Opinion ID: 3048352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severe Burden on the Fundamental Right to Vote

Text: [3] 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 (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. Only “severe” restrictions “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Id. at 434. State election laws that impose “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions . . . [on] the rights of voters” need be supported only by “important regulatory interest[s].” Id. [4] 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 GONZALEZ v. YES ON PROPOSITION 200 4451 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. [5] 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 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 non-operating 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 native-born 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. [6] The record before us, however, contains no affidavits or declarations from naturalized citizens. Therefore, we do not 4452 GONZALEZ v. YES ON PROPOSITION 200 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 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.