# Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (July 1, 2021) On **July 1, 2021**, the Supreme Court ruled **6–3** that two Arizona voting rules did not violate **Section 2** of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. One rule threw out ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day. The other, a 2016 law known as **H.B. 2023**, made it a felony for anyone other than an election official, a postal worker, or a voter's family member, household member or caregiver to collect a voter's completed early ballot. Justice [[Samuel Alito]] wrote for the majority; Justice [[Elena Kagan]] wrote the dissent. **Why it matters:** eight years after [[Shelby County v. Holder]] disabled federal [[Preclearance]], Section 2 lawsuits were the main federal tool left for challenging voting rules. *Brnovich* made those lawsuits much harder to win. ## The case The Democratic National Committee challenged both rules. Arizona's attorney general, [[Mark Brnovich]], and the Arizona Republican Party defended them. The full Ninth Circuit had ruled for the DNC, finding that both rules violated Section 2 and that H.B. 2023 was passed with a discriminatory purpose. The Supreme Court heard argument on **March 2, 2021** and reversed. ## What the Court held The majority — Alito, joined by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justices [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]] and [[Amy Coney Barrett]] — declined to set one test for challenges to the "time, place, or manner" of voting. Instead it listed guideposts that weigh against most challenges: - **The size of the burden.** Voting takes some effort, so the "usual burdens of voting" must be tolerated: "Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of §2." - **How far the rule departs from 1982 practice**, when Congress last amended Section 2, and whether similar rules are common today. - **The size of any racial disparity.** Small disparities should not be "artificially magnified"; a rule that works for "98% or more of voters to whom it applies" is unlikely to make a system unequally open. - **The state's whole voting system**, including every other way it lets people vote. - **The strength of the state's interests**, including preventing fraud. The Court rejected any requirement that a state use the least restrictive rule available. The Court also held that H.B. 2023 was not passed with a racially discriminatory purpose. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote separately to note that the Court had not decided whether private parties can sue under Section 2 at all. ## The dissent Justice Kagan, joined by Justices [[Stephen Breyer]] and [[Sonia Sotomayor]], argued that the majority rewrote a statute Congress had written broadly on purpose: "This Court has no right to remake Section 2." ## Why it's on the map *Brnovich* is the second step in the Roberts Court's narrowing of the Voting Rights Act, after *Shelby County* in 2013. It came as states were passing new voting restrictions after the 2020 election, and its guideposts give states wide room to defend them. The Court returned to Section 2 in [[Allen v. Milligan]] (2023) and [[Louisiana v. Callais]]. ## Connections - [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] · [[Shelby County v. Holder]] · [[Preclearance]] · [[Voter Suppression]] - [[Allen v. Milligan]] · [[Louisiana v. Callais]] · [[Thornburg v. Gingles]] - [[Mark Brnovich]] · [[Samuel Alito]] · [[Elena Kagan]] · [[Neil Gorsuch]] - [[Supreme Court Rulings Hub]] ## Sources - [Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. 647 (2021) — Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/594/19-1257/) - [Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee — Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brnovich_v._Democratic_National_Committee)