Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, 
ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–1257.  Argued March 2, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* 

Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote.  Voters may cast their 
ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting 
center”  in  their  county  of  residence.    Ariz.  Rev.  Stat.  §16–411(B)(4).  
Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before 
an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at 
an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E).  These cases 
involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to 
aspects  of  the  State’s  regulations  governing  precinct-based  election-
day voting and early mail-in voting.  First, Arizonans who vote in per-
son on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote 
in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address.  See 
§16–122; see also §16–135.  If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the 
vote is not counted.  Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Ar-
izona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) 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). 
  The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, 
alleging that both the State’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong 
precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and dispar-
ate effect on the State’s American Indian, Hispanic, and African-Amer-
ican citizens in violation of §2 of the VRA.  Additionally, they alleged 
that the ballot-collection restriction was “enacted with discriminatory 

—————— 

* Together with No. 19–1258, Arizona Republican Party et al. v. Dem-

ocratic National Committee et al., also on certiorari to the same court.