624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010), 08-17094, Gonzalez v. State

Docket Nº08-17094, 08-17115.
Citation624 F.3d 1162
Opinion JudgeIKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Party NameMaria 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, v. State of ARIZONA; Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as Secretary of S
AttorneyNina 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, P...
Judge PanelBefore: SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, Associate Justice,[*]ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judge. Opinion by Judge IKUTA; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI. Chief Judge KOZINSKI, dissenting in large part: [*]
Case DateOctober 26, 2010
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 1162

624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)

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,

Yes On Proposition 200, Defendant-intervenor-Appellee,

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,

Yes on Proposition 200, Defendant-intervenor-Appellee.

Nos. 08-17094, 08-17115.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 26, 2010

Argued and Submitted Oct. 20, 2009.

Page 1163

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1164

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1165

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1166

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 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.

Page 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.

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 by Judge IKUTA; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI.

OPINION

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

Page 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

Page 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 Twenty-fourth Amendment, burdened naturalized citizens in violation of the Equal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Thomas, 020713 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2011-0140
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • February 7, 2013
    ...supreme court deviates from the federal rules as it sees fit. But "[a] dissent has no precedential value." Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). And, in light of our clear case law, we decline Thomas's invitation to reconsider the issue. Disposition ¶37 For the......
  • Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., 061812 ORDC, 09-cv-00320-HU
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit United States District Court (Oregon)
    • June 18, 2012
    ...("All rulings of a trial court are subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment.'")). See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1185-87 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[l]aw of the case should not be applied woodenly in a way inconsistent with substantial justice'") (quo......
  • United States v. Pineda-Mendoza, 091412 CAEDC, 2:11-cr-0320 WBS (GGH)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 14, 2012
    ...e.g., change in the law, new facts which could not have been supplied at the time of the first ruling, see Gonzalez v. United States, 624 F.3d 1162, 1186 (9th Cir. 2010), law of the case is not implicated where the original order was entered without discussion of why it was issued. Hydrick ......
  • 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011), 09-17796, Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 26, 2011
    ...a previous panel decision in the same case and thus exceptions to the law of the case doctrine cannot apply. Cf. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1191 (9th Cir.2010); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (en [6] Judge Fisher provides examples of previous uses of the phras......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • State v. Thomas, 020713 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2011-0140
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • February 7, 2013
    ...supreme court deviates from the federal rules as it sees fit. But "[a] dissent has no precedential value." Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). And, in light of our clear case law, we decline Thomas's invitation to reconsider the issue. Disposition ¶37 For the......
  • Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., 061812 ORDC, 09-cv-00320-HU
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit United States District Court (Oregon)
    • June 18, 2012
    ...("All rulings of a trial court are subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment.'")). See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1185-87 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[l]aw of the case should not be applied woodenly in a way inconsistent with substantial justice'") (quo......
  • United States v. Pineda-Mendoza, 091412 CAEDC, 2:11-cr-0320 WBS (GGH)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 14, 2012
    ...e.g., change in the law, new facts which could not have been supplied at the time of the first ruling, see Gonzalez v. United States, 624 F.3d 1162, 1186 (9th Cir. 2010), law of the case is not implicated where the original order was entered without discussion of why it was issued. Hydrick ......
  • 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011), 09-17796, Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 26, 2011
    ...a previous panel decision in the same case and thus exceptions to the law of the case doctrine cannot apply. Cf. Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1191 (9th Cir.2010); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (en [6] Judge Fisher provides examples of previous uses of the phras......
  • Request a trial to view additional results