Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.
The Supreme Court addressed challenges to Arizona's voting regulations under the Voting Rights Act. The case involved claims that Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and ballot-collection law had a disparate impact on minority voters. The Court found that these regulations did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.
The Court held that Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Voting Rights is relevant to Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
The case directly involves challenges under the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment related to voting regulations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)These cases involve challenges under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State's regulations governing precinct-based election-day voting and early mail-in voting.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
The case addresses whether Arizona's voting laws have a disparate impact on minority voters, implicating equal protection concerns.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, alleging that both the State's refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and disparate effect on the State's American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens in violation of § 2 of the VRA.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
The Court discusses the standing of the petitioners to appeal the decision, which is a threshold issue in the case.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)First, the Court rejects the contention that no petitioner has Article III standing to appeal the decision below as to the out-of-precinct policy.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that support the summary and concepts above.
Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate § 2 of the VRA.
The Court declines in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA § 2 challenges.
The racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-precinct policy is small in absolute terms.
