Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

provide online polling place locators with information avail-
able in English and Spanish.  Ibid.  Other groups offer sim-
ilar online  tools.    Ibid.   Voters may  also  identify  their  as-
signed polling place by calling the office of their respective 
county recorder.  Ibid.  And on election day, poll workers in 
at least some counties are trained to redirect voters who ar-
rive at the wrong precinct.  Ibid; see Tr. 1559, 1586; Tr. Exh. 
370 (Pima County Elections Inspectors Handbook). 
  The burdens of identifying and traveling to one’s assigned 
precinct are also modest when considering Arizona’s “polit-
ical processes” as a whole.  The Court of Appeals noted that 
Arizona leads other States in the rate of votes rejected on 
the ground that they were cast in the wrong precinct, and 
the court attributed this to frequent changes in polling lo-
cations, confusing placement of polling places, and high lev-
els  of  residential  mobility.    948  F. 3d, at  1000–1004.    But 
even  if  it  is  marginally  harder  for  Arizona  voters  to  find 
their  assigned  polling  places,  the  State  offers  other  easy 
ways to vote.  Any voter can request an early ballot without 
excuse.  Any voter can ask to be placed on the permanent 
early voter list so that an early ballot will be mailed auto-
matically.    Voters  may  drop  off  their  early  ballots  at  any 
polling place, even one to which they are not assigned.  And 
for nearly a month before election day, any voter can vote 
in person at an early voting location in his or her county.  
The availability of those options likely explains why out-of-
precinct  votes  on  election  day  make  up  such  a  small  and 
apparently  diminishing  portion  of  overall  ballots  cast—
0.47%  of  all  ballots  in  the  2012  general  election  and  just 
0.15% in 2016.  329 F. Supp. 3d, at 872. 
  Next, the racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by 
the  out-of-precinct  policy  is  small  in  absolute  terms.    The 
District Court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence that, of the 
Arizona counties that reported out-of-precinct ballots in the 
2016  general  election,  a  little  over  1%  of  Hispanic  voters, 
1% of African-American voters, and 1% of Native American