The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of a provision in Arizona's Proposition 200, a 2004 anti-immigrant law, that requires that new voter registration applicants provide one of a limited set of documents to prove citizenship. Since its implementation, over 31,500 applicants have been rejected for failing to provide the additional paperwork required . In Arizona's largest county, voter registration through community-based drives dropped 44%. Individuals whose registrations were rejected under Proposition 200 reflect the general demographics of Arizona and include people of all races, ages and political affiliations.
On May 9, 2006, MALDEF filed the first suit challenging the voter restrictions of Proposition 200. MALDEF represents Latino organizations and individuals who are negatively affected by the new law. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with MALDEF and struck down portions of the law and Arizona filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
MALDEF remains committed to fighting laws and regulations that place unreasonable economic and bureaucratic burdens on U.S. citizens seeking to vote.
This case is about the power of the U.S. Congress to make rules for federal elections. Because Arizona's voter registration law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.
Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993 to simplify and increase voter registration in federal elections. The NVRA creates a national postcard voter registration form and requires states to accept and use the federal form for the registration of voters in federal elections.
Arizona Proposition 200 blocks U.S. citizens from registering to vote by imposing burdensome paperwork requirements. All new voter registrants must include with their registration form documentation from a list that Arizona claims proves U.S. citizenship.
MALDEF Files Brief in Case Under Motor Voter Law at U.S. Supreme Court
Discriminatory Arizona law attempts to supersede federal voter law
SAN ANTONIO, TX — MALDEF filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court today in Arizona v. ITCA, the longstanding challenge to Proposition 200, Arizona’s 2004 law imposing burdensome documentation requirements on new voter registrants. MALDEF argues in the brief that Proposition 200 is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what federal law requires to register for federal elections, preventing many U.S. citizens from participating in those elections. Fortunately, the law was enjoined prior to the 2012 election after the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld MALDEF's challenge.
In 1993, seeking to increase voter participation, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), also known as the Motor Voter Act, and required all states to accept a simplified voter registration form designed by the federal government. Under Proposition 200, Arizona registrars must reject that federal form if it is not accompanied by additional documents that Arizona claims prove U.S. citizenship.
MALDEF President and General Counsel, Thomas A. Saenz, stated: “This case, which the Supreme Court will hear and decide this year, is critically important to the goal of increasing voter participation in this country and of ensuring the strength of our democracy. Unless restrained through the Supreme Court's decision in this case, Arizona will continue to disenfranchise voters by rejecting registrants who fail to meet onerous authentication requirements that go well beyond what the Congress has determined, for two decades, to be sufficient for federal elections.”
In April 2012, an 11-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit struck down critical provisions of Proposition 200 and affirmed that the NVRA, a comprehensive law enacted by Congress to combat discriminatory and onerous state voter registration schemes, preempts the additional documentation requirements that Arizona had imposed on voter registrants.
In response, Arizona filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the Ninth Circuit decision, which was denied in June, allowing the case to move back to the federal district court for a decision on the remedy. That remedy was Judge Silver’s August 2012 order instructing Arizona to stop requiring additional paperwork from citizens who submit a federal voter registration form to register to vote. The state and its counties were required to go back and add to the voter rolls all of the people who registered to vote using the federal form, and ensure that the federal registration form was widely distributed and available.
Arizona sought review of the Ninth Circuit decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Proposition 200 does not conflict with the NVRA, and that it has authority under the Constitution to administer federal elections in its own way. The Court will hear arguments in the case on March 18.
Nina Perales, MALDEF Vice President of Litigation and lead counsel in the case, stated: “Against a backdrop of substantial Latino population growth, and in the guise of preventing undocumented immigration, Arizona adopted restrictive voter registration rules that have prevented tens of thousands of citizens from joining the electorate. Arizona's Proposition 200 violates federal law and we look forward to the Supreme Court's review of the case.”
MALDEF represents individual voters and voter registrants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, Project Vote, and Common Cause. Danny Ortega of Ortega Law Firm P.C., and Karl Sandstrom of Perkins Coie are co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.
MALDEF Wins Ninth Circuit Decision Upholding Ability of U.S. Citizens in Arizona to Register to Vote
En banc court rejects Arizona's attempt to force new citizens to register twice and all citizens to show extra paperwork
SAN ANTONIO, TX — Today, MALDEF welcomed the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, striking down critical provisions of an Arizona law that restricted voter access. MALDEF had challenged the 2004 law, also known as Proposition 200, as unconstitutional and in violation of federal law because it forced many new U.S. citizens to register to vote twice and forced all U.S. citizens to produce unnecessary paperwork in order to register to vote.
“Today's ruling vindicates all the U.S. citizens who were improperly rejected for voter registration in Arizona,” stated Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation for MALDEF, who argued the case before the en banc court. “Arizona may no longer flaunt federal law in voter registration, particularly in a manner that discriminates against newly naturalized citizens,” continued Perales.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Jesus Gonzalez, was a newly-naturalized U.S. citizen when he tried to register to vote. He was rejected twice because Arizona officials claimed they could not confirm his citizenship, even after Mr. Gonzalez provided his driver's license and his naturalization certificate number.
The Ninth Circuit's 8-2 ruling was a strong affirmance of the National Voter Registration Act (the NVRA), a comprehensive law enacted by Congress to combat discriminatory and onerous state voter registration schemes. The en banc court upheld the district's ruling in favor of the voter identification portion of the law.
In response to the ruling, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz remarked, “At a time when we need to increase voter participation in our democracy, Arizona sought to restrict the franchise through discriminatory registration provisions. This lopsided victory in the en banc Ninth Circuit is one important step toward increased citizen engagement in voting.”
