Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting bal-
lots.  Each of the parties advocated a different test, as did 
many amici and the courts below.  In a brief filed in Decem-
ber in support of petitioners, the Department of Justice pro-
posed one such test but later disavowed the analysis in that 
brief.8  The Department informed us, however, that it did 
not  disagree  with  its  prior  conclusion  that  the  two  provi-
sions of Arizona law at issue in these cases do not violate §2 
of the Voting Rights Act.9  All told, no fewer than 10 tests 
have been proposed.  But as this is our first foray into the 
area, we think it sufficient for present purposes to identify 
certain  guideposts  that  lead  us  to  our  decision  in  these 
cases. 

III 
A 

  We start with the text of VRA §2.  It now provides: 

  “(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting 
or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or 
applied by any State or political subdivision in a man-
ner  which  results  in  a  denial  or  abridgement  of  the 
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on ac-
count of race or color, or in contravention of the guar-
antees  set  forth  in  section  10303(f )(2)  of  this  title,  as 
provided in subsection (b). 
  “(b)  A  violation  of  subsection  (a)  is  established  if, 
based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that 
the political processes leading to nomination or election 
in  the  State  or  political  subdivision  are  not  equally 
open to participation by members of a class of citizens 
protected  by  subsection  (a)  in  that  its  members  have 
less opportunity than other members of the electorate 

—————— 

8 Letter from E. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, to S. Harris, Clerk 

of Court (Feb. 16, 2021). 

9 Ibid.