Maria Gonzalez v. State of Arizona
624 F.3d 1162
9th Cir.2010Background
- Arizona Prop. 200 amended registration and polling-place ID requirements, conditioning registration on documentary proof of US citizenship and requiring ID to vote.
- NVRA establishes three federal registration methods and a framework to streamline registration nationwide, superseding conflicting state rules.
- Gonzalez and ITCA challenged Prop. 200 as NVRA-preempted, while ITCA also asserted poll tax claims under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments; district court ruled for Arizona on most claims.
- Gonzalez and ITCA appealed; the panel held NVRA superseded Prop. 200’s registration proof of citizenship and upheld polling-place ID, with law-of-the-case implications.
- The court emphasized Elections Clause preemption with Siebold/Foster and rejected arguments based on Supremacy Clause, ACORN, HAVA interaction, and state-law nuances.
- The majority affirmed in part (polling-place ID) and reversed in part (registration requirement), concluding NVRA preempts citizenship proof for federal registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the NVRA preempt Prop. 200 registration rules? | Gonzalez asserts NVRA supersedes Prop. 200’s citizenship proof. | Arizona argues NVRA allows supplemental state registration requirements. | NVRA preempts Prop. 200 registration requirement. |
| Is Prop. 200’s registration rule harmonizable with the NVRA under the Elections Clause? | Gonzalez claims NVRA and Prop. 200 conflict, cannot harmonize. | Arizona claims compatible with NVRA’s framework and state form options. | NVRA supersedes; no harmony possible; Prop. 200 invalid. |
| Does Prop. 200’s polling-place identification requirement violate the Voting Rights Act or equal protection? | Gonzalez contends Latino voters bear disparate impact and reduced opportunity. | Arizona argues no cognizable causal link and valid state interest in preventing fraud. | Poll-place ID upheld as constitutional; no §2 violation established. |
| Is Prop. 200’s polling-place ID a poll tax under the Twenty-Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments? | Gonzalez/ITCA claim it imposes burdens on poorer or minority voters as a tax. | Arizona argues no poll tax; identification requirement is a permissible qualification check. | Not a poll tax; permissible under both Amendments; supported by Crawford/HarpER framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (NVRA preemption of Prop. 200 registration rule; law of the case discussed)
- Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1997) (Elections Clause preemption framework; harmonization approach)
- Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1879) (single system of federal election procedures; preemption analysis starting point)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (balancing test for voting restrictions; Harper v. Virginia; Medicaid-like ID burdens)
- Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1965) (Twenty-Fourth Amendment poll tax framework; indirect burdens not allowed)