Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

compliance  with  the  requirement  that  Arizonans  who 
choose to  vote  in-person  on  election  day  do so  at  their  as-
signed polling places.  And as the District Court recognized, 
precinct-based voting furthers important state interests.  It 
helps to distribute voters more evenly among polling places 
and thus reduces wait times.  It can put polling places closer 
to  voter  residences  than would  a more centralized  voting-
center  model.    In  addition,  precinct-based  voting  helps  to 
ensure that each voter receives a ballot that lists only the 
candidates  and  public  questions  on  which  he  or  she  can 
vote,  and  this  orderly  administration  tends  to  decrease 
voter confusion and increase voter confidence in elections.  
See  329  F. Supp.  3d,  at  878.    It  is  also  significant  that 
precinct-based  voting  has  a  long  pedigree  in  the  United 
States.  See 948 F. 3d, at 1062–1063 (Bybee, J., dissenting) 
(citing  J.  Harris,  Election  Administration  in  the  United 
States  206–207  (1934)).    And  the  policy  of  not  counting 
out-of-precinct  ballots  is  widespread.    See  948  F. 3d,  at 
1072–1088 (collecting and categorizing state laws). 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  discounted  the  State’s  interests 
because, in its view, there was no evidence that a less re-
strictive alternative would threaten the integrity of precinct-
based voting.  The court thought the State had no good rea-
son for not counting an out-of-precinct voter’s choices with 
respect to the candidates and issues also on the ballot in the 
voter’s proper precinct.  See id., at 1030–1031.  We disagree 
with this reasoning. 
  Section 2 does not require a State to show that its chosen 
policy  is  absolutely  necessary  or  that  a  less  restrictive 
means  would  not  adequately  serve  the  State’s  objectives.  
And the Court of Appeals’ preferred alternative would have 
obvious  disadvantages.    Partially  counting  out-of-precinct 
ballots would complicate the process of tabulation and could 
lead  to  disputes  and  delay.    In  addition,  as  one  of  the  en 
banc  dissenters  noted,  it  would  tend  to  encourage  voters 
who are primarily interested in only national or state-wide