Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

• Justices
  • 
    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
  • ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
    • SAMUEL ALITO
    • AMY CONEY BARRETT
    • NEIL GORSUCH
    • KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    • ELENA KAGAN
    • BRETT KAVANAUGH
    • SONIA SOTOMAYOR
    • CLARENCE THOMAS
• CASES BY TERM
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
  • All earlier cases
• HISTORY OF THE COURT
  • Cases by chief justice
  • Cases by decade
• Recent vacancies
  • 2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
  • 2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
  • 2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
  • 2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argued: March 2, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Elena Kagan • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. It was consolidated with Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 did not violate §2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: In 2016, several arms of the Democratic Party (ongoing referred to as the DNC) sued Arizona, claiming its out-of-precinct policy and its ballot-collection law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. District Court denied the DNC's petition, which a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed. In an 'en banc' rehearing, the 9th Circuit granted a preliminary injunction, which the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the next day.

In October 2017, the district court held a trial on the merits, ultimately ruling in favor of the state of Arizona. On appeal, a divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling. In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit reversed the panel's decision. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), in his official capacity, and the Arizona Republican Party, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issues: The case concerned voting policies in Arizona and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The questions presented:

"1. Does Arizona's out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
"2. Does Arizona's ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?"

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The cases came on writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court opinion in the consolidated cases, click here.

Table of contents

• Timeline: The timeline details key events in the cases.
• Background: This section details how the case originated, the questions of law at issue, and legal proceedings prior to the U.S. Supreme Court granting review in the cases.
• Questions presented: This section includes the questions presented to the Supreme Court for appellate review.
• Oral argument: This section provides information on oral argument in the cases.
• Outcome: This section provides details on the outcome of the cases once SCOTUS issues an opinion.
• Reactions to ruling: This section provides commentary related to the ruling in this case.
• Lower court rulings: This section provides a summary of previous rulings on this case.
• October term 2020-2021: This section provides information on the SCOTUS term when the cases were argued and decided.

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in the cases:

• July 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• March 2, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
• October 2, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases and consolidated them for briefing and oral argument.
• April 27, 2020:
  • Mark Brnovich (R), in his official capacity as Arizona attorney general, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.
  • The Arizona Republican Party appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
• January 27, 2020: In an en banc rehearing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona's ruling.
• September 12, 2018: A divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed the District of Arizona's ruling.

Background

In 2016, several arms of the Democratic Party (ongoing referred to as the DNC) sued Arizona for its out-of-precinct policy and its ballot-collection law. The DNC claimed the Arizona policy and law violated the First, 14th, and 15th Amendments as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "by adversely and disparately impacting the electoral opportunities of Hispanic, African American, and Native American Arizonans."

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the DNC's petition for preliminary injunctions. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit granted a preliminary injunction, which the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the next day.

In October 2017, the district court held a trial on the merits, ultimately ruling in favor of the state of Arizona. The district court held that the DNC failed to meet its burden for proving a Section 2 claim. On appeal, a divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling. In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit reversed the panel's decision. A 7-4 majority held the out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 and a 6-5 majority held the ballot-collection law violated Section 2 and the 15th Amendment. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), in his official capacity, and the Arizona Republican Party, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Voting policies in Arizona

See also: Voting in Arizona

Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy

According to the petition filed in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Arizona's out-of-precinct policy "does not count ballots cast in person on Election Day outside voters' assigned precincts." The policy is based on Arizona statutes:

• A.R.S. §§ 16-122,
• 16-135,
• 16-584, and
• the Arizona Election Procedures Manual, which has the force of law.

Arizona’s ballot-collection law

See also: Ballot collection laws by state

Arizona’s ballot-collection law, passed in 2016, prohibits a person other than the voter, a family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or election officials, from handling absentee or mail-in ballots. Click here to read the law.

