485 F.Supp.3d 1073
D. Ariz.2020Background
- Arizona permits no-excuse vote-by-mail (VBM) and requires voters to return ballots in signed affidavit envelopes; unsigned envelopes are not counted.
- In 2019 the legislature created a uniform post-election cure period (up to five business days) for perceived mismatched signatures but said nothing about unsigned envelopes; county practices varied and most required cure by Election Day.
- Arizona’s Secretary drafted an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) proposing a post-election cure for missing signatures, but the Attorney General insisted on removing that provision; the final EPM requires counties to notify voters and allow cures only before 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.
- Plaintiffs (ADP, DNC, DSCC) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction to allow post-election cure of unsigned envelopes on the same timetable as mismatched signatures; the court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a final bench trial.
- The court partially excluded portions of the State expert Professor Atkeson’s report and found that the ADP has both associational and organizational standing; the court concluded the Election-Day cure deadline violated the Fourteenth Amendment (voting right and procedural due process) and granted a permanent injunction permitting post-election cure until 5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day after federal elections (third business day for other elections).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of portions of Professor Atkeson’s report | Atkeson’s empirical claim that longer cure windows lower cure rates is unreliable; portions should be excluded | Atkeson is qualified and her empirical and administrative-opinion conclusions are relevant | Court excluded the empirical analysis and portions speculating lower cure rates; excluded parts of her administrative-burden opinion for lack of factual basis; admitted remaining opinion evidence but gave it little weight |
| Whether Election-Day cure deadline unjustifiably burdens voting rights (Anderson/Burdick) | Deadline imposes an unjustified burden because it treats unsigned envelopes worse than mismatched signatures and in‑person provisional ballots that get post-election cure | Deadline imposes minimal burden and is justified by fraud prevention, administrative burdens, orderly administration, and turnout interests | Court found the burden minimal but unjustified: State’s interests do not outweigh the burden; ruled for Plaintiffs on the voting‑rights claim |
| Procedural due process for absentee/VBM ballots (Mathews balancing) | Voters have protected interest in having validly cast ballots counted; current procedures risk erroneous deprivation and post-election cure is a low-burden safeguard | Claims should be folded into Anderson/Burdick; additional process would impose administrative/fiscal burdens | Applying Mathews, court found the private interest and low risk of error favor additional process and that State interests do not justify denying post‑election cure; ruled for Plaintiffs on due process claim |
| Equitable/injunctive relief (irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest, timing) | Losing a ballot is irreparable; injunction would impose negligible administrative burden and increase uniformity and enfranchisement | Plaintiffs delayed; injunction close to election risks confusion (Purcell) and diverts scarce resources | Court found irreparable harm, balance of hardships and public interest favor injunction; Purcell concerns did not bar relief because change aligns with existing procedures and promotes uniformity |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (establishes balancing framework for election regulations)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing applied with Burdick to assess burdens on voting)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upheld state interest in voter‑ID but described how to evaluate burdens and remedies)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three‑part test for adequacy of procedural due process protections)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (standards for injunctive relief)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution against changing election rules close to an election)
- Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (administrative‑burden justification in election‑procedure disputes)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (examples of judicial review of election deadlines)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (recognizes voting as a fundamental right)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (deadlines have inherent arbitrariness but remain reviewable)