Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 18-15845 · judgment January 27, 2020

Decided · July 1, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 27% cert probability (95% interval 22%–34%)

Before the decision, about 6.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Questions presented

Consolidated with 19-1257. □ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that "result[] in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color." 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Such a discriminatory "result" occurs if an election is not "equally open to participation" by racial minorities, giving them "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Id. § 10301(b). Arizona gives all citizens an equal opportunity to vote in person or by mail, and authorizes ballots to be turned in by a family member, household member, or caregiver. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona violated§ 2 by (1) requiring in-person voters to cast ballots in their assigned precincts; and (2) prohibiting "ballot-harvesting," i.e., third-party collection and return of ballots. The court held that because racial minorities disproportionately vote out-of-precinct and use ballotharvesting, the Act compels the State to allow those practices. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote.

  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Arizona's ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly "unfounded" concerns about voter fraud.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Michael A. Carvin
Jones Day

For respondent
Jessica Ring Amunson
Jenner & Block LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Related
Vide, 19-1257

Argument & decision

Argued March 2, 2021 — Michael A. Carvin · Mark Brnovich · Jessica R. Amunson · Bruce V. S.... Audio and transcript

Decided July 1, 2021. Opinion by Alito.

Proceedings

  1. Aug 02 2021
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Jul 01 2021
    Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. VIDED.
  3. Mar 02 2021
    Argued. For petitioners in 19-1258: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 19-1257: Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For respondent Secretary Hobbs: Jessica R. Amunson, Washington, D. C. For respondents DNC, et al.: Bruce V. Spiva, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
  4. Feb 24 2021
    USDC, D. Ariz. plaintiffs' exhibits electronically received. VIDED.
  5. Feb 24 2021
    USDC, D. Ariz. defendants' exhibits electronically received. VIDED.
  6. Jan 28 2021
    Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit electronic and located on Pacer.
  7. Jan 25 2021
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
  8. Jan 22 2021
    CIRCULATED
  9. Dec 31 2020
    SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 2, 2021. VIDED.
  10. Oct 02 2020
    Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1257 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
  11. Oct 02 2020
    Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1257. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1257. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
  12. Jul 29 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
  13. Jul 29 2020
    Reply of petitioners Arizona Republican Party, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  14. Jul 01 2020
    Brief of respondent Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State in opposition filed. VIDED.
  15. Jul 01 2020
    Brief of respondents Democratic National Committee, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
  16. Jun 01 2020
    Brief amici curiae of Elijah Haahr, et al. filed. VIDED
  17. Jun 01 2020
    Brief amici curiae of Governor Douglas A. Ducey, et al. filed. VIDED.
  18. May 20 2020
    Motion of respondent Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State to extend the time to file a response from June 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  19. May 20 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 1, 2020, for all respondents.
  20. May 04 2020
    Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Arizona Republican Party, et al.
  21. Apr 27 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 1, 2020)