Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 2 Oct 2020

1. □ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that "result[] in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color." 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Such a discriminatory "result" occurs if an election is not "equally open to participation" by racial minorities, giving them "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Id. § 10301(b). Arizona gives all citizens an equal opportunity to vote in person or by mail, and authorizes ballots to be turned in by a family member, household member, or caregiver. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona violated§ 2 by (1) requiring in-person voters to cast ballots in their assigned precincts; and (2) prohibiting "ballot-harvesting," i.e., third-party collection and return of ballots. The court held that because racial minorities disproportionately vote out-of-precinct and use ballot- harvesting, the Act compels the State to allow those practices. The questions presented are:
2. Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Arizona's ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly "unfounded" concerns about voter fraud.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case centered on two Arizona voting policies: the out-of-precinct policy, which discards ballots cast in the wrong precinct, and a law restricting ballot collection by third parties. The Democratic National Committee argued these laws disproportionately affected minority voters and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court ruled that neither policy was enacted with discriminatory intent nor had a disparate impact sufficient to violate federal law. It emphasized that mere inconvenience does not equate to denial of equal access to voting opportunities under Section 2. The decision underscored states' rights to implement reasonable election regulations without automatically being deemed discriminatory.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan's dissent argued that both Arizona policies imposed unjustified burdens on minority voters, violating their right to vote as protected by the Voting Rights Act. She contended that historical discrimination in Arizona necessitated careful scrutiny of any electoral regulation impacting minorities disproportionately. Kagan criticized the majority for undermining protections against racial discrimination in voting, asserting it set an overly lenient standard for evaluating such claims under Section 2. Her opinion highlighted concerns about diminishing voter protection at a time when safeguarding democratic participation is crucial.