Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan, 329 F. Supp. 3d 824

Background

Plaintiffs (DNC, DSCC, Arizona Democratic Party) challenged (1) Arizona's policy of not counting provisional ballots cast out‑of‑precinct (OOP) and (2) H.B. 2023 (A.R.S. § 16‑1005(H)‑(I)), which criminalizes third‑party possession of a voter's early mail ballot except for limited statutory exceptions. They alleged § 2 VRA violations (results and intent) and First/Fourteenth Amendment burdens on voting/association.
Ten‑day bench trial held; substantial expert testimony on OOP voting patterns, ballot collection usage, and socioeconomic disparities (notably Drs. Rodden, Lichtman, Berman). Plaintiffs offered anecdotal evidence of GOTV ballot collection focused in minority communities.
H.B. 2023 permits only the voter, family/household members, caregivers, postal workers, and officials to possess another’s early ballot; violations are felony. Arizona counts provisional ballots only if cast in the correct precinct; many counties use precinct‑based systems (largest counties do), while some rural counties use vote centers.
The court found evidence that (a) minorities cast OOP ballots at higher rates, and (b) minority communities face socioeconomic and mail/access disparities that make ballot collection more used there; but the record lacked precise quantification of how many voters used now‑prohibited third‑party collectors and their racial composition.
Applying Anderson/Burdick and the two‑step § 2 results framework, the court concluded H.B. 2023 imposes at most minimal burdens, the State has important interests (fraud prevention, integrity, chain‑of‑custody), and plaintiffs failed to show a § 2 disparate impact or legislative intent to discriminate. Judgment for defendants on all claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of H.B. 2023 under First/Fourteenth (Anderson/Burdick)	H.B. 2023 severely burdens voting and associational rights by banning common GOTV ballot collection used more by minorities	Law imposes minimal burden; alternatives exist (mail, drop‑boxes, family/caregivers, special election boards); state interest in preventing fraud and preserving confidence justifies law	Minimal burden; important regulatory interests suffice; law upheld under Anderson/Burdick
§ 2 (results) challenge to H.B. 2023 (disparate impact)	H.B. 2023 disproportionately burdens Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans who relied on third‑party collectors	No reliable quantitative evidence on number and race of voters who used prohibited collectors; burden on subgroup unquantified and practically small	Plaintiffs failed step‑one: no demonstrated meaningful disparate impact; § 2 claim fails
§ 2 (results) challenge to OOP provisional ballot policy	Rejecting OOP ballots disproportionately denies minorities opportunity because minorities vote OOP at higher rates	OOP ballots are a tiny and declining fraction of total votes; disparities exist but are practically insignificant and caused by mobility, polling‑place changes, not the counting rule	Policy upheld: minimal burden, important state interests in precinct‑based system; no § 2 violation
§ 2 / Fifteenth Amendment (intent) re H.B. 2023	Law enacted with intent to suppress minority turnout (partisan actors targeted Democratic GOTV techniques in minority communities)	Sponsors sincerely sought to prevent fraud and improve ballot security; partisan motives do not equal racial intent; legislature acted prophylactically	No discriminatory purpose found under Arlington Heights; intent claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (standing/causation principles cited for injury and redressability)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Anderson/Burdick balancing framework for election regulations)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (standard for weighing burdens on voting rights)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (upholding election regulation as non‑severe burden; prophylactic state interests)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (importance of public confidence in election integrity)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (§ 2 framework and Senate Factors guidance)
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (historical discussion of § 2 intent vs. results)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (standard and factors for proving discriminatory intent)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (context on § 5 preclearance and history of discrimination)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (legislatures may act prophylactically to address perceived electoral problems)