Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1074

Plaintiffs (Arizona Democratic Party, Democratic committees, individual Democratic voters, and allied organizations) challenged Arizona H.B. 2023, which makes it a felony for a person knowingly to collect another person’s early (absentee) ballot, with exceptions for family, household members, caregivers, election officials, and postal workers.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments (vote denial/disparate impact on minority voters, burden on voting/associational rights, and partisan‑fencing intent to suppress Democratic voters).
Defendants (Arizona officials and the Arizona Republican Party intervenor) defended the statute as a fraud‑prevention and election‑integrity measure that imposes only minimal burdens and exempts family/household/caregivers.
The court considered standing (ADP had organizational standing), denied defendants’ motion to strike certain reply evidence, and evaluated likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balance of equities for a preliminary injunction.
The court denied the preliminary injunction: found insufficient quantitative evidence of a racially disparate impact under §2; held H.B. 2023 imposes only minimal burdens under Anderson‑Burdick and is justified by important state interests (fraud prevention and public confidence); and declined to recognize a separate, heightened partisan‑fencing standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
§2 VRA disparate‑impact	H.B. 2023 disproportionately burdens Hispanic, Native American, African‑American voters who rely on third‑party ballot collection	Law is facially neutral; Plaintiffs lack quantitative proof that minorities disproportionately rely on collectors	Plaintiffs not likely to succeed on §2 — insufficient statistical evidence of disparate impact
First/14th — voting burden	Ban unduly burdens voting (rural, disabled, elderly, those without mail)	Burden is minimal: mail return still allowed by family/household/caregiver; many in‑person/early options and accommodations exist; state interest important	Law imposes only minor burdens; justified by important interests (fraud prevention, confidence); no strict scrutiny needed
First Amendment — associational rights	GOTV organizations’ ballot collection is expressive/associational activity and is chilled	Returning ballots is not inherently expressive; organizations remain free to solicit, assist, and transport voters	Court found ballot collection not inherently expressive; even if it were, burdens are minimal and justified
Partisan‑fencing (intent)	H.B. 2023 enacted to suppress Democratic voters — should trigger heightened scrutiny	Law is neutral, justified by integrity concerns; partisan‑fencing not a separate strict‑scrutiny framework	Court applied Anderson‑Burdick (not Arlington Heights), found no showing of discriminatory partisan impact; claim fails

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (regulation of elections and voter ID; state interest in preventing fraud)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on voting)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (vote‑regulation balancing framework)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Senate Factors/totality of circumstances for §2 vote dilution claims)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial challenges disfavored; election regulation principles)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (importance of public confidence in election integrity)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (legislatures may enact prophylactic election regulations)