Jesus Gonzalez v. State of Arizona
677 F.3d 383
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Proposition 200 (Arizona) was enacted on Nov 2, 2004, altering voter registration and election procedures.
- Registration provision Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-166(F) requires rejecting registrations lacking specified evidence of U.S. citizenship.
- Polling place provision Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-579(A) requires identification at the polls; Arizona’s form instructions define acceptable documents.
- NVRA requires three registration methods and the EAC to design a Federal Form; states may also use a State Form meeting NVRA criteria.
- NVRA mandates states to accept and use the Federal Form for federal elections, while allowing a compliant State Form; Arizona added a citizenship-proof requirement to its State Form and extended it to the Federal Form.
- District court upheld polling place provisions but rejected challenges to the NVRA conflict and poll taxes; case proceeded toward en banc review.
- Gonzalez (Arizona voters) and ITCA challenged Prop 200’s registration provision as preempted by the NVRA; they challenged the polling place provision under VRA § 2 and the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.]
- The en banc court held: NVRA preempts Prop 200’s registration provision as applied to the Federal Form; but Prop 200’s polling place identification provision is upheld as consistent with the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVRA preemption of Prop 200 registration provision | Gonzalez/ITCA contend NVRA supersedes Prop 200’s citizenship proof | Arizona argues NVRA and state form can coexist; NVRA allows state forms | NVRA preempts Prop 200 registration provision for Federal Form |
| Constitutionality of polling place identification requirement | Latino voters disproportionately affected; § 2 violation | Identification requirement is a valid function of state voter qualifications | Not a poll tax under 24th; no § 2 discriminatory impact proven; upheld |
| Twenty-Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection analysis | Polling place burden violates poll tax ban and equal protection | Burden not a poll tax; balanced against legitimate state interests | Polling place provision does not violate 24th or EP |
| Dissent/alternative view on NVRA scope | NVRA authorizes states to require citizenship proof in addition to Federal Form | NVRA’s text harmonizes but does not require extra proof for Federal Form | Majority preemption view maintained; dissent offers alternative construction under NVRA § 1973gg-4(a)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) (Elections Clause framework; state—federal cooperation in election regulation; conflicts arise when incompatible)
- Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) (Federal law supersedes conflicting state law under Elections Clause)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Senate Factors for § 2 totality of circumstances assessment)
- Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965) (Poll tax analysis under 24th Amendment; affluence-based restrictions invalid)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (Balancing test for photo ID laws; burden not eliminated; upheld with interest balancing)
- Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (Poll tax and wealth-based voting restrictions precedent; identification costs discussed)
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) (Foundational Elections Clause preemption principles; cooperation of state and federal regimes)
- U.S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) (Enforcement mechanics for federal elections)
- Ex parte Yarbrough (the Ku-Klux Cases), 110 U.S. 651 (1884) (Federal regulation of voting conduct during federal elections)