Purcell v. Gonzalez

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. Proposition 200 sought to prevent voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote and present identification when voting on election day. If a voter arrived at the polls on election day without proper identification, that voter could cast a conditional provisional ballot. For the ballot to be counted, the voter must return to a designated site and present proper identification within five days. If the voter did not have identification, the voter could vote during the early voting period, as the state believed it would have enough time to compare the voter’s signatures to the registration documents. In May 2006, Maria Gonzalez (plaintiff) and other Arizona residents, tribes, and community organizations sued Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell (defendant) and other state and county election officials, challenging the identification requirements of Proposition 200 and requesting a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction but did not issue findings of fact or law at that time. Gonzalez appealed. The initial appellate briefing schedule was set to conclude after the 2006 election. Gonzalez then requested an interlocutory injunction pending the appeal. On October 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction, without explanation, preventing the implementation of Proposition 200’s identification requirements pending the appeal. Purcell then appealed the injunction. On October 12, the district court issued its finding of fact and conclusions of law, explaining that Gonzalez failed to show a strong likelihood of success.