As of August 2020:

• 24 states and D.C. permitted someone chosen by the voter to return mail ballots on their behalf in most cases
• 12 states specified who may return ballots (i.e., household members, caregivers, and/or family members) in most cases
• 1 state explicitly allowed only the voter to return their ballot
• 13 states did not specify whether someone may return another's ballot

The following map provides a summary of who was permitted to collect and return mail ballots by state as of August 2020. Click here for additional details.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

See also: Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The act was passed in 1965 with the intent of enforcing the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The act contains provisions that prohibit state and local governments from passing voting laws that result in discrimination against a racial group.

Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. It also prohibits jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial minorities.

It reads:

“	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 manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act, Section 2

Questions presented

The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

Questions presented: “ 1. Does Arizona's out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 2. Does Arizona's ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment? ”

Oral argument

Audio

Audio of oral argument:

Outcome

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 did not violate §2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Opinion

In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

“	In these cases, we are called upon for the first time to apply §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to regulations that govern how ballots are collected and counted. Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. All voters may vote by mail or in person for nearly a month before election day, but Arizona imposes two restrictions that are claimed to be unlawful. First, in some counties, voters who choose to cast a ballot in person on election day must vote in their own precincts or else their ballots will not be counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter’s family member, household member, or caregiver. After a trial, a District Court upheld these rules, as did a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But an en banc court, by a divided vote, found them to be unlawful. It relied on the rules’ small disparate impacts on members of minority groups, as well as past discrimination dating back to the State’s territorial days. And it overturned the District Court’s finding that the Arizona Legislature did not adopt the ballot-collection restriction for a discriminatory purpose. We now hold that the en banc court misunderstood and misapplied §2 and that it exceeded its authority in rejecting the District Court’s factual finding on the issue of legislative intent.	”
—Justice Samuel Alito

Concurring opinion

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“	I join the Court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide. Our cases have assumed—without deciding—that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 60, and n.8 (1980) (plurality opinion). Lower courts have treated this as an open question. E.g., Washington v. Finlay, 664 F. 2d 913, 926 (CA4 1981). Because no party argues that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action here, and because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not go to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U. S. 143, 150 (2015), this Court need not and does not address that issue today.	”
—Justice Neil Gorsuch

Dissenting opinion

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In her dissent, Justice Kagan wrote:

“	If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality. And it dedicates our country to carrying them out. Section 2, the provision at issue here, guarantees that members of every racial group will have equal voting opportunities. Citizens of every race will have the same shot to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. They will all own our democracy together—no one more and no one less than any other. If a single statute reminds us of the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it was—and remains—so necessary. Because a century after the Civil War was fought, at the time of the Act’s passage, the promise of political equality remained a distant dream for African American citizens. Because States and localities continually “contriv[ed] new rules,” mostly neutral on their face but discriminatory in operation, to keep minority voters from the polls. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 335 (1966). Because “Congress had reason to suppose” that States would “try similar maneuvers in the future”—“pour[ing] old poison into new bottles” to suppress minority votes. Ibid.; Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 366 (2000) (Souter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Because Congress has been proved right. The Voting Rings Act is ambitious, in both goal and scope. When President Lyndon Johnson sent the bill to Congres, ten days after John Lewis led marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, he explained that it was “carefully drafted to meet its objective—the end of discrimination in voting in America.” H. R. Doc. No. 120, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 1–2 (1965). He was right about how the act's drafting reflected its aim. “The end of discrimination in voting” is a far-reaching goal. And the Voting Rights Act’s text is just as far-reaching. A later amendment, adding the provision at issue here, became necessary when this Court construed the statute too narrowly. And in the last decade, this Court assailed the Act again, undoing its vital Section 5. See Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529 (2013). But Section 2 of the Act remains, as written, as expansive as ever—demanding that every citizen of this country possess a right at once grand and obvious: the right to an equal opportunity to vote. Today, the Court undermines Section 2 and the right it provides. The majority fears that the statute Congress wrote is too “radical”—that it will invalidate too many state voting laws. See ante, at 21, 25. So the majority writes its own set of rules, limiting Section 2 from multiple directions. See ante, at 16–19. Wherever it can, the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language. And then it uses that reading to uphold two election laws from Arizona that discriminate against minority voters. I could say—and will in the following pages—that this is not how the Court is supposed to interpret and apply statutes. But that ordinary critique woefully undersells the problem. What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about “the end of discrimination in voting.” I respectfully dissent.	”
—Justice Elena Kagan

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinion here.

