Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

12 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

law  was  not  enacted  with  discriminatory  intent.    The  en 
banc court did not claim that a majority of legislators had 
voted for the law for a discriminatory purpose, but the court 
held  that  these  lawmakers  “were  used  as  ‘cat’s  paws’ ”  by 
others.  Id., at 1041. 
  One judge in the majority declined to join the court’s hold-
ing  on  discriminatory  intent,  and  four  others  dissented 
across the board.  A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed 
by the Arizona attorney general on his own behalf and on 
behalf  of  the  State,  which  had  intervened  below;  another 
petition  was  filed  by  the  Arizona  Republican  Party  and 
other private parties who also had intervened.  We granted 
the petitions and agreed to review both the Ninth Circuit’s 
understanding and application of VRA §2 and its holding on 
discriminatory intent.  591 U. S. ___ (2020). 

II 
  We  begin  with  two  preliminary  matters.    Secretary  of 
State  Hobbs  contends  that  no  petitioner  has  Article  III 
standing  to  appeal  the  decision  below  as  to  the  out-of-
precinct  policy,  but  we  reject  that  argument.    All  that  is 
needed to entertain an appeal of that issue is one party with 
standing, see Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul 
Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U. S. ___, ___, n. 6 (2020) (slip 
op., at 13, n. 6), and we are satisfied that Attorney General 
Brnovich fits the bill.  The State of Arizona intervened be-
low, see App. 834; there is “[n]o doubt” as an Article III mat-
ter that “the State itself c[an] press this appeal,” Virginia 
House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) 
(slip  op.,  at  4);  and  the  attorney  general  is  authorized  to 
represent the State in any action in federal court, Ariz. Rev. 
Stat. Ann. §41–193(A)(3) (2021); see Arizonans for Official 
English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 51, n. 4 (1997). 
  Second, we think it prudent to make clear at the begin-
ning  that  we  decline  in  these  cases  to  announce  a  test  to 
govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue