Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

In addition, the court noted, none of the individual voters 
called  by the  plaintiffs  had  even claimed that  the  ballot-
collection restriction “would make it significantly more dif-
ficult to vote.”  Id., at 871. 
  Finally, the court found that the ballot-collection law had 
not been enacted with discriminatory intent.  “[T]he major-
ity of H.B. 2023’s proponents,” the court found, “were sin-
cere in their belief that ballot collection increased the risk 
of early voting fraud, and that H.B. 2023 was a necessary 
prophylactic measure to bring early mail ballot security in 
line with  in-person  voting.”   Id.,  at  879.   The court  added 
that “some individual legislators and proponents were mo-
tivated in part by partisan interests.”  Id., at 882.  But it 
distinguished  between  partisan  and  racial  motives,  while 
recognizing  that  “racially  polarized  voting  can  sometimes 
blur the lines.”  Ibid. 
  A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but an en 
banc court reversed.  The en banc court first concluded that 
both the out-of-precinct policy and the ballot-collection re-
striction imposed disparate burdens on minority voters be-
cause such voters were more likely to be adversely affected 
by those rules.  948 F. 3d, at 1014–1016, 1032–1033.  Then, 
based on an assessment of the vote-dilution factors used in 
Gingles,  the  en  banc  majority  found  that  these  disparate 
burdens were “in part caused by or linked to ‘social and his-
torical conditions’ ” that produce inequality.  948 F. 3d, at 
1032  (quoting Gingles, 478  U. S.,  at  47); see  948  F. 3d,  at 
1037.    Among  other  things,  the  court  relied  on  racial  dis-
crimination  dating  back  to  Arizona’s  territorial  days,  cur-
rent  socioeconomic  disparities,  racially  polarized  voting, 
and racial campaign appeals.  See id., at 1016–1032, 1033–
1037. 
  The  en  banc  majority  also  held  that  the  District  Court 
had committed clear error in finding that the ballot-collection 

—————— 
F. Supp. 3d, at 848.