Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 24

18 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

(B.  Griffith  ed.  2008);  see  also  J.  Sargent  et al.,  Congres-
sional Research Service, The Growth of Early and Nonpre-
cinct Place Balloting, in Election Laws of the Fifty States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia  (rev.  1976).    We  doubt  that 
Congress  intended  to  uproot  facially  neutral  time,  place, 
and manner regulations that have a long pedigree or are in 
widespread use in the United States.  We have no need to 
decide whether adherence to, or a return to, a 1982 frame-
work is necessarily lawful under §2, but the degree to which 
a  challenged  rule  has  a  long  pedigree  or  is  in  widespread 
use  in  the  United  States  is  a  circumstance  that  must  be 
taken into account. 
  3. The size of any disparities in a rule’s impact on mem-
bers of different racial or ethnic groups is also an important 
factor  to  consider.    Small  disparities  are  less  likely  than 
large ones to indicate that a system is not equally open.  To 
the  extent  that  minority  and  non-minority  groups  differ 
with  respect  to  employment,  wealth,  and  education,  even 
neutral regulations, no matter how crafted, may well result 
in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-
compliance  with  voting  rules.    But  the  mere  fact  there  is 
some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a 
system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone 
an equal opportunity to vote.  The size of any disparity mat-
ters.  And in assessing the size of any disparity, a meaning-
ful comparison is essential.  What are at bottom very small 
differences should not be artificially magnified.  E.g., Frank 
v. Walker, 768 F. 3d 744, 752, n. 3 (CA7 2014). 
  4. Next, courts must consider the opportunities provided 
by a State’s entire system of voting when assessing the bur-
den imposed by a challenged provision.  This follows from 
§2(b)’s reference to the collective concept of a State’s “polit-
ical processes” and its “political process” as a whole.  Thus, 
where a State provides multiple ways to vote, any burden 
imposed on voters who choose one of the available options 
cannot  be  evaluated  without  also  taking  into  account  the