111 F.4th 976
9th Cir.2024Background
- Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C), requiring State Form voter applications to include documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) or be rejected; this law had not previously taken effect due to court injunctions.
- The district court enjoined enforcement of § 16-121.01(C), finding it conflicted with the 2018 LULAC Consent Decree and was preempted by federal law.
- Intervenor-Defendants (Arizona Legislative Leaders and RNC) sought a stay of the injunction, which a Ninth Circuit motions panel partially granted, allowing § 16-121.01(C) to take effect temporarily.
- Plaintiffs (Mi Familia Vota and others) moved for reconsideration, arguing the stay risked confusion, chaos, and voter disenfranchisement before imminent primary and general elections.
- The Ninth Circuit panel granted reconsideration, vacated the stay, and reaffirmed the district court's injunction, reinstating the pre-existing rules pending appeal.
- The dissent argued the majority improperly granted reconsideration and that the legislative interests and risk of irreparable harm supported maintaining the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of § 16-121.01(C) barred by Consent Decree | LULAC Consent Decree prevents rejection of State Forms without DPOC | Legislature not bound; only parties to Decree are bound | Enforcing § 16-121.01(C) would violate the Consent Decree |
| Likelihood of Success on the Merits | Existing Decree and NVRA preempt § 16-121.01(C) | Legislature can change laws prospectively, Decree can't bind legislature | No strong likelihood Legislature will prevail; Decree remains binding |
| Irreparable Harm/Reconsideration Standard | Stay causes chaos, confusion, and disenfranchisement | Enjoining a law harms legislative interests; motions panel applied law | No high degree of irreparable injury shown; status quo must be preserved |
| Public Interest/Balance of Equities | Last-minute rule changes risk confusion and deter voting | State has interest in enforcing laws freely from judicial interference | Protecting election stability, voters' rights outweighs legislative harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (articulates the four-factor test for stay pending appeal)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (cautions against altering election rules close to an election due to risk of confusion)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (addresses standards for modifying consent decrees)
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (state legislatures cannot nullify federal court judgments)
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013) (NVRA preempts Arizona's additional proof-of-citizenship requirement for Federal Form voter registration)
- Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) (discusses standards for granting a stay pending appeal)