Reactions to ruling

The section below contains quotes from elected officials, scholars, legal experts, and advocacy groups related to the ruling in this case. The collapsed section at the bottom contains quotes and analysis from before the opinion was issued.

President Joe Biden (D) issued the following statement:

“

I am deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act, and upholds what Justice Kagan called “a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities.” In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure. After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this Nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them. Yet this decision comes just over a week after Senate Republicans blocked even a debate – even consideration – of the For the People Act that would have protected the right to vote from action by Republican legislators in states across the country. While this broad assault against voting rights is sadly not unprecedented, it is taking on new forms. It is no longer just about a fight over who gets to vote and making it easier for eligible voters to vote. It is about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all. Our democracy depends on an election system built on integrity and independence. The attack we are seeing today makes clearer than ever that additional laws are needed to safeguard that beating heart of our democracy. We must also shore up our election security to address the threats of election subversion from abroad and at home. Today’s decision also makes it all the more imperative to continue the fight for the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and expand voting protections. The Court’s decision, harmful as it is, does not limit Congress’ ability to repair the damage done today: it puts the burden back on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act to its intended strength. That means forging a coalition of Americans of every background and political party – from advocates, activists, and business executives – to raise the urgency of the moment and demand that our democracy truly reflects the will of the people and that it delivers for the Nation. That is what Vice President Harris and I will continue to do.

”

The United States Department of Justice issued the following statement:

“

The Attorney General has made clear, 'the Department of Justice will never stop working to protect the democracy to which all Americans are entitled.’ The department remains strongly committed to challenging discriminatory election laws and will continue to use every legal tool available to protect all qualified Americans seeking to participate in the electoral process. The department urges Congress to enact additional legislation to provide more effective protection for every American’s right to vote.

”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) issued the following statement:

“

Today is a win for election integrity safeguards in Arizona and across the country. Fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic and they start with rational laws that protect both the right to vote and the accuracy of the results.

”

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) issued the following statement:

“

For our government to work for us, it must include all of us. As our state's Chief Election Officer, I will never stop fighting against unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to voting here. While legislatures across the country—including right here in Arizona—pass partisan laws that create new barriers to the ballot box, today's decision makes on thing clear: Congress must act to protect voting rights. The Voting Rights Act was passed to protect the right to vote and to fight against racial discrimination. The Supreme Court weakened one of our country's landmark civil rights laws. It is truly a sad day for the future of our democracy. This decision upholds the criminalization of neighbors for helping one another vote, allows for entire ballots to be disregarded if the voter goes to the wrong polling place, and will make it more difficult for voters to rely on the VRA to fight discriminatory voting rules and policies. All of this underscores how urgently we need stronger voter protections at the state and federal level.

”

J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), released the following statement. PILF filed an amicus brief in the case:

“

Today’s decision is a clear victory for election integrity. The Court’s ruling that disparate impact analysis cannot be used for a Section 2 violation is significant in allowing states to run their own elections and pass election integrity reforms without interference from federal courts. This decision will ensure that there must be a causal connection between a state election practice and actual denial of a vote on account of race versus a disparate impact. In December of 2020, the Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a brief on behalf of itself and former Department of Justice Civil Rights Division officials arguing that this casual connection was necessary for the intrusion into states powers. We are extremely happy to see that the Court has adopted our framing of Section 2 The Court obliterated the idea that there must be demonstrable voter fraud to enact a law to deter and prevent it. This is a big blow to the vote fraud deniers who have turned to the courts to make our elections less secure.

