Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1257
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
- Pro
19-1257 BRNOVICH V. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE DECISION BELOW: 948 F.3d 989 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-1258 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At issue here are two such provisions: an "out-of- precinct policy," which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter's designated precinct, and a "ballot-collection law," known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person's completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and about twenty States limit ballot collection. After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed-against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous dissents joined by four judges. The questions presented are: 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? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-15845
The U.S. Supreme Court case Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2020 centered around two Arizona voting policies: one that discards provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, and another that restricts who can return a voter's absentee ballot to only certain individuals like family or household members. The Democratic National Committee challenged these laws, arguing they disproportionately affected minority voters and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in language minority groups. However, the Supreme Court upheld both policies with a 6-3 decision led by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., ruling they did not violate VRA as there was no substantial evidence showing racial discrimination resulting from these laws.
The dissenting opinion in the BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE case, penned by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, argued that the majority's decision undermined Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). They contended that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 disproportionately affected minority voters, thus violating VRA. The dissent criticized the majority for using a test not found in VRA's text to uphold these policies instead of focusing on whether they resulted in unequal access to voting opportunities. They believed this approach weakened protections against discriminatory laws. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'usual burdens of voting', arguing it was too broad and could potentially justify any discriminatory law as long as it imposed only typical burdens on voters.
