MI Familia Vota v. Hobbs

492 F.Supp.3d 980

MI FAMILIA VOTA, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Katie HOBBS, Defendant.

No. CV-20-01903-PHX-SPL

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

Signed October 5, 2020

Ben Clements, Gillian Cassell-Stiga, John Bonifaz, Ronald A. Fein, Newton, MA, Jonathan S. Abady, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Pro Hac Vice, Nick Bourland, Pro Hac Vice, Zoe Salzman, Pro Hac Vice, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, New York, NY, Joshua David R. Bendor, Mary Ruth OGrady, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Ulises Ventura.

Kory A. Langhofer, Thomas James Basile, Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Kara Karlson, Linley Sarah Wilson, Office of the Attorney General, Roopali H. Desai, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.

ORDER

Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge

On September 30, 2020, two non-profit organizations, Mi Familia Vota and the Arizona Coalition for Change, and an individual voter organizer with Mi Familia Vota, Ulises Ventura (together "Plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint seeking a declaratory judgment (Doc. 1) and an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. (Doc. 2) On October 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Response in Opposition. (Doc. 16) Also on October 2, 2020, Intervenor-Defendants Republican National Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee filed a Motion to Intervene. (Doc. 15) The Court granted the Motion to Intervene and the Clerk of Court filed the Intervenor-Defendants’ Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 26) and the Intervenor-Defendants’ Answer. (Doc. 27)¹ The Court also granted Governor Douglas A. Ducey's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant, which the Clerk of Court filed. (Doc. 29) Due to the urgent nature of this case, the Court held oral argument on the matter on Monday, October 5, 2020. The Court also exercises its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2) to consolidate the trial on the merits with the hearing on the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Furthermore, because the requested injunction is longer than 14 days, pursuant to Rule 65, the Court will treat Plaintiffs’ request as a request for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, the preliminary injunction is granted as modified.²

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that if Defendant were to enforce the Arizona Voter Registration Deadline of October 5, 2020, their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights would be burdened. (Doc. 1 at 17) They seek an extension of the voter registration deadline to October 27, 2020. Defendant alleges that (1) Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, (2) Plaintiffs fail to show the enforcement of the deadline will cause irreparable injury, and (3) an extension of the deadline would result in hardship to election officials and result in public confusion. Intervenor-Defendants allege that (1) Plaintiffs’ action is untimely, (2) Plaintiffs failed to join all necessary parties, (3) Plaintiffs lack standing, and (4) the deadline does not burden Plaintiffs’ rights and is necessary to vindicate important state interests.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

When deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts follow the test set out by the Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor and, (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365. The Ninth Circuit has also approved a "sliding scale" test. "A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ... that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor.... Of course, plaintiffs must also satisfy the other Winter factors." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell , 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Due to the urgent nature of this matter, the Court will now address the request for the preliminary injunction with the merits of the case. See Rule 65(a)(2).

A. Plaintiffs’ success on the merits

A plaintiff seeking an injunction must first establish likely success on the merits. See supra II. Before determining likelihood of success on the merits, the Court must also determine whether Plaintiffs have standing and whether the Complaint (Doc. 1) was timely filed.

i. Standing

Article III standing requires would-be plaintiffs to establish (1) injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant that is (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs , 887 F.3d 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2018). Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing because there has been no state action and because the harm suffered is not redressable. (Doc. 16 at 8–9; Doc. 26 at 8–10) Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs failed to join all necessary parties and they should have also sued the 15 County Recorders of Arizona. (Doc. 16 at 9; Doc. 26 at 7) Plaintiffs argue they can establish standing because organizations have standing when their organizational mission is frustrated, and when they have diverted resources to combat the conduct in question. (Doc. 2 at 6) (citing Am. Diabetes Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of the Army , 938 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2019) ). The conduct in question here is enforcement of the voter registration deadline. (Doc. 2 at 6–7) The resources Plaintiffs expended include paying registration workers higher salaries, re-allocating staff to registration efforts, developing health and safety protocol, and engaging in extra fundraising and re-budgeting. (Doc. 2 at 7) Plaintiffs further argue that the County Recorders are not necessary parties because this Court has ruled on that issue in the past and found that because the Secretary of State promulgates the voter registration rules, the counties are bound by them. (Doc. 30 at 6) See Arizona Democratic Party v. Reagan , No. CV-16-03618-PHX-SPL, 2016 WL 6523427, at *7 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2016).

Other courts have recently found there to be standing when organizational plaintiffs’ efforts to gather ballot initiative signatures this year were frustrated due to COVID-19. See, e.g. , Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske , No. 320CV00271MMDWGC, 463 F.Supp.3d 1123, 1135–36, (D. Nev. May 29, 2020). Furthermore, an injunction against the Secretary of State would redress the harm alleged by Plaintiffs. Reagan , 2016 WL 6523427, at *7. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently established organizational standing by showing their organizational mission was frustrated, that they have diverted resources to combat the effects of COVID-19, and that the County Recorders are not necessary parties to this action because they answer to the Defendant.

ii. Timeliness

Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants also argue the claim is untimely due to the Purcell doctrine as well as the equitable doctrine of laches. (Doc. 16 at 10–11; Doc. 26 at 2–7) They argue that (1) Plaintiffs should have brought the claim earlier, when it was clear COVID-19 was having an impact on registration, and (2) election rules should not be changed on the "eve of an election." (Doc. 16 at 10–11, Doc. 26 at 2–7) The Purcell doctrine comes from Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez , 549 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006). Purcell discourages courts from creating or altering election rules close to elections to avoid voter confusion. Id. at 4–5, 127 S.Ct. 5. This Court has previously held that the Purcell doctrine does not apply to the extension of election deadlines because the requested remedy is "asking [election] officials to continue applying the same procedures they have in place now, but for a little longer." Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs , No. CV-20-01143-PHX-DLR, 485 F.Supp.3d 1073, 1095, (D. Ariz. Sept. 10, 2020). The Court finds the current case no different.

The laches doctrine bars claims when there is "unreasonable delay" in bringing the suit that "prejudices the opposing party or the administration of justice." Arizona Libertarian Party v. Reagan , 189 F. Supp. 3d 920, 922 (D. Ariz. 2016) (internal citations omitted). "To determine whether delay was unreasonable, a court considers the justification for the delay, the extent of the plaintiff's advance knowledge of the basis for the challenge, and whether the plaintiff exercised diligence in preparing and advancing his case." Id. at 923. Here, Plaintiffs told the Court during the October 1, 2020 scheduling conference that they were waiting to bring this claim until they knew the harm could be redressed by extending the voter registration deadline, and thus establish standing, and reasserted that argument in their Reply brief and in oral argument. (Doc. 30 at 8) The State's COVID-19 restrictions were lifted in August. Plaintiff Mi Familia Vota has been able to register about 1,094 voters per week since the last week of August, as opposed to the less than 200 registered during the restrictions. (Doc. 2-1 at 6) Plaintiff Arizona Coalition for Change has been able to register 1,343 voters in August and September. (Doc. 2-2 at 4–5) Plaintiffs argue they will be able to register about 2,000 voters in three weeks, and that their coalition will be able to register 25,000 more voters if the deadline is extended. (Doc. 30 at 2) Plaintiffs also assert that, based on new State data, around 65,120 voters...