Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

  2. For similar reasons, the degree to which a voting rule 
departs  from  what  was  standard  practice  when  §2  was 
amended  in  1982  is  a  relevant  consideration.    Because 
every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort, it is useful 
to have benchmarks with which the burdens imposed by a 
challenged rule can be compared.  The burdens associated 
with the rules in widespread use when §2 was adopted are 
therefore  useful  in  gauging  whether the  burdens  imposed 
by  a  challenged  rule  are  sufficient  to prevent voting  from 
being  equally “open”  or  furnishing  an  equal  “opportunity” 
to vote in the sense meant by §2.  Therefore, it is relevant 
that  in  1982  States  typically  required  nearly  all  voters  to 
cast their ballots in person on election day and allowed only 
narrow and tightly defined categories of voters to cast ab-
sentee  ballots.    See,  e.g.,  17  N. Y.  Elec.  Law  Ann.  §8–100 
et seq.  (West  1978),  §8–300  et seq.  (in-person  voting),  §8–
400 et seq. (limited-excuse absentee voting); Pa. Stat. Ann., 
Tit.  25,  §3045  et seq.  (Purdon  1963)  (in-person  voting), 
§3149.1 et seq. (limited-excuse absentee voting); see §3146.1 
(Purdon  Cum.  Supp.  1993)  (same);  Ohio  Rev.  Code  Ann. 
§3501.02  et seq.  (Lexis  1972)  (in-person  voting),  §3509.01 
et seq. (limited-excuse absentee voting); see §3509.02 (Lexis 
Supp. 1986) (same); Fla. Stat. Ann. §101.011 et seq. (1973) 
(in-person voting), §101.62 et seq. (limited-excuse absentee 
voting);  see  §97.063  (1982)  (same);  Ill.  Rev.  Stat.,  ch.46, 
§17–1  et seq.  (West  1977)  (in-person  voting),  §19–1  et seq. 
(limited-excuse  absentee  voting);  D. C.  Code  §§1–1109,  1–
1110 (1973) (in-person voting and limited-excuse absentee 
voting);  see  §1–1313  (1981)  (same).    As  of  January  1980, 
only three States permitted no-excuse absentee voting.  See 
Gronke & Galanes-Rosenbaum, America Votes! 261, 267–269 

—————— 
may have the opportunity to enroll, but some students may find it incon-
venient to take the class for a variety of reasons.  For example, classes 
may  occur  too  early  in  the  morning  or  on  Friday  afternoon;  too  much 
reading may be assigned; the professor may have a reputation as a hard 
grader; etc.