”

Corey Goldstone of the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), released the following statement. CLC filed an amicus brief in the case:

“

On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld two Arizona policies that make it harder for Latino, Native American and Black voters to vote. The decision establishes strict guideposts to assess challenges to election law in the future, making it more difficult to bring challenges to discriminatory voting laws under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In a setback for voters, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let discriminatory voting policies in Arizona stand. This decision will not simply make it more difficult for people to vote in Arizona. It makes it more difficult – but not impossible – to protect voters from discrimination under the VRA nationally. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee on Jan. 20, 2021. The fact that the legal landscape for voters continues to erode reinforces how important it is for Congress to strengthen national protections against discriminatory policies. Passing the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has never been more urgent.

”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released the following statement. Judicial Watch joined with Allied Educational Foundation to file an amicus brief in the case:

“

Today’s Supreme Court decision is a home run for cleaner elections. It reaffirms that states may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within their own borders. This new decision rightly rejects the race baiting of the leftist partisans who pretend that neutral provisions to combat voter fraud (such as voter ID and bans on ballot harvesting) are presumptively racist. The decision also destroys the foundation of the Biden administration’s recent attack on Georgia’s election reform laws. States can be confident that they can go full speed ahead to strengthen elections and protect voting rights with security measures such as voter ID and other sensible measures to make it harder to steal elections.

”

Rick Hasen, the publisher of Election Law Blog, wrote:

“

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting rights Act as a tool to fight against laws that make it harder to register and vote. Rather than focus on disparate impact—whether a law leads to minority voters registering or voting in lower numbers—the court applies a much broader totality of the circumstances test with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the state and its restrictive law. If a law imposes just a “usual burden of voting,” and the burden on minorities is not too much, and the state can assert (but does not need to prove) a significant interest in preventing voter fraud or another interest, then the law can stand. When you couple this opinion with the 2008 ruling in the Crawford case, upholding Indiana’s voter ID law against a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenge, the 2013 ruling in Shelby County killing off the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act for states with a history of discrimination, and today’s reading of Section 2, the conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting law. The Court today also makes it harder to prove intentional racial discrimination in passing a voting rule, making it that much harder for DOJ to win in its suit against the new Georgia voting law.

”

Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, wrote in an opinion piece for USA Today:

“

With its decision Thursday in the voting rights case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court closed its term with a decision that will resonate not just legally but politically for years to come. The 6-3 decision upheld Arizona’s new voting rules in Arizona over claims of racial discrimination. While the court said it would be imprudent to create a sweeping rule for all future such cases, it was equally imprudent for the Biden administration to ignore the forthcoming decision in filing a new challenge to Georgia’s new voting rights. The lawsuit against Georgia’s new voting rules was clearly timed to beat the court to the punch, but Brnovich delivers a haymaker for those seeking to block such state laws. Indeed, the decision magnifies the concern that the Georgia challenge is more of a political than a legal statement from the Biden administration.

”

Ian Millhiser, chief Supreme Court correspondent for Vox, wrote:

“

And yet, the opinion that followed Alito’s name is more measured than could have reasonably been expected from a Court where Republican appointees hold a 6-3 supermajority. It’s not, by any means, a good decision for democracy. Brnovich upholds both Arizona laws — a provision that disenfranchises voters for casting a ballot in the wrong precinct, and another that prevents most third parties from delivering another voter’s absentee ballot to a polling place. But Alito’s opinion most likely preserves civil rights plaintiffs’ ability to challenge many of the most odious provisions of the voter suppression laws currently being pushed by Republican state lawmakers in other states. For starters, the opinion is limited in scope. Brnovich does not apply to all Voting Rights Act cases, or even to all cases involving the law’s “results test” — the specific provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case. Rather, the opinion limits its analysis to “cases involving neutral time, place, and manner rules” governing elections. Thus, while Brnovich does shrink the Voting Rights Act considerably, it primarily does so in this limited context. Second, while Republican litigants proposed various interpretations of the Act that would have read a key prong of the Voting Rights Act so narrowly as to render it meaningless, Alito’s opinion explicitly refuses to embrace those interpretations. “We decline in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots,” Alito writes. Instead, Alito lays out five factors that govern future “time, place and manner” lawsuits (more on this five-factor test below). One of the practical upshots of these five new factors is that states will largely be free to enact voting rules that were common in 1982, when a key amendment to the Voting Rights Act became law. But novel restrictions on the right to vote are less likely to survive judicial scrutiny.

