Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs
| Decision Date | 24 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV-21-01423-PHX-DWL |
| Citation | 608 F.Supp.3d 827 |
| Parties | MI FAMILIA VOTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Katie HOBBS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Ben Clements, Pro Hac Vice, Courtney Hostetler, Pro Hac Vice, John C. Bonifaz, Pro Hac Vice, Free Speech for People, Newton, MA, Coree Elizabeth Neumeyer, Lauren Elliott Stine, Rodney Wayne Ott, Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Daniel T. Fenske, Pro Hac Vice, Gary A. Isaac, Pro Hac Vice, Jed W. Glickstein, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, Lee H. Rubin, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LP, Palo Alto, CA, Rachel J. Lamorte, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Amy B. Chan, Arizona Secretary of State, Phoenix, AZ, David Andrew Gaona, Kristen Michelle Yost, Roopali H. Desai, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Spencer Garrett Scharff, Scharff PC, Phoenix, AZ, Sambo Dul, States United Democracy Center, Tempe, AZ, Christine Bass, States United Democracy Center, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Katie Hobbs.
Brunn Wall Roysden, III, Drew Curtis Ensign, Joseph Andrew Kanefield, Robert John Makar, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Stephen William Tully, Law Offices of Tully Bailey LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Michael G. Bailey, Bailey Law Offices PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant Mark Brnovich.
Celeste M. Robertson, Joseph D. Young, Apache County Attorneys Office, Saint Johns, AZ, for Defendant Larry Noble.
Robert Douglas Gilliland, Greenlee County Attorneys Office, Clifton, AZ, for Defendants David W. Stevens, Sadie Jo Bingham, Wendy John, Sharie Milheiro, Michael Sample, Suzanne Sainz.
Aaron Michael Lumpkin, Rose Marie Winkeler, Coconino County Attorneys Office, Flagstaff, AZ, for Defendant Patty Hansen.
Ryan Norton Dooley, La Paz County Attorneys Office, Parker, AZ, for Defendant Richard Garcia.
Joseph James Branco, Joseph Eugene LaRue, Maricopa County Attorney Civil Services Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant Stephen Richer.
Ryan Henry Esplin, Mohave County Attorneys Office, Kingman, AZ, for Defendant Kristi Blair.
Daniel S. Jurkowitz, Pima County Attorneys Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant Gabriella Cazares-Kelly.
Craig Charles Cameron, Pinal County Attorneys Office, Florence, AZ, M. Colleen Connor, Yavapai County Attorneys Office, Prescott, AZ, for Defendant Virginia Ross.
M. Colleen Connor, Thomas M. Stoxen, Yavapai County Attorneys Office, Prescott, AZ, for Defendant Michelle Burchill.
William J. Kerekes, Office of the Yuma County Attorney, Yuma, AZ, for Defendant Robyn S. Pouquette.
This action involves a challenge to two voting laws that were enacted by the Arizona legislature following the 2020 election. The first is Senate Bill 1485, which provides that voters who do not cast a mail-in ballot in two consecutive election cycles must be removed from Arizona's permanent early voting list. The second is Senate Bill 1003, which clarifies that the deadline for a voter to attempt to "cure" a missing signature on an early ballot is 7:00 PM on election day. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.)1
Plaintiffs in this action are four nonprofit groups, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Defendants are Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the recorders from all 15 Arizona counties, the Republican National Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Plaintiffs2 assert three claims. In Count One, Plaintiffs contend that S.B. 1485 and S.B. 1003, "individually and collectively," violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they create an undue burden on the right to vote. (Id. ¶¶ 127-35.) In Count Two, Plaintiffs contend that S.B. 1485 and S.B. 1003, "individually and collectively, violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments because they were adopted for the purpose of denying voters of color full and equal access to the political process." (Id. ¶¶ 136-41.) And in Count Three, Plaintiffs contend that S.B. 1485 and S.B. 1003, "individually and collectively, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they were adopted for the purpose of denying voters of color full and equal access to the political process." (Id. ¶¶ 142-45.)
Now pending before the Court is the State's corrected consolidated motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 76.) For the following reasons, the State's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's complaint includes a lengthy section entitled "Arizona's History of Discrimination and Voter Suppression." (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 97-126.) The State does not, in general, challenge the factual allegations appearing in that portion of the complaint for purposes of the pending motion. Accordingly, the following facts are presumed true for purposes of resolving the State's motion.
