Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen - Free Speech For People

On July 18, 2022, Free Speech For People joined Campaign Legal Center on an amended complaint challenging Arizona’s anti-voter laws H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, which together impose burdensome and unnecessary proof of residency and citizenship requirements on voter registration despite the fact that that voters are already required to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, prevent certain voters from voting by mail or voting in the presidential election, and mandate strict voter roll purges and unwarranted investigation of naturalized citizen voters. The amended complaint added new plaintiffs, including Arizona Coalition for Change, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

The Court found in plaintiffs’ favor in several crucial issues in an order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on September 13, 2023. In November 2023, the case went to trial on remaining issues. On February 29, 2024, the Court entered a final judgment, agreed upon by plaintiffs and the defendants. The Court’s rulings and the agreed-upon judgment protect Arizona voters from two laws that subjected Arizona voters to unlawful restrictions on their ability to register to vote in federal elections, to participate in federal elections, and to register without fear of unlawful investigation based on their status as naturalized citizens.

The district court, ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, struck down several anti-voter provisions of the laws on September 13, 2023. In November 2023, the case went to trial on remaining issues, and in February 2023 the court struck down additional voter suppression provisions of the challenged laws, but ruled against the plaintiffs on their equal protection and intentional discrimination claims. The court’s rulings protect Arizona voters from unlawful restrictions on their ability to register and vote in federal elections, and from being unlawfully purged from the voter rolls and investigated based on their status as naturalized citizens.

The defendant-intervenors—the Republican National Committee, Warren Petersen in his capacity as President of the Arizona State Senate, and Ben Toma in his capacity as the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives—appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The appeal was heard on September 10, 2024. On February 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that substantially affirmed the district court’s ruling. It affirmed the district court’s findings that several anti-voter provisions of the laws violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Ninth Circuit also found that the district court erred in applying a heightened evidentiary standard to the plaintiffs’ evidence of intentional discrimination, and sent those claims back to the district court to assess under the correct standard.

Key Facts

Background

III

Major Case Developments and Documents

Key Facts

Caption	Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen
Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on appeal from the Federal District Court of Arizona
Docket No.	24-3188
Status	Appeal opinion issued Feb. 25, 2025
Plaintiffs	Living United for Change in Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, Arizona Students’ Association, ADRC Action, The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Arizona Coalition for Change
Defendants	Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes
Defendant Intervenors	Republican National Committee, Warren Petersen in his capacity as President of the Arizona State Senate, and Ben Toma in his capacity as the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.

Background

On July 18, 2022, Free Speech For People and pro bono counsel Mayer Brown LLP joined the Campaign Legal Center, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Barton Mendez Soto PLLC to file an amended complaint challenging two Arizona voter suppression laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 on behalf of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Intertribal Council of Arizona, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona, League of Latin American Citizens, Arizona Students’ Association, and ADRC Action. The complaint asserted that these laws imposed arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on eligible Arizona votes in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was consolidated with seven other challenges to these laws. The Republican National Committee, Warren Petersen in his capacity as the President of the Arizona State Senate, and Ben Toma in his capacity as Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives intervened as defendants.

Arizona already has a dual voter registration system, to enforce documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirements for state and local elections that under federal law cannot be demanded of federal election voters. Then, in the 2020 election, Arizona saw unprecedented voter turnout—and the legislature responded by passing H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, which subject Arizonans to additional, unlawful barriers to vote. These laws:

Prohibit federal-only voters from voting by mail or in presidential elections;
Require heightened proof of citizenship for applicants using either the federal registration form or the state form;
Require state-form applicants to disclose their birthplace, provide documentary proof of residency, and check a box confirming their citizenship—despite also providing proof of citizenship;
Subject naturalized citizen to periodic voter roll purges based on out-of-date databases, including within 90 days of elections

The district court issued a ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in September 2023. After a two-week bench trial in November 2023, the court then issued a post-trial order on all remaining issues in February 2024. In these orders, the court struck down a number of anti-voter provisions in the two laws. The orders—and the subsequent final judgment that permanently enjoined enforcement of these provisions—protect federal-only voters’ ability to vote by mail and in presidential elections; prohibit Arizona from demanding DPOR and DPOC of federal-only voters; prohibiting citizenship checks targeted only at naturalized citizens; prohibiting voter roll purges within 90 days of an election; and prohibiting the state from requiring registering voters to provide immaterial or duplicative information on their application forms. But the district court conclude that the plaintiffs failed to prove their equal protection and intentional discrimination claims.

The defendant-intervenors appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed. On February 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit ruled substantially in plaintiffs’ favor. In addition to affirming the district courts’ rulings that these provisions violate the NVRA and the Civil Rights Act, the Ninth Circuit also held that the district court erred in applying an improperly high evidentiary standard to the plaintiffs’ evidence of intentional discrimination, and sent those claims back to the district court.

Free Speech For People, in partnership with the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP, is pleased to join the Campaign Legal Center, San Carlos Apache Tribe Department of Justice, and Barton Mendez Soto PLLC on the legal team for this litigation.