Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Headline: Arizona voting rules are upheld: Court rejects challenge to out-of-precinct ballot rule and limits on third-party ballot collection, allowing states to keep those measures despite small minority burdens.
Holding: The Court ruled that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023’s ballot-collection restriction do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.
- Allows states to keep precinct-only rules that may discard out-of-precinct ballots.
- Permits limits on third-party collection of mail ballots, affecting remote communities.
- Makes it harder to win voting-pattern lawsuits when burdens are modest and states cite fraud-prevention.
Summary
Background
A suit was brought by the Democratic National Committee and others against Arizona’s state officials after Arizona enforced two election rules: (1) on election day in counties using precinct voting, ballots cast at the wrong precinct are not counted; and (2) HB 2023 made it a crime for most third parties to collect or return early mail ballots. Plaintiffs said both rules had a disparate effect on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters and that the ballot-collection ban was enacted with discriminatory purpose. A federal district court upheld the laws, a Ninth Circuit en banc reversed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court declined to adopt a single new test for these challenges but explained a Section 2 analysis should look at the totality of circumstances: the size of any burden, whether a rule departs from long standing practice, the size of disparities, other voting opportunities the State offers, and the State’s important interests (fraud prevention, orderly administra- tion). Applying those guideposts, the Court found the out-of-precinct rule’s burden small in absolute and relative terms, and HB 2023’s record did not prove a meaningful disparate effect; it also upheld the district court’s finding that the law was not enacted for a racial purpose.
Real world impact
The ruling lets Arizona continue its precinct rule and its limits on third-party ballot collection. That means some ballots that are cast at the wrong precinct still may be discarded, and many organiza- tions that used to collect ballots remain restricted. The Court stressed that its decision applies to these laws on the record before it and did not announce a comprehensive test for all time, place, or manner voting rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Gorsuch concurred. Justice Kagan, joined by two colleagues, dissented, arguing the majority improperly narrowed Section 2, that the ballot-collection ban and precinct rule do impose significant disparate burdens—especially on Native American voters—and should have been invalidated.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?