## Facts

- Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 (2004), requiring proof of citizenship to register and identification to vote in person on election day.
- Voters without ID at the polls could cast a provisional ballot that would be counted if ID was presented within five business days.
- Voters unable to obtain ID within five business days could vote early; early voters did not present ID at the polls because signatures could be verified against registration records.
- Arizona, a covered jurisdiction under Voting Rights Act § 5, obtained federal preclearance for Proposition 200’s implementing procedures (May 6, 2005).
- In May 2006, plaintiffs challenged Proposition 200’s identification requirements in federal district court and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction (Sept. 11, 2006), initially without findings; it later issued findings and conclusions stating plaintiffs had not shown a strong likelihood of success (Oct. 12, 2006).
- Plaintiffs appealed; because merits briefing would conclude after the Nov. 7, 2006 election, they sought an injunction pending appeal.
- A Ninth Circuit motions panel granted an injunction pending appeal (Oct. 5, 2006) without explanation, blocking enforcement for the imminent election.
- State and county election officials sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by issuing an unexplained injunction pending appeal that altered election administration shortly before an election, without adequate deference to the district court’s denial of preliminary relief.
2. How the proximity of an election and the risk of voter confusion and administrative disruption should affect equitable analysis of emergency election injunctions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court treated the emergency applications as petitions for certiorari, granted certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s injunction, and remanded.
- The Court found no indication the Ninth Circuit gave the required deference to the district court’s discretionary decision and later-issued findings and conclusions.
- The Court emphasized that election-related orders close to an election can cause voter confusion and discourage participation, and that this risk increases as election day approaches.
- The Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying constitutional and statutory challenges to Proposition 200.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts must give substantial deference to a district court’s discretionary ruling on preliminary equitable relief and should not displace it through unexplained emergency orders.
- Courts should consider that last-minute judicial changes to election rules can generate voter confusion and administrative instability, particularly when conflicting orders issue close to an election.
- When an election is imminent and factual disputes cannot be reliably resolved in time, equitable relief that changes election procedures requires special caution; the proximity of the election is a weighty factor in the balance of equities.
- Vacatur of an emergency injunction pending appeal may be appropriate where the appellate court provides no reasoning and the district court’s findings have not been shown incorrect.

## Conclusion

The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s late-breaking injunction against Arizona’s voter identification requirements because the appellate court did not adequately defer to the district court’s denial of preliminary relief and because judicial orders changing election rules shortly before an election risk voter confusion and disruption, while leaving the merits for further proceedings.


Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)