Arizona Libertarian Party v. Ken Bennett, 784 F.3d 611

Arizona amended § 16-152(A)(5) to require the two largest parties by registered voters be listed on the voter registration form, with a line for other party preferences.
The two largest parties in 2011 were Republicans and Democrats; Libertarians were third in registration share.
Box 14 on the registration form was revised to show checkboxes for the two largest parties and a short blank line for other party names.
Arizona provides three methods to register: by mail via the form, online, or in person at MVD; § 16-152(A)(5) applies only to the first method.
Plaintiffs (Green Party, Libertarian Party, and members) allege § 16-152(A)(5) burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by favoring major parties.
District court granted summary judgment for the State; Plaintiffs appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 16-152(A)(5) burdens rights protected by the First/Fourteenth Amendment	Plaintiffs argue it pressures voters toward major parties and harms minor parties' ballot access.	State argues the burden is de minimis and rationally related to legitimate interests.	Section 16-152(A)(5) imposes de minimis burden.
Whether the burden is de minimis and thus reviewed under rational basis	Plaintiffs contend the rule creates unequal opportunities for minor parties.	State contends the burden is small and justified by efficiency and accuracy in registration.	Burden deemed de minimis; rational basis applied.
Whether § 16-152(A)(5) is rationally related to legitimate state interests	Argues no rational link to legitimate interests for minor parties.	Argues it furthers accurate voter registration and orderly administration, including primary participation alignment.	Statute rationally related to legitimate interests (efficiently and accurately determining voter party affiliation).

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for election regulations and burden level)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (right to associate and vote balanced against state interests)
Cronin v. NADER, 620 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2010) (de minimis burden allows rational basis review)
Munro v. Libertarian Party of Wash., 31 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 1994) (burden-shifting framework for minor party ballot access)
Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (nonsevere burdens evaluated for substantial governmental interests)
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 53 (1973) (primary objective of parties to select candidates)
Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2002) (weighing regulatory interests against voter rights)
Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (ballot access and association rights)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (extensive discussion of two-party system and ballot access)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (reiterated framework for evaluating election restrictions)