Overturning a Decision Which Made No Findings Without Explanation

Purcell v. Gonzalez

PER CURIUM: In 2004 Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register and before they vote, but would allow voters without proof of citizenship to cast provisional ballots and present such identification within 5 business days or to vote before election day without presenting such identification (early voting provides adequate time to verify the voter’s status). Arizona is governed by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires that changes to the election law be precleared by the Justice Department to ensure that new provisions do not “have the purpose [or] effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Challengers of the law were denied a preliminary injunction but the court did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. The motion was granted on appeal without any explanation or justification. One week later the court issued its finding that plaintiffs demonstrated a possibility of success on the merits but not a strong likelihood.

A state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process. The fundamental right of suffrage can be denied by a mere dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote. The court of appeals was required to take into account certain considerations peculiar to election law cases, particularly the importance of speedily clarifying legal questions in a case such as this where an election is only weeks away. However, because the district court did not issue any findings of fact or conclusions of law, and because the appeals court gave no basis for overturning that court’s decision to deny the injunction, the order of the court of appeals should be vacated.

Justice Stevens, concurring: Allowing the election to proceed under the new rules will provide a better factual basis for determining the scope of the disenfranchisement and the prevalence of the fraudulent practices which supposedly justify this new rule.

Welcome to the new Supreme Court term.