Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case centered on two Arizona election laws: a prohibition on third-party ballot collection and a policy discarding ballots cast in the wrong precinct. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that neither provision violated Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race.

Background

The legal challenge was initiated by the Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party against Arizona Secretary of State Mark Brnovich. They contested two state statutes: H.B. 2023, which criminalized the collection of early ballots by anyone other than a family member, caregiver, or postal worker (often called "ballot harvesting"), and a long-standing practice of wholly discarding ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The plaintiffs argued these laws disproportionately burdened Native American, Hispanic, and African American voters in Arizona, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially agreed, finding the laws had a discriminatory impact under the results test established in Thornburg v. Gingles.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. In its July 2021 ruling, the Court upheld both Arizona provisions, significantly narrowing the application of Section 2 in challenges to voting regulations. The decision was one of the most consequential voting rights rulings since Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.

Majority opinion

Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The opinion articulated a new, multi-factor "guidepost" test for evaluating Section 2 claims, emphasizing the size of the burden imposed, the degree of disparity it causes, and the state's interests served by the rule. Alito argued that Arizona's interest in preventing election fraud and administrative chaos justified the rules, and that the modest disparities in effect did not amount to a denial of the Fifteenth Amendment's promise of equal voting opportunity. The opinion also suggested that the mere inconvenience of voting does not constitute a substantial burden under the Act.

Dissenting opinions

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a forceful dissent, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan argued the majority "rewrote" Section 2, abandoning its core purpose of eradicating voting barriers with discriminatory effects. She contended that the Court's new test unduly privileged state interests over the law's mandate to eliminate racially disparate burdens, effectively insulating many restrictive laws from challenge. The dissent highlighted the specific hardships the Arizona laws placed on minority voters, particularly on remote Navajo Nation reservations.

Analysis and commentary

Legal scholars and civil rights advocates widely criticized the decision as a major weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Commentators noted it created a high bar for future plaintiffs and empowered states to enact stricter voting rules. The ruling was praised by conservative groups and officials who argued it upheld states' authority to secure election integrity. The decision was seen as aligning with the Court's federalism jurisprudence under the Roberts Court.

Aftermath and impact

The decision had an immediate impact on voting rights litigation across the United States. Lower courts began applying the Brnovich guideposts, leading to the dismissal of several challenges to state laws. The ruling also influenced the legislative landscape, with many state legislatures, including those in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, citing the decision as they passed new voting restrictions following the 2020 presidential election. The case intensified calls in the United States Congress to pass new federal voting rights legislation, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.