Page 1 of 2 Office of the Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 95 Seventh Street Post Office Box 193939 San Francisco, California 94119-3939 Cathy A. Catterson    Clerk of Court (415) 556-9800 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 03-56498 Opinion Filed: 9/15/03 Panel: Judge Harry Pregerson    Judge Sidney R. Thomas   Judge Richard A. Paez   (per curiam)   The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in plaintiffs’ action alleging that the use of obsolete punchcard voting systems in the October 7, 2003, California special election in some counties (Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano counties) rather than others will deny voters equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.   At the special election, California voters will be asked to vote on the recall of the California governor and two state propositions: Proposition 53, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would dedicate part of the state budget each year to state and local infrastructures, such as water, highway, and park projects; and Proposition 54, another proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would prevent the state from collecting or retaining racial and ethnic data about health care, hate crimes, racial profiling, public education, and public safety.  The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying the preliminary injunction with respect to the vote on Propositions 53 and 54 and the gubernatorial recall.   The panel concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection claim that there is no rational basis for using, in some counties and not others, pre-scored punchcard voting systems that the California Secretary of State has decertified as “unacceptable.”   The panel further held that the plaintiffs’ action is not likely to be barred by the  res judicata effect of a prior action challenging the use of pre-scored punchcard ballots,