of-state driver’s license that do not meet the 

statutory DPOC requirements. Many other students cannot afford to pay for 

state IDs or driver’s licenses. Finally, students in Arizona tend to relocate 

often and are required to re-submit DPOC anytime they move from one 

county to another.

70. ASA has regularly conducted and will continue to conduct voter 

registration drives in Arizona. These voter registration drives focus on 

registering students, many of whom are first time voters and unfamiliar with 

the voter registration system. ASA conducts its voter registration drives on 

school sites throughout Arizona. 

71. Due to the State’s unconstitutional and differential treatment of voter 

registrations depending on the form used, ASA has had to divert and 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 21 of 29
22

continues to divert its resources, including staff and volunteer time, to 

helping eligible voters navigate the dual voter registration system.

72. Defendants’ disparate treatment of State and Federal Forms means 

that voter registration drive organizers must either use the State Form and 

forego registering voters without DPOC available to them, use the Federal 

Form and require volunteers to inform every potential voter of the DPOC 

requirement orally, or engage in an individualized assessment of which form 

to give to a voter based on their DPOC access. All of these options impose 

severe limitations on the success of ASA’s voter registration activity. 

73. Since ASA conducts voter registration drives on-site at schools with the 

goal of completing voter registrations on-site, potential ASA members and 

voters who do not have Arizona drivers’ licenses and/or do not have DPOC 

with them cannot fully participate. 

74. As a result of Defendants’ ongoing unconstitutional policies, ASA’s 

voter registration drivers are less successful; ASA must dedicate more 

resources in order to register the same number of members; and fewer ASA 

members are able to successfully register to vote.

Defendants

75. Defendant Michele Reagan is the Arizona Secretary of State, a 

statewide elected public officer, and is named in her official capacity. The 

Secretary of State serves as the Chief Election Officer for Arizona. Ariz. Rev.

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 22 of 29
23

Stat. § 16-142. The Secretary of State is the public officer responsible for 

supervising voter registration throughout the state and providing binding 

regulations and guidelines for voter registration. Id; see also Arizona 

Democratic Party v. Reagan, No. CV-16-03618, 2016 WL 6523427 at *6 (D. 

Ariz. Nov. 3, 2016) (“The Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and 

procedures for elections, such as voter registration, which encompasses 

determining voter registration deadlines. . . . Any person who does not abide 

by the Secretary’s rules is subject to criminal penalties.”). 

76. Defendant Adrian Fontes is the Maricopa County Recorder, a 

countywide elected officer, and is named in his official capacity. Ariz. Const. 

Art. XII § 3. The Maricopa County Recorder is responsible for conducting 

voter registration in Maricopa County. 

CLAIMS

Count 1: Undue Burden on the Right to Vote and Equal Protection, 

14th Amendment

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

77. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-76 above.

78. “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to 

participate in electing our political leaders.” McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 

1434, 1440–41 (2014). The Supreme Court has recognized that “voting is of 

the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure” and 

the right to an effective vote is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 23 of 29
24

the Fourteenth Amendment. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433-44

(1992). Indeed, the right to vote is the “fundamental political right . . . 

preservative of all rights.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964) 

(quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)). 

79. When analyzing the constitutionality of a restriction on voting, the 

Court “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.’” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 

460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983)).

80. Defendants Secretary of State’s current procedures for Arizona’s dual 

registration system arbitrarily distinguish between Federal Form and State 

Form applicants and unjustifiably result in the disenfranchisement of eligible 

Arizona voters in both state and federal elections.

81. Upon information and belief, by failing to register State Form 

applicants without DPOC for federal elections—while registering Federal 

Form applicants that provide the exact same information for federal 

elections—Defendants deprive tens of thousands of eligible voters of the right 

to vote in federal elections. Defendants exacerbate these harms by failing to 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 24 of 29
25

advise registrants of the Federal Form option. This policy does not serve 

Arizona’s asserted interest in obtaining DPOC from voters prior to their 

registration in state elections.

82. Upon information and belief, by instructing officials not to match State 

Form applicants’ data against MVD data to verify citizenship—even though 

Defendant Reagan instructs officials to conduct MVD matching as a matter of 

course during the registration process for all registrants and considers that 

data sufficient proof for similarly situated Federal Form applicants—

Defendant Reagan deprives thousands of eligible voters the right to vote in 

both state and federal elections. This policy does not serve Arizona’s asserted 

interest in obtaining DPOC from voters prior to their registration in state 

elections because DPOC for the affected voters is readily available to 

Defendants.

83. By requiring voters to re-submit new proof of citizenship when they 

move to a new county, Defendants impose unnecessary and unjustifiable 

burdens on the right to vote of eligible Arizonans. This requirement does not 

serve Arizona’s asserted interest in obtaining DPOC from voters prior to their 

registration in state elections because DPOC for the affected voters is readily 

available to Defendants. 

84. With the exception of the requirement that voters re-submit proof of 

citizenship when they move from one county to another, these policies are not 

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 25 of 29
26

required by state or federal law and are merely the result of the Secretary of 

State’s policies.

85. These policies cannot survive even rational basis review and certainly 

cannot survive the more exacting review given to voting restrictions. 

Count 2: Undue Burden on the Right to Vote, 1st Amendment

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

86. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-85 above.

87. Voting and participating in the election process is a form of speech and 

expression. It is the ultimate form of political speech and association and is 

entitled to First Amendment protection.

88. As unjustified restrictions on access to the right to vote, Defendants’ 

dual voter registration policies violate the First Amendment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

89. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

(1) Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on 

the claims for relief as alleged in this Complaint;

(2) Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 

2202 declaring that the above-described policies of the Defendant Secretary of 

State Reagan violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment and the First Amendment;

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 26 of 29
27

(3) Grant Plaintiffs preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief 

by ordering that Defendants:

a. Register State Form applicants to vote in federal elections if 

their forms are otherwise valid regardless of whether they 

attach DPOC;

b. Match State Form registrants’ data with MVD records to 

verify citizenship before rejecting State Form registrants for 

state and local elections;

c. Refrain from requiring State Form registrants to re-submit 

DPOC when they move from one county to another and reregister;

d. Notify potential voters of the option to register to vote in 

federal elections without DPOC in all written materials 

regarding the process for registering to vote that Defendants 

distribute or make available to the public (including websites).

(4) Retain jurisdiction over the Defendants for such period of time as 

may be appropriate to ensure the Defendants’ compliance with relief ordered 

by this Court;

(5) Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 27 of 29
28

(6) Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and 

equitable.

November 7, 2017

By: /s/ Spencer G. Scharff

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

Paul M. Smith (DC Bar No. 358870)*

J. Gerald Hebert (VA Bar No. 38432)*

Adav Noti (DC Bar No. 490714)*

Danielle Lang (CA Bar No. 304450)* †

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

†Admitted in New York and California only; 

practice limited to U.S. courts and federal 

agencies 

Jon M. Greenbaum (DC Bar No. 489887)*

Ezra D. Rosenberg (DC Bar No. 360927)*

Arusha Gordon (DC Bar No. 1035129)*

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

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 28 of 29
29

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

Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (TX Bar No. 20546740)*

Law Office of Luis Roberto Vera Jr.

LULAC National General Counsel

111 Soledad, Ste 1325

San Antonio, TX 78205

Tel: 210-225-3300

Email: lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net

Manuel G. Excobar, 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

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming

Case 2:17-cv-04102-DGC Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 29 of 29