The United States acquired present-day Arizona from Mexico under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the 1853 Gadsden Purchase. (Doc. 1 ¶ 98.) Indigenous nations had no authority over the transfer of their lands, and by the 1880s, Native Americans were largely confined to reservations, often through violent means. (Id. ¶¶ 98-99.) In 1928, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Native Americans were ineligible to vote in Arizona, despite a 1924 federal law that declared Native Americans to be citizens of the United States and their state of residence. (Id. ¶ 102.)
In 1909, Arizona's territorial legislature adopted an English language literacy test as a prerequisite to voter registration. (Id. ¶ 100.) When Congress passed a law the next year that authorized Arizona to draft a state constitution as a prelude to statehood, the law prohibited Arizona from using the literacy test as an eligibility requirement to vote on the proposed constitution. (Id. ) Once Arizona achieved statehood in 1912, the legislature re-imposed an English literacy test for voting, which was not repealed until 1972. (Id. ¶ 101.)
Although the Arizona Supreme Court recognized Native Americans’ right to vote in 1948, Arizona's literacy test disenfranchised 80-90% of Native Americans that year and still disenfranchised about half of Native Americans by the 1960s. (Id. ¶¶ 102-03.) County officials also used the literacy test to prevent eligible Latino and black citizens from voting. (Id. )
In 1964, Arizona Republicans strategically challenged voters’ right to vote, particularly the right of voters of color, at the polls. (Id. ¶ 105.)
In 1970, the Arizona legislature purged the voter rolls and required all citizens to re-register to vote. (Id. ¶ 106.) Many Latino voters did not realize they needed to re-register, and in the 1970 election Democrat Raul Castro narrowly lost the governor's race despite receiving 90% of the Latino vote. (Id. )
In 1975, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act and made all Arizona jurisdictions subject to "preclearance." (Id. ¶ 107.) In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States Department of Justice issued 17 preclearance objections to proposed changes in Arizona election procedures, concluding that the changes had the purpose or effect of discriminating against Arizona's Native American or Latino voters. (Id. ¶ 108.)
During the presidential primary election in 2016, voters in Maricopa County—a county in which more than 45% of residents are people of color—waited in line for up to five hours to vote after county officials cut polling locations by 85% as compared to the 2008 presidential primary. (Id. ¶ 109.) "In Phoenix, where a majority of voters are people of color, there was one polling location for every 108,000 residents, while in Cave Creek/Carefree, a predominantly white community, there was one polling location for every 8,500 residents and in Peoria, also predominantly white, there was one polling location for every 54,000 residents." (Id. ¶ 110.)
In 2012, the official Spanish-language pamphlet in Maricopa County stated that the November 6 election would be held on November 8. (Id. ¶ 111.) Four years later, in 2016, Spanish-language ballots in Maricopa County incorrectly translated a ballot proposition. (Id. )
Arizona's educational system was formally segregated by race for decades. (Id. ¶ 113.) Arizona mandated English-only education in public schools as early as 1919, and in 2000, Arizona banned bilingual education. (Id. ¶ 114.) Arizona also has a history of failing to adequately fund its English Language Learning Program. (Id. ) After World War II, Phoenix placed Latino veterans in housing units separated from white Arizonans. (Id. ¶ 116.) Latinos were not permitted to use the same theaters, swimming pools, parks, or restaurants as whites. (Id. )
In Arizona, 34% of Native Americans, 19% of black people, and 19% of Hispanics live below the poverty line, compared to only 9% of white people. (Id. ¶ 117.) The unemployment rate is higher for Latinos, Native Americans, and black people than white people. (Id. ) White Arizonans are more likely than Latino, Native American, and black Arizonans to graduate high school and are nearly three times more likely to have a bachelor's degree than Latino and Native American Arizonans. (Id. ¶ 115.) In 2017, home ownership by people of color was significantly lower than by white Arizonans. (Id. ¶ 118.) Also in 2017, Latinos, Native Americans, and black people in Arizona ranked below white people in "relative healthiness." (Id. ¶ 119.) Native Americans and black Arizonans are more likely than white Arizonans to die before the age of 65. (Id. ) Latinos, Native Americans, and black people are overrepresented in Arizona jails. (Id. )
Although the voter turnout rate among Native Americans nationwide is anywhere from one to ten percentage points lower than that of other groups, turnout among Arizona's Native American population is even lower—15 to 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial