Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Syllabus 

and traveling to one’s assigned precinct are also modest when consid-
ering Arizona’s “political processes” as a whole.  The State offers other 
easy ways to vote, which likely explains why out-of-precinct votes on 
election day make up such a small and apparently diminishing portion 
of overall ballots cast. 
  Next, the racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-
precinct policy is small in absolute terms.  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 voters who voted on election day cast an out-of-pre-
cinct  ballot.    For  non-minority  voters,  the  rate  was  around  0.5%.    A 
procedure that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it 
applies—minority and non-minority alike—is unlikely to render a sys-
tem unequally open. 
  Appropriate weight must be given to the important state interests 
furthered by precinct-based voting.  It helps to distribute voters more 
evenly among polling places; it can put polling places closer to voter 
residences; and it helps to ensure that each voter receives a ballot that 
lists only the candidates and public questions on which he or she can 
vote.  Precinct-based voting has a long pedigree in the United States, 
and the policy of not counting out-of-precinct ballots is widespread. 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  discounted  the  State’s  interests  because  it 
found no evidence that a less restrictive alternative would threaten the 
integrity of precinct-based voting.  But §2 does not require a State to 
show that its chosen policy is absolutely necessary or that a less re-
strictive  means  would  not  adequately  serve  the  State’s  objectives.  
Considering the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-
of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s 
justifications, the rule does not violate §2.  Pp. 25–30. 

(2) Arizona’s  HB  2023  also  passes  muster  under  §2.    Arizonans 
can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early 
ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office.  These options 
entail the “usual burdens of voting,” and assistance from a statutorily 
authorized proxy is also available.  The State also makes special pro-
vision for certain groups of voters who are unable to use the early vot-
ing system.  See §16–549(C).  And here, the plaintiffs were unable to 
show the extent to which HB 2023 disproportionately burdens minor-
ity voters. 
  Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden 
caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the 
integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability.  
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4.  The Court of Appeals viewed the 
State’s justifications for HB 2023 as tenuous largely because there was 
no evidence of early ballot fraud in Arizona.  But prevention of fraud