Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 37

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

31 

Opinion of the Court 

it off at any time within 27 days of an election. 
  Arizona also makes special provision for certain groups of 
voters who are unable to use the early voting system.  Every 
county must establish a special election board to serve vot-
ers who are “confined as the result of a continuing illness or 
physical disability,” are unable to go to the polls on election 
day,  and  do  not wish  to  cast  an  early  vote  by  mail.    Ariz. 
Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–549(C) (Cum. Supp. 2020).  At the re-
quest of a voter in this group, the board will deliver a ballot 
in person and return it on the voter’s behalf.  §§16–549(C), 
(E).  Arizona law also requires employers to give employees 
time off to vote when they are otherwise scheduled to work 
certain shifts on election day.  §16–402 (2015). 
  The plaintiffs were unable to provide statistical evidence 
showing that HB 2023 had a disparate impact on minority 
voters.    Instead,  they  called  witnesses  who  testified  that 
third-party ballot collection tends to be used most heavily 
in disadvantaged communities and that minorities in Ari-
zona—especially  Native  Americans—are  disproportion-
ately  disadvantaged.    329  F. Supp.  3d,  at  868,  870.    But 
from  that  evidence  the District  Court  could conclude  only 
that prior to HB 2023’s enactment, “minorities generically 
were more likely than non-minorities to return their early 
ballots  with  the  assistance  of  third  parties.”    Id.,  at  870.  
How much more,  the court  could  not say from  the record.  
Ibid.  Neither can we.  And without more concrete evidence, 
we  cannot  conclude  that  HB  2023  results  in  less  oppor-
tunity to participate in the political process.19 
—————— 

19 Not one to let the absence of a key finding get in the way, the dissent 
concludes from its own review of the evidence that HB 2023 “prevents 
many Native Americans from making effective use of one of the principal 
means of voting in Arizona,” and that “[w]hat is an inconsequential bur-
den for others is for these citizens a severe hardship.”  Post, at 38.  What 
is missing from those statements is any evidence about the actual size of 
the disparity.  (For that matter, by the time the dissent gets around to 
assessing HB 2023, it appears to have lost its zeal for statistical signifi-
cance, which is nowhere to be seen.  See post, at 35–40, and n. 13.)  The