The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion today overturning a lower court’s decision striking down two Arizona voting laws under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The two laws the court upheld restricted out-of precinct voting and certain ballot collection activities in Arizona. Many experts view this as a severe weakening of the Voting Rights Act’s protections for minority voters. The Court did seem to distinguish its interpretation of Section 2 in this case, from how it is applied in minority vote dilution redistricting map cases. Read the opinion here.
The two voting laws at issue require Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted. Also, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot— either before or after it has been completed.
Regarding Arizona’s Out-of-Precinct Voting Policy:
“The racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of precinct policy is small in absolute terms. Of the Arizona counties that reported out-of-precinct ballots in the 2016 general election, a little over 1% of Hispanic voters, 1% of African-American voters, and 1% of Native American voters who voted on election day cast an out-of-precinct ballot. For non-minority voters, the rate was around 0.5%. A procedure that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies—minority and non-minority alike—is unlikely to render a system unequally open.
Appropriate weight must be given to the important state interests furthered by precinct-based voting. It helps to distribute voters more evenly among polling places; it can put polling places closer to voter residences; and it helps to ensure that each voter receives a ballot that lists only the candidates and public questions on which he or she can
vote. Precinct-based voting has a long pedigree in the United States, and the policy of not counting out-of-precinct ballots is widespread. The Court of Appeals discounted the State’s interests because it found no evidence that a less restrictive alternative would threaten the integrity of precinct-based voting. But §2 does not require a State to
show that its chosen policy is absolutely necessary or that a less restrictive means would not adequately serve the State’s objectives. Considering the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications, the rule does not violate §2.”
Regarding Arizona’s Early Ballot Policy (HB2023)
“Arizonans can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office. These options entail the “usual burdens of voting,” and assistance from a statutorily
authorized proxy is also available. The State also makes special provison for certain groups of voters who are unable to use the early voting system. See §16–549(C). And here, the plaintiffs were unable to show the extent to which HB 2023 disproportionately burdens minority voters. Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden
caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability.”
