Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 40

34 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

evidence of fraudulent mail-in ballots.20  The Arizona Leg-
islature was not obligated to wait for something similar to 
happen closer to home.21 
  As with the out-of-precinct policy, the modest evidence of 
racially disparate  burdens caused  by HB  2023,  in  light of 
the State’s justifications, leads us to the conclusion that the 
law does not violate §2 of the VRA. 

V 
  We also granted certiorari to review whether the Court of 
Appeals erred in concluding that HB 2023 was enacted with 
a discriminatory purpose.  The District Court found that it 

—————— 

20 See Blinder, Election Fraud in North Carolina Leads to New Charges 
for  Republican  Operative,  N. Y.  Times,  July  30,  2019,  https://www.ny-
times.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html; 
Graham, 
North  Carolina  Had  No  Choice,  The  Atlantic,  Feb.  22,  2019, 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/north-carolina-9th- 
fraud-board-orders-new-election/583369/. 

21 The dissent’s primary argument regarding HB 2023 concerns its ef-
fect on Native Americans who live on remote reservations.  The dissent 
notes that many of these voters do not receive mail delivery at home, that 
the nearest post office may be some distance from their homes, and that 
they may not have automobiles.  Post, at 36.  We do not dismiss these 
problems, but for a number of reasons, they do not provide a basis for 
invalidating HB 2023.  The burdens that fall on remote communities are 
mitigated by the long period of time prior to an election during which a 
vote may be cast either in person or by mail and by the legality of having 
a ballot picked up and mailed by family or household members.  And in 
this suit, no individual voter testified that HB 2023 would make it sig-
nificantly more difficult for him or her to vote.  329 F. Supp. 3d, at 871.  
Moreover, the Postal Service is required by law to “provide a maximum 
degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communi-
ties,  and  small  towns  where  post  offices  are  not  self-sustaining.”    39 
U. S. C. §101(b); see also §403(b)(3).  Small post offices may not be closed 
“solely  for  operating  at  a  deficit,”  §101(b), and  any  decision  to  close  or 
consolidate a post office may be appealed to the Postal Regulatory Com-
mission, see §404(d)(5).  An alleged failure by the Postal Service to com-
ply with its statutory obligations in a particular location does not in itself 
provide a ground for overturning a voting rule that applies throughout 
an entire State.