”

• Pre-ruling analysis (click to expand)
  On February 22, 2021, election law professor Richard Hasen wrote:

  “

  That the first Section 2 vote denial case comes to the Supreme Court as a partisan battle is exceptionally unfortunate, because it will focus the justices’ attention less on the cost of restrictive voting laws on minority voters and more on how the parties fight over voting rights rules for partisan gain. Section 2 has done important work to rein in some of the worst forms of vote denial in recent years, and it would be a tremendous shame if this overreach of a case ends up serving as the vehicle to eviscerate what remains of the crown jewel of the civil rights movement.

  ”

  
  On February 19, 2021, Ilya Shapiro and Stacy Hanson of the Cato Institute wrote:

  “

  After the contentious election we just had, this case presents an opportunity to make future elections cleaner and less litigious, with results that inspire greater public confidence. Those salutary outcomes turn not on whether the court upholds the two specific electoral regulations at issue, in Arizona or elsewhere, but on whether it provides a clear framework by which lower courts are to evaluate VRA Section 2 claims.

  ”

  
  The Brennan Center for Justice published an article about the case on January 19, 2021. The group filed a brief in support of the respondents in this case. The group said:

  “

  Section 2 has taken on new significance since a 5-4 majority of the Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 in a case called Shelby County v. Holder. That decision mothballed the requirement that jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination get certification in advance, or “pre-clearance,” that any election change they wanted to make would not be discriminatory. Now, voting rights advocates must rely more heavily on affirmative litigation under Section 2 to stop a new wave of restrictive and discriminatory voting measures that followed the Shelby County decision. So, it is more important than ever that the Court reaffirm the principle that there must be equal access to the ballot box, free from discrimination, as well as the role that Section 2 plays in ensuring that principle is fulfilled.

  ”

  
  Attorney Christopher Kieser of the Pacific Legal Foundation wrote the following on February 17, 2021. The group filed a brief in support of the petitioners in this case. Kieser wrote:

  “

  In the aftermath of the chaos that was the 2020 election-related litigation, it is easy to forget that the Supreme Court is now set to decide the most consequential election law dispute in nearly a decade. At issue in Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC is nothing less than the future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the nationwide prohibition of any election regulation that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The court will likely resolve a significant circuit split over whether a disparate racial effect alone renders unlawful an otherwise legitimate state election regulation. In doing so, the court will set the boundaries for future state election laws, and it may even comment on the continuing vitality of disparate-impact liability.

  ”

Lower court rulings

Three lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court hearing this case. Those rulings were:

• May 8, 2018: Judge Douglas Rayes of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that neither the out-of-precinct policy nor the ballot collection law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.
• September 12, 2018: A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision by a 2-1 ruling.
• January 27, 2020: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc ruling that reversed the district court's ruling. The Ninth Circuit ruled that both the out-of-precinct policy and the ballot collection law violated Section 2 of the 15th Amendment.

District of Arizona ruling (May 2018)

On May 8, 2018, Judge Douglas Rayes of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued a ruling in The Democratic National Committee v. Reagan. Rayes, an appointee of President Barack Obama (D), ruled in favor of the defendants on all claims. To read the full ruling, click here. In the conclusion to his ruling, Rayes wrote:

“

Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show that the challenged election practices severely and unjustifiably burden voting and associational rights, disparately impact minority voters such that they have less opportunity than their non-minority counterparts to meaningfully participate in the political process, or that Arizona was motivated by a desire to suppress minority turnout when it placed limits on who may collect early mail ballots. Plaintiffs have raised fair concerns about the wisdom of H.B. 2023 and Arizona's treatment of OOP ballots as matters of public policy. The Court, however, is not charged with second-guessing the prudence of Arizona's laws. The Court's authority extends only to determining whether, in exercising its constitutional authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of elections, Arizona has acted within permissible constitutional and statutory bounds. In exercising this duty, the Court also is constrained by decisions of the Supreme Court, including those standing for the proposition that legislatures may act prophylactically rather than upon specific evidence of a documented problem, and those finding that prevention of voter fraud and preservation of public confidence in election integrity are important state interests. Based on a careful review of the evidence and governing case law, the Court concludes that the challenged provisions contravene neither the Constitution nor the VRA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED as follows: Defendants' oral motion for judgment on partial findings is DENIED as moot. The Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all claims. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.

