Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

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

29 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

even  sees  that  transfer  as  “[un]democratic.”    Ibid.    But 
maybe the majority should pay more attention to the “his-
torical background” that it insists “does not tell us how to 
decide this case.”  Ante, at 21.  That history makes clear the 
incongruity,  in  interpreting  this  statute,  of  the  majority’s 
paean to state authority—and conversely, its denigration of 
federal responsibility for ensuring non-discriminatory vot-
ing rules. The Voting Rights Act was meant to replace state 
and local election rules that needlessly make voting harder 
for members of one race than for others.  The text of the Act 
perfectly reflects that objective.  The “democratic” principle 
it  upholds  is  not  one  of  States’  rights  as  against  federal 
courts.  The democratic principle it upholds is the right of 
every American, of every race, to have equal access to the 
ballot box.  The majority today undermines that principle 
as it refuses to apply the terms of the statute.  By declaring 
some racially discriminatory burdens inconsequential, and 
by  refusing  to  subject  asserted  state  interests  to  serious 
means-end scrutiny, the majority enables voting discrimi-
nation. 

III 
  Just look at Arizona.  Two of that State’s policies dispro-
portionately  affect  minority  citizens’  opportunity  to  vote.  
The  first—the  out-of-precinct  policy—results  in  Hispanic 
and African American voters’ ballots being thrown out at a 
statistically  higher  rate  than  those  of  whites.    And  what-
ever the majority might say about the ordinariness of such 
a rule, Arizona applies it in extra-ordinary fashion: Arizona 
is the national outlier in dealing with out-of-precinct votes, 
with the next-worst offender nowhere in sight.  The second 
rule—the  ballot-collection  ban—makes  voting  meaning-
fully  more  difficult  for  Native  American  citizens  than  for 
others.    And  nothing  about  how  that  ban  is  applied  is 
“usual”  either—this  time  because  of  how  many  of  the