Darlene Yazzie v. Katie Hobbs, 977 F.3d 964

Background

Six individual Navajo Nation residents living on the reservation in Apache County, Arizona sued to require Arizona to count mail ballots that were postmarked by Election Day (Nov. 3, 2020) but received by Nov. 13, 2020, rather than the statutory receipt-by-Election-Day deadline.
Plaintiffs alleged reservation-specific burdens: many lack home mail service, must travel long distances on rough roads to post offices, face socioeconomic and language barriers, and experience slower mail service.
Plaintiffs moved for a mandatory preliminary injunction to implement the later "Postmark Deadline" for on‑reservation Navajo Nation members; the district court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that the requested, race- or membership‑specific relief was not redressable for this election.
The court emphasized practical obstacles: county records and ballots do not identify tribal membership or reliably indicate on‑reservation origin, and the Postal Service does not consistently postmark ballots—undermining feasibility of the proposed remedy.
The panel also noted but did not rely primarily on Purcell election‑eve concerns; because standing was lacking, the court did not reach the Voting Rights Act merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury‑in‑fact	Yazzie: reservation residents face concrete, imminent disenfranchising burdens from receipt deadline	Hobbs: plaintiffs offered only generalized, speculative assertions and no particularized showing for any individual plaintiff	No standing; plaintiffs failed to show a concrete, particularized injury for any named plaintiff
Redressability of requested relief	Yazzie: a postmark‑based extension for on‑reservation Navajo voters would cure the alleged harm	Hobbs: counties cannot identify ballots as from enrolled on‑reservation Navajo members; relief cannot be implemented or guaranteed	Not redressable; court cannot grant relief that would likely remedy the injury for these plaintiffs in this election
Feasibility of implementing a reservation/member‑specific postmark rule	Yazzie: relief can be administered to affected voters	Hobbs: administrative and practical obstacles (no tribal membership on ballots/records; Postal Service postmarking unreliable)	Held infeasible for counties to differentiate ballots and dependably apply postmark rule
Timing / Purcell concerns about changing election rules close to election	Yazzie: equitable relief justified given burdens	Hobbs: changing rules close to election would impose confusion and administrative burden	Court acknowledged Purcell concerns; affirmed denial primarily on standing and redressability grounds

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Disney Enters. Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for preliminary relief in Ninth Circuit)
Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, 548 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) (standing is jurisdictional and precedes merits)
Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (plaintiff must demonstrate standing for requested relief)
Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (clear showing of standing required at preliminary injunction stage)
Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2010) (injury‑in‑fact standard in preliminary injunction context)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (irreducible constitutional minimum of standing)
Gonzales v. Gorsuch, 688 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1982) (redressability requires relief likely to remedy injury)
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (redressability requires substantial likelihood request will remedy injury)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (relief that does not remedy injury cannot confer jurisdiction)
Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (no standing where redress depends on independent actors not before the court)
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1985) (court must have power to right or prevent the claimed injury for redressability)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution against altering election rules close to election)
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020) (reinforces that courts should ordinarily not change election rules shortly before an election)