In a 6-3 decision, authored by Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona elections law that banned ballot harvesting and out of precinct voting. In 2016, the Arizona legislature passed a law that criminalized the collection and delivery of another person’s ballot. Additionally, Arizona law requires voters to cast their ballots in the precinct they are registered to vote. If a ballot is cast in the wrong precinct, the ballot is invalidated.
The DNC challenged both of these laws believing they violated the Voting Rights Act. Other opponents of these laws cast them as having a disparate impact on minority voters.
The full 9th Circuit reversed both the initial trial judge and a three judge panel from the 9th that held the Arizona laws did not violate the VRA or have a disparate impact on minority voters.
In his majority opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, Alito wrote “The regulations at issue in this suit govern precinct based election-day voting and early mail-in voting. Voters who choose to vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in their assigned precincts. If a voter goes to the wrong polling place, poll workers are trained to direct the voter to the right location…In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates [section 2] of the VRA. Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting.”
This is a big win for election integrity going forward. This case is the bellwether for several other similar cases percolating through the courts.