Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs, No. 20-16759 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Arizona voters may vote by mail during the last four weeks of an election. The voter must sign an affidavit that is printed on a specially provided, postage-paid envelope. A ballot with a missing signature cannot be counted. On September 10, 2020, weeks before the upcoming presidential election, the district court enjoined the enforcement of Ariz. Stat. 16-548(A), which requires early voters to have signed their ballots by 7:00 PM on Election Day in order to have their votes counted. The Ninth Circuit granted emergency motions and stayed the injunction, pending appeal.
In 2021, the Ninth Circuit entered a permanent stay. The state has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Arizona's signature deadline imposes, at most, a "minimal" burden on those who seek to exercise their right to vote. The state made a strong showing that its deadline reasonably advances important regulatory interests in reducing the burden on poll workers, especially during the days immediately following an election. The public interest is served by preserving Arizona's existing election laws. Although Arizona’s law implicated national interests, at least when the election included presidential candidates, that factor alone did not mean that strict scrutiny must apply. The court noted that the Arizona legislature “laudably amended its election code in 2019 to allow voters an extended period to correct mismatched signatures." Arizona’s decision not to grant the same extension to voters who neglect to sign the affidavit passed constitutional muster.
Court Description: Voting Rights. The panel vacated a permanent injunction entered by the district court, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant Arizona officials, in an action brought by Democratic Party organizations challenging the election-day deadline for voters who neglect to sign the vote by mail ballot affidavit as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and as a denial of procedural due process. Arizona voters may vote by mail during the last four weeks of an election. To vote by mail, a voter must return a completed ballot in a specially provided, postage-paid envelope, and the voter must sign an affidavit that is printed on the envelope. A ballot with a missing signature is incomplete and cannot be counted. A voter may correct a ballot with a missing signature by submitting a signed replacement ballot by the election-day deadline. Arizona * The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 6 ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HOBBS voters may verify a mismatched signature for three or five days after election day, but voters may correct a missing signature by election day at the latest. The panel held that, under the framework articulated by Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 428 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi. 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (the “Anderson/Burdick framework”), the State had an important regulatory interest in reducing the administrative burden on poll workers, especially during the busy days immediately following an election. In light of the minimal burden on the voter to sign the affidavit or to correct a missing signature by election day, the State’s interest sufficiently justified the election-day deadline. The panel held further that although Arizona’s law implicated national interests, at least when the election included presidential candidates, that factor alone did not mean that the burden was more than minimal or that strict scrutiny must apply. In addition, the State rationally distinguished between voters who neglect to sign the affidavit, thereby submitting an incomplete ballot, and voters who validly submit a completed, not-yet-verified, ballot. The panel held that the Anderson/Burdick framework applied equally to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim, and that claim also failed. The panel concluded that the Arizona legislature laudably amended its election code in 2019 to allow voters an extended period to correct mismatched signatures, and Arizona’s decision not to grant the same extension to voters who neglect to sign the affidavit passed constitutional muster. Judge Tashima dissented, and would affirm the district court, whose decision to grant the injunction was considered ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HOBBS 7 and supported by substantial evidence in the record. He would hold that the State offered no rational explanation for requiring ballots missing signatures to be cured by election day, given the five-day post-election cure period for correcting other similar mistakes. 8 ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HOBBS
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 6, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.