Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawVoting Rights ActElection LawVoting Rights ActSection 2results testequal opennessequal opportunity

Facts

Arizona generally allows extensive early voting by mail or in person, but it requires election-day in-person voters in some counties to vote in their assigned precincts or else their ballots are not counted. Arizona also prohibits most third-party ballot collection, allowing only election officials, mail carriers, and a voter's family member, household member, or caregiver to collect a mail ballot. Plaintiffs challenged both rules under §2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing they had disparate effects on minority voters. The District Court upheld both rules and found that the legislature did not enact the ballot-collection law with discriminatory intent.

Issue

How §2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to facially neutral regulations governing how ballots are cast, collected, and counted. Also, whether the court of appeals could overturn the District Court's finding that Arizona did not enact its ballot-collection law with discriminatory purpose.

Rule

Under §2, courts must consider the totality of circumstances bearing on whether a state's political processes are equally open and give minority voters equal opportunity to vote. Important guideposts include: the size of the burden imposed by the challenged rule; the degree to which the rule departs from practices common when §2 was amended in 1982 or from rules with a long pedigree or widespread use; the size of any racial disparity in the rule's impact; the opportunities provided by the state's entire voting system; and the strength of the state interests served by the rule. Mere inconvenience and the usual burdens of voting are not enough, §2 does not impose a necessity or least-restrictive-means requirement, and appellate review of a district court's discriminatory-intent finding is only for clear error.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado requires voters who choose to vote in person on election day in Denver County to appear at their assigned neighborhood polling place. The state mails each registered voter a precinct card before the election, maintains an online locator, and offers three weeks of early in-person voting and no-excuse mail voting. Latino voters are slightly more likely than white voters to have ballots rejected for appearing at the wrong precinct.

A civil-rights group challenges the assigned-precinct rule under §2 of the Voting Rights Act. Which argument best supports upholding the rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, §2 asks whether the political process is equally open under the totality of circumstances. Important guideposts include the size of the burden, the size of any racial disparity, the opportunities offered by the state's whole voting system, and the strength of the state's interests. Having to identify and travel to the correct precinct is ordinarily a usual burden of voting, not enough by itself to establish a §2 violation, especially where the state provides extensive alternative voting opportunities and the disparity is small.