Case: Malnes v. Arizona
3:16-cv-08008 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Filed Date: Jan. 20, 2016
Closed Date: July 5, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
Plaintiff in this case challenged an Arizona Statute that barred a resident of the state from registering to vote unless such resident has not been convicted of treason or a felony, unless restored to civil rights, alleging the statute violated the Plaintiff’s right under the 15th and 26th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State of Arizona and the Secretary of State of Arizona, alleging the State of Arizona violated the Plaintiff’s rights under 15th and 26th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff attempted to register on the State of Arizona’s Voter Registration webpage, and could not because A.R.S. 16-101B required that the person registering had not been convicted of treason or a felony, unless restored to civil rights. The Plaintiff argued that the 26th amendment protected every citizen’s right to vote in the U.S. and the Arizona statute violated the 15th amendment because the 13th amendment defined incarceration in the U.S. as slavery and the 15th amendment states that "no right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall be denied or abridged . . . by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude". The Plaintiff demanded a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the State of Arizona from denying franchise to anyone ever convicted of a felony, and damage of $10,000,000. The Plaintiff amended the original complaint on January 26, 2016, adding facts that Plaintiff was a resident of Arizona and U.S. citizen.
On February 16, 2016, the Defendant State of Arizona moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Defendant’s motion argued the State was immune from suit in federal court and the Defendant Secretary of State of Arizona was immune from a suit for damage. With respect to the remaining claim for injunctive relief against the Secretary in her official capacity, Plaintiff could not state a claim that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-101(A)(5) violated either the 15th or the 26th amendments. The Defendant argued that (1) criminals have traditionally had their right to vote and participate in civil society restricted and only two states did not impose any restrictions in connection with felony conviction, (2) the 11th amendment barred claims for monetary relief, (3) Plaintiff had not stated a claim under the 15th amendment because (a) the complaint’s only factual allegation (that Plaintiff could not register to vote because he was a felon) did not suggest any entitlement to relief and (b) the 13th amendment acknowledged that incarceration for a crime is constitutional when it followed from a lawful conviction and that such incarceration was not the evil sought to be prohibited by the anti-slavery amendments arising out of Reconstruction. The Defendant also argued that the 26th amendment had no impact at all on the ability of individual States to determine qualification of a voter other than age. The Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on February 25, 2016, providing a brief history of voting rights in the U.S. and arguing that the 11th amendment did not provide sovereign immunity to the defendant.
On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support for Temporary Restraining Order arguing that Defendants were violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) – Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception and ordering Defendants to not physically harm the Plaintiff and refrain from obstructing his federal campaign; and a Preliminary Injunction finding that Defendants were violating Plaintiff’s 15th amendment right. The Plaintiff’s memo alleged that the Defendant included inaccurate information about qualification, which the Plaintiff would not qualify, to run for office to retaliate against the Plaintiff because of the lawsuit at hand.
On March 17, 2016, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction because Plaintiff failed to allege facts required to support his allegations, and in any event, Plaintiff would fail to meet the standard required for injunctive relief. Defendant argued Plaintiff failed to raise a claim in the amended complaint for reasons fully explained in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff as an admitted convicted felon did not possess a constitutional right to vote. With respect to the criminal allegation, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate Defendants agreed to intentionally accomplish an illegal objective or Defendants willfully sought to deprive him of his rights; Plaintiff’s 18 U.S.C. 242 claim was not supported because the criminal statue did not provide any relief to Plaintiff, a private litigant and Plaintiff failed to submit facts supporting a claim that his rights were being willfully violated by any of the Defendants. Plaintiff also failed to allege facts showing any of the Defendants willfully engaged in force or the threat of force to injure or intimidate Plaintiff out of exercising any right with respect to the 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(1)(A) claim. Plaintiff’s 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) claim was frivolous because it was a witness-tampering statute and not applicable in the facts alleged. Plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm because a felon has no constitutional right to vote. The balance of equities tipped against Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s request to enjoin the Arizona statute shortly before an election could disrupt election procedures. The injunction was not in public’s best interest because the Arizona legislature had provided a clear expression of public interest that felons should be granted the right to participate in electoral franchise under narrowly prescribed circumstances.
On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Preliminary Injunction requiring Defendants to abide by U.S. Constitution by removing unconstitutional requirement for qualification for Federal Office found in Arizona State Statute A.R.S. 16-311(A) and (B), alleging the statute violated the “Qualification Cluse” of the U.S. Constitution by adding the requirement for qualification of being a “qualified elector.”
On July 5, 2016, the District Court of Arizona issued an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and determined all other motions pending before the court were therefore moot. The court held that State of Arizona and its agencies were immune from Plaintiff’s claim because of 11th amendment. The court also held that Plaintiff might only seek prospective relief in a claim against a state official for a present violation of federal law and considered Plaintiff’s claim against the Secretary in her official capacity for injunctive relief. The court held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 15th amendment because Plaintiff failed to allege that the Arizona statue intentionally effected racial discrimination. Plaintiff also failed to state a claim under the 26th amendment because Plaintiff failed to allege that his right to vote was denied because of his age.
On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (No. 16-16208). On August 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order of the district court and held that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant’s 15th amendment claim for damages against the Secretary and for damages and injunctive relief against the State of Arizona because the claim was barred by the 11th amendment immunity. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also held that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant’s 15th amendment claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Secretary because Plaintiff-Appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that Arizona’s felon disenfranchisement statute reflected racial animus or discrimination or deprived him of the right to vote due to his previous condition of servitude.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Sebastian Miao (9/11/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5613459/parties/malnes-v-arizona-state-of/
Snow, Grant Murray (Arizona)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5613459/malnes-v-arizona-state-of/
Last updated April 12, 2026, 4:51 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2016
Closing Date: July 5, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
a Arizona resident who could not register to vote on January 19, 2016 because under Arizona law, a resident of the state may register to vote only if he satisfies various criteria, one of which is that he "has not been convicted of treason or a felony, unless restored to civil rights."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
State of Arizona
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Arizona 3:16-cv-08008
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Malnes v. Arizona, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/45058/ (last updated 9/11/2024).