Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 41

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

was  not,  329  F. Supp.  3d,  at  882,  and  appellate  review  of 
that  conclusion  is  for  clear  error,  Pullman-Standard  v. 
Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 287–288 (1982).  If the district court’s 
view of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, 
an  appellate  court  may  not reverse  even  if  it  is  convinced 
that it would have weighed the evidence differently in the 
first  instance.    Anderson  v.  Bessemer  City,  470  U. S.  564, 
573–574 (1985).  “Where there are two permissible views of 
the  evidence,  the factfinder’s  choice  between  them  cannot 
be clearly erroneous.”  Id., at 574. 
  The District Court’s finding on the question of discrimi-
natory  intent  had  ample  support  in  the  record.    Applying 
the familiar approach outlined in Arlington Heights v. Met-
ropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266–
268  (1977),  the  District  Court  considered  the  historical 
background  and  the  sequence  of  events  leading  to  HB 
2023’s enactment; it looked for any departures from the nor-
mal  legislative  process;  it  considered  relevant  legislative 
history; and it weighed the law’s impact on different racial 
groups.  See 329 F. Supp. 3d, at 879. 
  The court noted, among other things, that HB 2023’s en-
actment  followed  increased  use  of  ballot  collection  as  a 
Democratic  get-out-the-vote  strategy  and  came  “on  the 
heels  of  several  prior  efforts  to  restrict  ballot  collection, 
some of which were spearheaded by former Arizona State 
Senator Don Shooter.”  Id., at 879.  Shooter’s own election 
in  2010  had  been  close  and  racially  polarized.    Aiming  in 
part  to  frustrate  the  Democratic  Party’s  get-out-the-vote 
strategy, Shooter made what the court termed “unfounded 
and often far-fetched allegations of ballot collection fraud.”  
Id.,  at  880.    But  what  came  after  the  airing  of  Shooter’s 
claims  and  a  “racially-tinged”  video  created  by  a  private 
party  was  a  serious  legislative  debate  on  the  wisdom  of