Civil Procedure
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021)
Study notes for Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and third-party ballot collection ban do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court addressed significant issues surrounding voting rights and election integrity. The Court's ruling focused on two Arizona election policies: the out-of-precinct ballot policy, which disallows ballots cast outside their designated precincts, and the restriction on third-party ballot collection. Professors may emphasize the Court's analysis under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, detailing how the majority opinion viewed these policies as not discriminatory against minority voters despite concerns about accessibility and voting rights for marginalized communities.
The case critically engages with broader themes of state sovereignty in administering elections and the balance between ensuring lawful voting and preventing election fraud. Students should consider how the Court interpreted “discriminatory effects” and what constitutes an unlawful voting policy under federal law. Professors might highlight the dissent’s perspective, which stresses that these policies disproportionately impact minority voters, thereby raising vital questions about equity in electoral access.
B-2-O: Brnovich, two policies (Out-of-precinct & bans on Ballot collection); neither violates Section 2.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Shelby County v. Holder | Shelby County dealt with the constitutionality of a formula used for preclearance under Section 5, while Brnovich concerned the application of Section 2 to specific voting policies. |
| Voting Rights Coalition v. City of New York | In Voting Rights Coalition, the focus was on proportional representation and local voting practices, while Brnovich centered on state regulations affecting ballot counting. |
| North Carolina v. Covington | Covington involved redistricting and racial gerrymandering claims under the Voting Rights Act, contrasting with Brnovich's focus on specific voting practices. |
Proponents argue that maintaining these policies ensures election integrity and prevents fraud, thereby upholding the rule of law in elections.
Opponents contend that these policies hinder access to voting for minority groups, violating the spirit of equality and fairness mandated by the Voting Rights Act.
This case illustrates the complexities in evaluating voting policies under federal law and can appear on exams discussing the Voting Rights Act, as well as state vs. federal powers in election law.