In an unsigned opinion, the court granted Arizona’s request to overturn an injunction issued this month by a two-judge federal appeals panel. The judges, A. Wallace Tashima and William A. Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, had acted at the request of a group of Arizona Indian tribes, the League of Women Voters and other groups who have joined to challenge the constitutionality of the rules.
The Supreme Court opinion made clear that it was not ruling on the merits of the case, in which the plaintiffs contend that Proposition 200, adopted by Arizona voters in 2004, places an unconstitutional burden on members of minorities and others who do not have ready access to the forms of identification required to register and to vote.
Justice John Paul Stevens filed a one-paragraph concurring opinion that offered an explanation for the court’s action. “Allowing the election to proceed without enjoining the statutory provisions at issue will provide the courts with a better record on which to judge their constitutionality,” Justice Stevens said.
The opinion criticized the appeals court judges for not providing “any factual findings or indeed any reasoning” in their four-sentence order granting the injunction, which had previously been denied by the federal district court in Phoenix.
Proposition 200 requires proof of citizenship before a person can register to vote. To receive a ballot at the polls, a voter must present a single form of photo identification or two forms of identification with the voter’s name and address like a bank statement or utility bill.
Voters without proper identification can cast provisional ballots and provide identification within five days. No identification beyond a signature is required for those who cast an “early ballot.”