Breaking News: Ninth Circuit, on 2-1 Vote with Strong Kozinksi Dissent, Holds that Arizona Requirement of Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote is Preempted by the National Voter Registration Act

Judge Ikuta, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, sitting by designation, wrote the majority opinion in this case. A snippet:

More broadly, Proposition 200 is not in harmony with the intent behind the NVRA, which is to reduce state-imposed obstacles to federal registration. It is indisputable that by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration. As indicated in our overview, supra Part C.2, the NVRA was sensitive to the multiple purposes of a federal voter registration scheme, including the need "to establish procedures that [would] increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office" and the need to protect "the integrity of the electoral process." § 1973gg(b). The balance struck by the EAC pursuant to § 1973gg-7(a) was to require applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but not to require the presentation of documentary proof. Id. Proposition 200's additional requirement is not consistent with this balance.

The majority distorts two major areas of law before it even reaches the merits. It creates an unprecedented exception to our law of the circuit rule, trampling underfoot a newly minted en banc opinion. The majority also makes a mess of the law of the case analysis by taking issue with a prior panel's reasoning, not its conclusion. And, as to the merits, the panel comes nowhere close to proving that Gonzalez I's interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act was wrong, much less clearly wrong. Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once. Count me out.

In Gonzalez v. Arizona, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals issued a 2-1 opinion today which found that Arizona's documentary proof of citizenship requirement for all new voter registrants violates the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA") because the NVRA mandates that states "shall accept and use" the federal voter registration form without additional documentation requirements.  The Ninth Circuit rejected the remainder of the appellants’ appeal.  The case was argued by Nina Perales of MALDEF and me.  To read the opinion, please click here.  

 

Jon Greenbaum

Legal Director

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

1401 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 662-8315 (phone)

(202) 628-2858 (fax)

jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

 

The information contained in this message from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s).  If you  have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information.  Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message.

 

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org