MALDEF filed this case on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, ACORN, Project Vote, and Common Cause. Danny Ortega, of the law firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega, and Karl Sandstrom of Perkins Coie are co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.
MALDEF Appeals Court Ruling Upholding Arizona Proposition 200 Voter Restrictions
September 16, 2008
PHOENIX, AZ — Today, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the ruling of a federal judge upholding the voting restrictions of Arizona Proposition 200, also known as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. MALDEF had challenged the law as unconstitutional because it forced voters to meet onerous new identification requirements at the polls and imposed unnecessary paperwork requirements on those seeking to register to vote.
“Proposition 200 has forced the rejection of more than 30,000 voter registration applications across Arizona,” explained Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel and lead attorney in the case. “We expect the appeals court to overturn the trial court’s decision and halt Prop 200,” continued Perales.
“The right to vote protects all citizens’ rights. It is no surprise that citizen voter suppression exists in the state that is also one of the three most hostile to immigrants. This is unacceptable and we will protect our rights through the courts,” stated John Trasviña, MALDEF President and General Counsel.
MALDEF tried the case in July, 2008 on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, ACORN, Project Vote, and Common Cause. Danny Ortega, of the law firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega is co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.
Supreme Court Decision Jeopardizes Right To Vote in Arizona
Supreme court vacates Arizona prop. 200 injunction
October 20, 2006
PHOENIX, AZ — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an injunction ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gonzalez v. Arizona, the challenge to voting restrictions in Arizona (PDF). The Supreme Court's decision means that the November 7, 2006 election will go forward with onerous proof of identity requirements for voters at the polls and also that people who seek to register to vote will have to provide documentary proof of citizenship. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) represents Maria Gonzalez, the lead plaintiff in the case, as well as other Latino individuals and organizations challenging the law.
“Not all voters possess the kind of identification demanded by Proposition 200. Many of them will be turned away from the polls on election day as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” stated Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel. MALDEF sought to remove new requirements to show voter identification and also “proof of citizenship” requirements for voter registration that have prevented thousands of voter applicants from being placed on the rolls for the upcoming elections.
Proposition 200, passed in November 2004, was touted as a law to prevent non-citizens from voting. In reality, it contains a number of restrictions that apply only to U.S. citizens seeking to vote. The law requires that before being allowed to register to vote, U.S. citizens must produce a government document proving their citizenship and all voters must now show identification before they are allowed to vote at the polls.
MALDEF filed the case on May 9, 2006 on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa and the Hispanic Forum. Danny Ortega, of the law firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega is co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.
MALDEF Appeals Denial Of Preliminary Injunction On Prop. 200 Voter Restrictions
September 12, 2006
PHOENIX, AZ — Yesterday, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial of a preliminary injunction against the voting restrictions of Arizona’s Proposition 200. MALDEF earlier sought a preliminary injunction to prevent U.S. citizens from having to meet difficult and discriminatory new identification requirements in order to vote in the upcoming primary and general elections. In addition, MALDEF sought to remove new “proof of citizenship” requirements that have prevented thousands of voter applicants from being placed on the rolls for the upcoming elections. In an order yesterday, a lower court denied MALDEF’s request.
Proposition 200, passed in November 2004, was touted as a law to prevent non-citizens from voting. In reality, it contains a number of restrictions that apply only to U.S. citizens seeking to vote. The law requires that before being allowed to register to vote, U.S. citizens must produce a government document proving their citizenship and all voters must now show identification before they are allowed to vote at the polls.
“Proposition 200 has forced the rejection of more than 20,000 voter registration applications across Arizona,” explained Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel and lead attorney in the case. “We expect the appeals court to quickly enjoin the law and permit thousands of citizens to join the voter rolls,” continued Perales.
“At a time when political activism in the Latino community is at its height, Proposition 200 makes it harder, unnecessarily so, for citizens to register and vote. We will not allow the right to vote and democratic principles to be weakened by Proposition 200,” added John Trasviña, MALDEF Interim President and General Counsel.
MALDEF filed the case on May 9, 2006 on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa and the Hispanic Forum. Danny Ortega, of the law firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega is co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.
MALDEF Files Lawsuit Challenging Prop 200
May 09, 2006
PHOENIX, AZ — Today, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed suit in federal court challenging the voter registration and identification provisions of Proposition 200. MALDEF filed the case on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa and the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.
Proposition 200 requires that in order to register to vote, U.S. citizens must provide a government document proving their citizenship and all voters are mandated to show government identification before they are allowed to vote at the polls. As interpreted by Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, Proposition 200 prohibits U.S. citizens from using the federally mandated voter registration form established by Congress when it passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993.
“By refusing to follow federal law, Secretary of State Brewer has shut down voter registration drives across the state — in malls, churches and college campuses,” explained Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel and lead attorney in the case.
The NVRA requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote using a federally mandated post card application. The lawsuit seeks an emergency order of the court to force Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Arizona County Recorders to accept federal voter registration applications in compliance with the NVRA. Others legal papers filed by MALDEF today include claims that the voter registration and identification provisions of Proposition 200 violate the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
Cynthia Valenzuela, MALDEF Director of Litigation, commented on the new rules requiring voters to present identification at the polls, stating: “Under Secretary of State Brewer’s interpretation of the law, tens of thousands of voters, including students and seniors, who do not have the certain identification will be disenfranchised and prevented from exercising their right to vote. The reality is that Prop. 200 erects more barriers to voting and discourages citizens from registering to vote.”
MALDEF has led the legal effort to overturn the voting restrictions in Proposition 200, filing an earlier lawsuit on behalf of voters in 2004. The case was dismissed in September 2005 without addressing the voting claims.
Danny Ortega, of the law firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega is co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.