Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

is the right precinct, the voter ordinarily may cast a provi-
sional  ballot.    Ariz.  Rev.  Stat.  Ann.  §16–584  (Cum.  Supp. 
2020).  That ballot is later counted if the voter’s address is 
determined  to  be  within  the  precinct.    See  ibid.    But  if  it 
turns out that the voter cast a ballot at the wrong precinct, 
that vote is not counted.  See §16–584(E); App. 37–41 (elec-
tion procedures manual); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–452(C) 
(misdemeanor to violate rules in election procedures man-
ual). 
  For those who choose to vote early by mail, Arizona has 
long required that “[o]nly the elector may be in possession 
of that elector’s unvoted early ballot.”  §16–542(D).  In 2016, 
the  state  legislature  enacted  House  Bill  2023  (HB  2023), 
which makes it a crime for any person other than a postal 
worker,  an  elections  official,  or  a  voter’s  caregiver,  family 
member,  or  household  member  to  knowingly  collect  an 
early  ballot—either  before  or  after  it  has  been  completed. 
§§16–1005(H)–(I). 
  In 2016, the Democratic National Committee and certain 
affiliates  brought  this  suit  and  named  as  defendants 
(among others) the Arizona attorney general and secretary 
of state in their official capacities.  Among other things, the 
plaintiffs claimed that both the State’s refusal to count bal-
lots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection re-
striction “adversely and disparately affect Arizona’s Amer-
ican  Indian,  Hispanic,  and  African  American  citizens,”  in 
violation  of  §2  of  the  VRA.    Democratic  Nat.  Comm.  v. 
Hobbs, 948 F. 3d 989, 998 (CA9 2020) (en banc).  In addi-
tion, they alleged that the ballot-collection restriction was 
“enacted with discriminatory intent” and thus violated both 
§2 of the VRA and the Fifteenth Amendment.  Ibid. 
  After a 10-day bench trial, 329 F. Supp. 3d, at 832, 833–
838, the District Court made extensive findings of fact and 
rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims, id., at 838–883.  The court 
first found that the out-of-precinct policy “has no meaning-