Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail,” and 
it  recommended  that  “States  therefore  should  reduce  the 
risks of fraud and abuse in absentee voting by prohibiting 
‘third-party’  organizations,  candidates,  and political  party 
activists from handling absentee ballots.”  Ibid.  The Com-
mission ultimately recommended that States limit the clas-
ses  of  persons  who  may  handle  absentee  ballots  to  “the 
voter,  an  acknowledged  family  member,  the  U. S.  Postal 
Service  or  other  legitimate  shipper,  or  election  officials.”  
Id., at 47.  HB 2023 is even more permissive in that it also 
authorizes ballot-handling by a voter’s household member 
and  caregiver.    See  Ariz.  Rev.  Stat.  Ann.  §16–1005(I)(2).  
Restrictions  on  ballot  collection  are  also  common  in  other 
States.  See 948 F. 3d, at 1068–1069, 1088–1143 (Bybee, J., 
dissenting) (collecting state provisions). 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  thought that  the State’s  justifica-
tions for HB 2023 were tenuous in large part because there 
was no evidence that fraud in connection with early ballots 
had occurred in Arizona.  See id., at 1045–1046.  But pre-
vention  of fraud  is  not the only  legitimate  interest served 
by  restrictions  on  ballot  collection.    As  the  Carter-Baker 
Commission  recognized,  third-party  ballot  collection  can 
lead to pressure and intimidation.  And it should go without 
saying  that  a  State  may  take  action  to  prevent  election 
fraud without waiting for it to occur and be detected within 
its own borders.  Section 2’s command that the political pro-
cesses remain equally open surely does not demand that “a 
State’s political system sustain some level of damage before 
the legislature [can] take corrective action.”  Munro v. So-
cialist Workers Party, 479 U. S. 189, 195 (1986).  Fraud is a 
real  risk  that  accompanies  mail-in  voting  even  if  Arizona 
had  the  good  fortune  to  avoid  it.    Election  fraud  has  had 
serious  consequences  in  other  States.    For  example,  the 
North  Carolina  Board of  Elections  invalidated  the results 
of a 2018 race for a seat in the House of Representatives for