Arizona Libertarian Party v. Reagan, 798 F.3d 723

In 2011, Arizona required voter registration forms to list the two largest parties by registered voters and to provide a blank line for other party preferences.
Plaintiffs, including the Arizona Green Party and Arizona Libertarian Party, alleged the amendment violated First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The district court granted summary judgment for the State, finding the form survived constitutional scrutiny.
Box 14 on the registration form now directs voters to choose between the two largest parties, with a short line for 'Other' party preferences.
Arizona's registration options include SOS form, online EZ voter, and in-person DMV registration; § 16-152(A)(5) applies only to the SOS form.
Arizona's ballot access rules provide continuing ballot access based on vote thresholds or party registration percentages; the record noted changes in Green Party status during proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 16-152(A)(5) burdens rights sufficiently to require strict scrutiny	Munro burden-shifting shows significant burden on minor parties.	Burden is de minimis and rationally related to interests in accurate registration.	De minimis burden; no strict scrutiny required
Whether the burden on minor parties is de minimis under the framework	Form favors major parties and restricts minor-party accessibility.	No evidence that form discourages minor-party registration; burden is minimal.	Burden de minimis; not seriously restrictive
Whether § 16-152(A)(5) is rationally related to legitimate state interests	Statute is not necessary and not tied to legitimate interests.	Checkbox system promotes accurate registration and voter participation in major-party primaries; cost-efficient.	Rationally related to legitimate state interests
Whether the court should apply a Burdick-style balancing or Munro-style rational basis	Burdick/Crawford approach should apply; significant burdens require scrutiny.	Minimal burden allows rational-basis review; government interests suffice.	Court adopts de minimis/balancing approach consistent with Munro; accepts rational basis

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (burden depends on extent to which interests justify restriction)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (voting rights burdens tied to state interests in election regulation)
Cronin v. Munro, 620 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2010) (balances burden against important regulatory interests when de minimis)
Libertarian Party of Wash. v. Munro, 31 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 1994) (de minimis burden standard for ballot access considerations)
Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (nonsevere burdens analyzed for substantial government interests)
Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2002) (weighing regulatory interests against political participation burdens)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (extensive discussion of burdens on voters and party access)
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (core ballot access considerations in early cases)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (reiterated framework for evaluating election regulations)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (standard for balancing rights against state interests)