Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

10 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

fully disparate impact on the opportunities of minority vot-
ers to elect” representatives of their choice.  Id., at 872.  The 
percentage of ballots invalidated under this policy was very 
small (0.15% of all ballots cast in 2016) and decreasing, and 
while the percentages were slightly higher for members of 
minority  groups,  the  court found that  this disparity  “does 
not result in minorities having unequal access to the politi-
cal process.”  Ibid.  The court also found that the plaintiffs 
had not proved that the policy “causes minorities to show 
up to vote at the wrong precinct at rates higher than their 
non-minority counterparts,” id., at 873, and the court noted 
that the plaintiffs had not even challenged “the manner in 
which  Arizona  counties  allocate  and  assign  polling 
places  or  Arizona’s  requirement  that  voters  re-register 
to vote when they move,” ibid. 
  The  District  Court  similarly  found  that  the  ballot- 
collection restriction is unlikely to “cause a meaningful ine-
quality in the electoral opportunities of minorities.”  Id., at 
871.  Rather, the court noted, the restriction applies equally 
to all voters and “does not impose burdens beyond those tra-
ditionally associated with voting.”  Ibid.  The court observed 
that  the  plaintiffs  had  presented  no  records  showing  how 
many voters had previously relied on now-prohibited third-
party ballot collectors and that the plaintiffs also had “pro-
vided no quantitative or statistical evidence” of the percent-
age of minority and non-minority voters in this group.  Id., 
at  866.    “[T]he  vast  majority”  of  early  voters,  the  court 
found, “do not return their ballots with the assistance of a 
[now-prohibited] third-party collector,” id., at 845, and the 
evidence largely showed that those who had used such col-
lectors in the past “ha[d] done so out of convenience or per-
sonal preference, or because of circumstances that Arizona 
law adequately accommodates in other ways,” id., at 847.7  

—————— 

7 An ill or disabled voter may have a ballot delivered by a special elec-
tion  board,  and  curbside  voting  at  polling  places  is  also  allowed.    329