FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIVKO KNOX, No. 18-16613 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:18-cv-02089-DLR MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, in his official capacity OPINION as Arizona Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 3, 2018 San Francisco, California Filed October 31, 2018 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Carlos T. Bea and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Ikuta 2 KNOX V. BRNOVICH SUMMARY* Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and its bench trial judgment in an action facially challenging HB 2023, Arizona’s 2016 election law prohibiting certain persons from collecting voters’ early mail ballots. Under HB 2023, a person who knowingly collects voted or unvoted early ballots from another person is guilty of a class 6 felony. An election official, a United States postal service worker or any other person who is allowed by law to transmit United States mail is deemed not to have collected an early ballot if the official, worker or other person is engaged in official duties. Family members, household members, and caregivers of the voter are exempted from this general prohibition against collecting ballots. The panel held that HB 2023 is not preempted by federal laws regulating the United States Postal Service. The panel determined that the presumption against preemption applied in this instance because state regulation of early voting procedures was not “an area where there has been a history of significant federal presence,” and that plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption. The panel held that HB 2023 does not implicate the First Amendment rights of ballot collectors like plaintiff. The * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. KNOX V. BRNOVICH 3 panel determined that plaintiff failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that the conduct of collecting ballots would reasonably be understood by viewers as conveying any of plaintiff’s expressive messages or conveying a symbolic message of any sort. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff’s claim that HB 2023 violates her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment because it is an overly vague criminal statute. The panel held that HB 2023 provides fair notice of prohibited conduct and that because the scope of HB 2023 was clear, it posed no significant threat of arbitrary enforcement. COUNSEL Spencer G. Scharff (argued), Scharff PLC, Phoenix, Arizona; Roopali H. Desai, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Andrew G. Pappas (argued), Assistant Solicitor General; Joseph E. La Rue and Kara M. Karlson, Assistant Attorneys General; Dominic E. Draye, Solicitor General; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 KNOX V. BRNOVICH OPINION IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Rivko Knox brings a facial challenge to H.B. 2023, Arizona’s 2016 election law prohibiting certain persons from collecting voters’ early mail ballots. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals