Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, et al. v. Maria M. Gonzalez et al. (549 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided October 20, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 549 U.S. 1 · 127 S. Ct. 5
- Decided
- October 20, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. The State of Arizona and county officials from four of its counties seek relief from an interlocutory injunction entered by a two-judge motions panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kennedy has referred the applicants’ filings to the Court. We construe the filings of the State and the county officials as petitions for certiorari; we grant the petitions; and we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals. I In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. The measure sought to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day. The election procedures implemented to effect Proposition 200 do not necessarily result in the turning away of qualified, registered voters by election officials for lack of proper identification. A voter who arrives at the polls on election day without identification may cast a conditional provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter is allowed five business days to return to a designated site and present proper identification. In addition any voter who knows he or she cannot secure identification within five business days of the election has the option to vote before election day during the early voting period. The State has determined that, because there is adequate time during the early voting…
Excerpt of a 8,442-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.