Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Headline: Arizona voting rules upheld: Court allows the State to discard out‑of‑precinct ballots and restrict third‑party collection of mail ballots, preserving rules that may make voting harder for some minority communities.
Holding: The Court held that Arizona’s rule discarding out‑of‑precinct ballots and HB 2023 restricting most third‑party collection of early mail ballots do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and HB 2023 was not shown to have been enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.
- Allows states to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct on election day.
- Criminalizes most third‑party collection of early mail ballots, limiting help for remote voters.
- Establishes guideposts that narrow many time/place/manner voting challenges.
Summary
Background
Voting rights groups, led by the Democratic National Committee, sued Arizona over two state rules: a policy that voids ballots cast at the wrong election‑day precinct and a law (HB 2023) that criminalizes most third‑party collection of early mail ballots. The groups said those rules had a disparate effect on American Indian, Hispanic, and African‑American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and argued HB 2023 was enacted with discriminatory intent. A federal district court upheld the rules, an en banc Ninth Circuit reversed, and Arizona appealed to this Court.
Reasoning
The Court addressed how Section 2 applies to facially neutral time, place, or manner voting rules. It read the statute to ask whether voting is “equally open” to all people, judged under a “totality of circumstances.” The Court identified guideposts for that inquiry: the size of a rule’s burden, whether the rule departs from common practice in 1982, the magnitude of racial disparities, the availability of other voting methods in the State’s system, and the strength of state interests (for example, preventing fraud and undue influence). Applying those considerations, the Court concluded Arizona’s precinct rule and HB 2023 impose only modest burdens, produced small disparities in the record, and serve legitimate state interests, so neither violated Section 2. The Court also upheld the district court’s factual finding that HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and rejected the use of a “cat’s paw” theory against a legislature.
Real world impact
The ruling lets Arizona continue to discard out‑of‑precinct election‑day ballots and to bar most third‑party collection of early mail ballots while allowing narrow exceptions for family, household members, and caregivers. The Court declined to announce a single legal test for all such challenges and instead issued the above guideposts, which will shape future Section 2 claims about time, place, and manner voting rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice GORSUCH filed a short concurrence. Justice KAGAN filed a dissent joined by two Justices arguing the Court’s approach unduly narrows Section 2, warned that the decision risks harming minority voters (especially Native American communities with limited mail access), and disputed the majority’s legal framework.
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?