18 F.4th 1179
9th Cir.2021Background
- Arizona conducts large-scale vote-by-mail; voters must return ballots in a postage-paid envelope and sign an affidavit on the envelope for the ballot to be counted.
- If the affidavit signature is missing, Arizona treats the ballot as incomplete; the voter may submit a signed replacement or provisional ballot, but only up to 7:00 p.m. on election day (no post-election cure for missing signatures).
- Before 2019 counties used varied post-election cure windows for signature mismatches; the 2019 Arizona statute standardized a 5-business-day (or 3-day for nonfederal) post-election cure period for mismatched signatures, but it did not expressly allow post-election cures for missing signatures.
- Plaintiffs (Arizona Democratic Party, DNC, DSCC) sued, arguing the election-day deadline for curing missing signatures violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Anderson/Burdick balancing) and denied procedural due process; the district court entered a permanent injunction extending the cure window.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendants, holding the election-day deadline imposes at most a minimal burden and is justified by Arizona’s important regulatory interest in limiting post-election administrative burdens on election officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the election-day deadline for curing missing signatures infringes voting rights under the Anderson/Burdick balancing test | The deadline disenfranchises voters who forget to sign and is therefore an unjustified burden on the right to vote | The burden is minimal (signing or correcting by election day) and the State has important interests (administration, integrity) that justify the deadline | Court: burden is at most minimal; State’s interest in reducing post-election administrative burdens justifies the deadline |
| Whether Arizona’s differing treatment of missing vs. mismatched signatures is irrational or discriminatory | Arizona’s post-2019 allowance of multi-day cures for mismatches but not for missing signatures is arbitrary and denies equal treatment to similarly situated voters | State rationally distinguishes: missing signature = incomplete ballot caused by voter negligence; mismatch = completed but unverified ballot subject to official error | Court: distinction is rational and permissible; different administrative burdens justify different rules |
| Whether administrative burdens claimed by counties are insufficient to justify refusing a post-election cure | Plaintiffs: administrative impact is minor given the very small number of unsigned ballots and some county officials (including Secretary) said a post-election cure was feasible | Defendants: allowing post-election cures would impose meaningful additional work during an already busy post-election period and would require new procedures in some counties | Court: credible record evidence (e.g., Pima County declaration) shows added administrative burden is meaningfully weighty; justifies maintaining election-day deadline |
| Whether procedural due process claim should be evaluated under Anderson/Burdick or Mathews v. Eldridge | Plaintiffs: procedural due process claim should invoke the Eldridge balancing test, which would require more searching review | Defendants: Anderson/Burdick is the proper, single analytical framework for election-law challenges | Court: Anderson/Burdick applies to procedural due process claim in this election-law context; claim therefore fails for same reasons as substantive claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for election regulations; weighs burden on voters against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refines Anderson balancing; severe burdens trigger strict scrutiny, lesser burdens warrant deferential review)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural-due-process balancing test invoked by plaintiffs but held inapplicable here)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholds modest voting regulation where state shows relevant interests sufficiently weighty)
- Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (deadline for registration; failure to meet a time deadline attributed to voter’s inaction, not state action)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (states have broad authority to structure elections to maintain order and fairness)
- Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizes administrative burdens on election officials as an important state interest)
- Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (distinguishes missing vs. mismatched signature burdens; informative on difference between day-before and post-election deadlines)
- Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs, 976 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2020) (motions-panel stay decision addressing likelihood of success on appeal; persuasive background to merits panel)