Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 14

8 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
  The present dispute concerns two features of Arizona vot-
ing law, which generally makes it quite easy for residents 
to vote.  All Arizonans may vote by mail for 27 days before 
an  election  using  an  “early  ballot.”    Ariz.  Rev.  Stat.  Ann. 
§§16–541 (2015), 16–542(C) (Cum. Supp. 2020).  No special 
excuse  is  needed,  §§16–541(A),  16–542(A),  and  any  voter 
may ask to be sent an early ballot automatically in future 
elections,  §16–544(A)  (2015).    In  addition,  during  the  27 
days before an election, Arizonans may vote in person at an 
early voting location in each county.  See §§16–542(A), (E).  
And they may also vote in person on election day. 
  Each county is free to conduct election-day voting either 
by  using  the  traditional  precinct  model  or  by  setting  up 
“voting centers.”  §16–411(B)(4) (Cum. Supp. 2020).  Voting 
centers are equipped to provide all voters in a county with 
the appropriate ballot for the precinct in which they are reg-
istered, and this allows voters in the county to use which-
ever vote center they prefer.  See ibid. 
  The  regulations  at  issue  in  this  suit  govern  precinct-
based election-day voting and early mail-in voting.  Voters 
who choose to vote in person on election day in a county that 
uses  the  precinct  system  must  vote  in  their  assigned  pre-
cincts.  See §16–122 (2015); see also §16–135.  If a voter goes 
to the wrong polling place, poll workers are trained to direct 
the voter to the right location.  Democratic Nat. Comm. v. 
Reagan, 329 F. Supp. 3d 824, 859 (Ariz. 2018); see Tr. 1559, 
1586 (Oct. 12, 2017); Tr. Exh. 370 (Pima County Elections 
Inspectors Handbook).  If a voter finds that his or her name 
does not appear on the register at what the voter believes 

—————— 
voting periods, voter identification (ID), election observer zones, same-
day registration, durational residency, and straight-ticket voting); Brief 
for State of Ohio et al. as Amici Curiae 23–25 (describing various §2 chal-
lenges); Brief for Liberty Justice Center as Amicus Curiae 1–3, 7–11 (de-
scribing long-running §2 challenges to Wisconsin voter ID law).