”

The Democratic National Committee appealed Judge Reyes' ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit panel ruling (September 2018)

On September 12, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling by a 2-1 decision. The table below lists the judges who heard the case, their ruling, and the president that appointed the judge. Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote the majority opinion, while Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote the dissent.

Democratic National Committee v. Reagan panel ruling
Judge	Ruling	Appointed by
Sidney Thomas	Dissent	Bill Clinton
Sandra Ikuta	Majority	George W. Bush
Carlos Bea	Majority	George W. Bush

The summary below of the ruling in this case was published by Justia. To read the full ruling, click here.

“

The DNC and others filed suit against the state of Arizona, challenging two state election practices: (1) Arizona's longstanding requirement that in-person voters cast their ballots in their assigned precinct, which Arizona enforces by not counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct (OOP policy), and (2) H.B. 2023, a recent legislative enactment which precludes most third parties from collecting early ballots from voters. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 and the OOP policy did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they imposed only a minimal burden on voters and were adequately designed to serve Arizona's important regulatory interests; the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 and the OOP policy did not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; DNC failed to show that minority voters were deprived of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice; and the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of showing that H.B. 2023 was enacted with discriminatory intent.

”

On September 12, 2018, the Democratic National Committee petitioned for a rehearing en banc. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) took office in January 2019. On February 4, 2019, Hobbs was substituted as defendant in the case for the former secretary of state Michele Reagan (R), so the case was renamed Democratic National Committee v. Hobbs.

Ninth Circuit en banc ruling (January 2020)

On January 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case. A 7-4 majority held the out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 and a 6-5 majority held the ballot-collection law violated Section 2 and the 15th Amendment. The table below lists the judges who heard the case, their ruling, and the president that appointed the judge. Judge William Fletcher wrote the majority opinion, Judge Paul Watford wrote a concurring opinion, and Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Jay Bybee each wrote dissents.

Democratic National Committee v. Hobbs en banc ruling
Judge	Ruling	Appointed by
Sidney Thomas	Majority	Bill Clinton
Diarmuid O'Scannlain	Dissent	Ronald Reagan
William Fletcher	Majority	Bill Clinton
Marsha Berzon	Majority	Bill Clinton
Johnnie Rawlinson	Majority	Bill Clinton
Richard Clifton	Dissent	George W. Bush
Jay Bybee	Dissent	George W. Bush
Consuelo Maria Callahan	Dissent	George W. Bush
Mary Murguia	Majority	Barack Obama
Paul Watford	Concur/Dissent	Barack Obama
John B. Owens	Majority	Barack Obama

The summary below of the ruling in this case was published by Justia. To read the full ruling, click here.

“

The en banc court reversed the district court's judgment for defendants in an action brought by the DNC and others. The DNC challenged Arizona's policy of wholly discarding, rather than counting or partially counting, ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The DNC also challenged House Bill 2023, a 2016 statute criminalizing the collection and delivery of another person’s ballot. The en banc court held that Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding, rather than counting or partially counting, out-of-precinct ballots, and H.B. 2023's criminalization of the collection of another person's ballot, have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters in Arizona, in violation of the “results test” of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The en banc court further held that H.B. 2023's criminalization of the collection of another person's ballot was enacted with discriminatory intent, in violation of the "intent test" of Section 2 of the VRA and of the Fifteenth Amendment. The en banc court did not reach the DNC's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

”

On April 27, 2020, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), in his official capacity, and the Arizona Republican Party, filed separate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The two appeals were consolidated as Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.

October term 2020-2021

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.

The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.

See also

• 

  Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States

• 

  History of the Supreme Court

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox