Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 38

32 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

  Even  if  the  plaintiffs  had  shown  a  disparate  burden 
caused by HB 2023, the State’s justifications would suffice 
to avoid §2 liability.  “A State indisputably has a compelling 
interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.”  
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Limiting  the  classes  of 
persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to 
have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves 
voter confidence.  That was the view of the bipartisan Com-
mission on Federal Election Reform chaired by former Pres-
ident  Jimmy  Carter  and  former  Secretary of  State  James 
Baker.  The Carter-Baker Commission noted that “[a]bsen-
tee balloting is vulnerable to abuse in several ways: . . . Cit-
izens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, 
or  in  church  are  more  susceptible  to  pressure,  overt  and 
subtle, or to intimidation.”  Report of the Comm’n on Fed. 
Election Reform, Building Confidence in U. S. Elections 46 
(Sept. 2005). 
  The Commission warned that “[v]ote buying schemes are 

—————— 
reader will search in vain to discover where the District Court “found” to 
what extent HB 2023 would make it “ ‘significantly more difficult’ ” for 
Native Americans to vote.  Post, at 39, n. 15 (citing 329 F. Supp. 3d, at 
868, 870).  Rather, “[b]ased on” the very same evidence the dissent cites, 
the District Court could find only that minorities were “generically” more 
likely  than  non-minorities  to  make  use  of  third-party  ballot-collection.  
Id., at 870.  The District Court’s explanation as to why speaks for itself: 
  “Although there are significant socioeconomic disparities between mi-
norities and non-minorities in Arizona, these disparities are an imprecise 
proxy for disparities in ballot collection use.  Plaintiffs do not argue that 
all or even most socioeconomically disadvantaged voters use ballot col-
lection services, nor does the evidence support such a finding.  Rather, 
the anecdotal estimates from individual ballot collectors indicate that a 
relatively small number of voters have used ballot collection services in 
past elections.”  Ibid.; see also id., at 881 (“[B]allot collection was used as 
a  [get-out-the-vote]  strategy  in  mostly  low-efficacy  minority  communi-
ties, though the Court cannot say how often voters used ballot collection, 
nor can it measure the degree or significance of any disparities in its us-
age” (emphasis added)).