Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

other available means. 
  5. Finally, the strength of the state interests served by a 
challenged voting rule is also an important factor that must 
be taken into account.  As noted, every voting rule imposes 
a burden of some sort, and therefore, in determining “based 
on the totality of circumstances” whether a rule goes too far, 
it  is  important  to  consider  the  reason  for  the  rule.    Rules 
that are supported by strong state interests are less likely 
to violate §2. 
  One  strong  and  entirely  legitimate  state  interest  is  the 
prevention of fraud.  Fraud can affect the outcome of a close 
election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to 
cast ballots that carry appropriate weight.  Fraud can also 
undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and 
the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome. 
  Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimida-
tion or undue influence, is also a valid and important state 
interest.  This interest helped to spur the adoption of what 
soon became standard practice in this country and in other 
democratic nations the world round: the use of private vot-
ing booths.  See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, 202–205 
(1992) (plurality opinion). 

2 
  While the factors set out above are important, others con-
sidered by some lower courts are less helpful in a case like 
the ones at hand.  First, it is important to keep in mind that 
the  Gingles  or  “Senate”  factors  grew  out  of  and  were  de-
signed for use in vote-dilution cases.  Some of those factors 
are plainly inapplicable in a case involving a challenge to a 
facially neutral time, place, or manner voting rule.  Factors 
three and four concern districting and election procedures