336 F. Supp. 3d 1063
D. Ariz.2018Background
- Plaintiff Rivko Knox, a Democratic precinct committeeperson and canvasser, challenges Arizona's H.B. 2023 (A.R.S. § 16-1005(H)-(I)), which makes it a felony for persons other than the voter (with enumerated exceptions) to collect another person's early ballot, and seeks an injunction against enforcement.
- Knox previously collected ballots for voters before H.B. 2023 and now refrains from doing so out of fear of prosecution; she challenged the statute in July 2018 and sought expedited relief consolidated with a trial on the merits.
- Arizona permits no-excuse early voting by mail; early ballots must be received by the county recorder by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. H.B. 2023 exempts family members, household members, caregivers, election officials, USPS workers, and other persons "allowed by law to transmit United States mail" acting in official duties.
- Knox asserts three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) H.B. 2023 is preempted by federal postal law (Private Express Statutes and exceptions), (2) the statute violates the First Amendment (by restricting speech or speech-facilitating conduct), and (3) the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
- The court consolidated the preliminary-injunction hearing with a bench trial, found no disputed facts, and denied Knox relief, holding for Defendant Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption by federal postal laws (PES exceptions) | Knox: completed, sealed early ballots are "letters"; PES Private Hands and Carriage Prior/Subsequent exceptions permit private gratuitous carriage, so Arizona cannot criminalize ballot collection. | Brnovich: PES targets mail-for-hire and federal postal operations; exceptions do not demonstrate congressional intent to preempt state regulation of ballot possession that does not burden USPS. | Court: No preemption. Early ballots may be mailable, but PES exceptions do not occupy the field or obstruct federal objectives; H.B. 2023 does not impinge on USPS operations. |
| First Amendment — direct speech or mail-as-speech | Knox: restricting who may deliver mail implicates speech; collecting ballots is speech-facilitating (expressive) conduct. | Brnovich: law regulates possession/return of ballots, not voters' ability to send/receive mail or to speak; collecting/delivering ballots is not inherently expressive. | Court: No First Amendment violation; ballot collection is not inherently expressive and H.B. 2023 leaves core political speech and get-out-the-vote activities untouched. |
| Vagueness (exceptions for persons "allowed by law to transmit United States mail" and "engaged in official duties") | Knox: phrases are undefined; uncertainty whether her role as a precinct committeeperson could qualify; fear of arbitrary enforcement chills activity. | Brnovich: statute gives ordinary persons fair notice; any ambiguity stems from Knox's broad reading of her PC duties, and enforcement risk is speculative. | Court: Not unconstitutionally vague. A person of ordinary intelligence can understand prohibited conduct; Knox admits she understands she is prohibited from collecting ballots. |
| Equitable relief timing (Purcell and laches) | Knox sought expedited injunction near election season. | Brnovich invoked laches and Purcell to argue against relief close to elections. | Court: Did not deem Purcell or laches dispositive on the merits; they might affect emergency relief but do not bar adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (standard for equitable relief and injunctions)
- Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (scope of Congress's postal power over carriage and delivery)
- Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517 (Private Express Statutes and rationale for postal monopoly)
- U.S. v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (test limiting symbolic conduct as protected speech)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (inherently expressive conduct requirement)
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (state laws regulating mailed materials not necessarily preempted absent interference with postal functions)
- Conte & Co., Inc. v. Stephan, 713 F. Supp. 1382 (federal mail scheme is comprehensive but does not automatically preempt state regulation that does not impede USPS)
- Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan, 329 F. Supp. 3d 824 (D. Ariz.) (similar analysis rejecting First Amendment protection for ballot collection activities)