Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a 2021 United States Supreme Court case addressing state election regulations under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the scope of Section 2 as applied to Arizona voting policies. The Court assessed challenges by the Democratic National Committee and other plaintiffs against Arizona rules adopted by the Arizona Legislature and enforced by the Arizona Secretary of State that plaintiffs argued disproportionately burdened racial and language minorities. The decision generated significant discussion among scholars at institutions such as the Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School, and influenced subsequent litigation in federal courts across the United States.

Background

In 2016–2018 Arizona elections produced disputes involving absentee voting, ballot collection, and voter registration procedures after actions by the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Republican Party. The challenged measures included a criminal prohibition on third-party ballot possession endorsed by the Arizona Revised Statutes and a policy rejecting ballots cast in the wrong precinct under rules implemented by the Arizona Secretary of State. Plaintiffs including the Democratic National Committee, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Native American Rights Fund, and individual voters sued in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona invoking Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and referencing precedent from cases such as Thornburg v. Gingles, Shelby County v. Holder, and United States v. Classic.

Legal Issues Presented

The litigation presented whether Arizona's restrictions violated Section 2 by imposing unequal burdens on voters based on race or membership in language minority groups under precedents like Thornburg v. Gingles and statutory text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The parties disputed the appropriate legal test for Section 2 vote-denial or abridgement claims, including how to weigh factors such as the size of the burden, historical discrimination in the jurisdiction, racially polarized voting, and comparative opportunity to participate in the political process—topics litigated in lower courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and discussed in litigation before judges appointed by presidents such as Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George W. Bush.

Supreme Court Decision

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the Ninth Circuit and ruling that Arizona's policies did not violate Section 2 as applied. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that neither the ballot-collection ban nor the out-of-precinct policy amounted to a voting practice that denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court's 6–3 judgment (with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining) narrowed the scope of Section 2 claims and articulated a set of guideposts for evaluating such challenges.

Reasoning and Opinions

The majority opinion adopted a framework of non-exhaustive factors—later summarized as guideposts—drawing on analyses from cases including Thornburg v. Gingles, Shelby County v. Holder, and Burson v. Freeman to assess whether a law imposes a “discriminatory burden.” Justices Alito and Thomas emphasized statutory text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, legislative history related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and practical considerations about electoral administration raised by state actors such as the Arizona Secretary of State and the Arizona Legislature. The Court evaluated empirical evidence, including studies by social scientists associated with academic centers like Stanford University and University of Michigan, but stressed deference to the state's asserted regulatory interests in preventing fraud and ensuring orderly elections.

Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that the majority erred in legal standard and factual assessment. The dissent relied on precedents including Chisom v. Roemer and emphasized historical patterns of voter suppression affecting groups represented by organizations such as the Native American Rights Fund and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Kagan's dissent criticized the majority's guideposts as insufficiently attentive to practical burdens on minority voters and warned of consequences for future Section 2 enforcement.

Impact and Aftermath

The decision has affected litigation before federal courts such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and influenced state legislatures in Georgia, Texas, Florida, and other jurisdictions considering election laws on ballot collection, absentee voting, and precinct policies. Civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund reacted with criticism, while conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and some state officials endorsed the ruling. Scholars at institutions like Columbia Law School and commentators in publications associated with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have debated the decision's implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, congressional responses, and potential legislative reforms pursued in the United States Congress and state legislatures.

Category:United States Supreme Court cases