Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee involves two of Arizona's election policies: one outlawing ballot collection and another banning out-of-precinct voting.

[1] However, in a 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court effectively eliminated VRA's Section 5 "preclearance" requirement, which had mandated state and local governments in 15 states (those with a past history of voting rights violations) to seek permission from a federal court or the US Justice Department before making significant changes to voting laws.

[a] The majority in Shelby County held that Section 4(b)'s coverage formula, which had been last amended by Congress in 1975, was "unconstitutional in light of current conditions" and "based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.

[2][3] Shelby County, by eliminating the preclearance requirements, allowed certain state and local governments to freely pass voting laws without first seeking permission from the Federal courts or the U.S. Justice Department.

2023 by the Republican-controlled Arizona State Legislature, made it a felony for anyone other than an election official or a family member or caregiver to handle or to collect a completed early voting or absentee ballot.

The DNC claimed that Arizona's policy to reject ballots cast in the wrong precinct violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments related to voters' rights.

The state requested a stay of the Ninth Circuit's injunction from the Supreme Court, which it granted the next day and thus left both policies in place during the election while litigation continued.

The court held that the policy violated the "results test" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they imposed a significant disparate burden on ethnic minority voters.

[15] Citing Thornburg v. Gingles, the court also held that the plaintiffs showed, under the "totality of circumstances," that the discriminatory burden created by the policies "was in part caused by or linked to 'social and historical conditions' that have or currently produce 'an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by [minority] and white voters to elect their preferred representatives' and to participate in the political process.

2023 had been to fight the DNC's "get out the vote" campaign designed to increase voter turnout, which relied in part on the use of ballot collectors in minority-dense areas of the state.

[11] Both the state and the Republican National Committee (RNC) appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, specifically on the applicability of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[4] Observers to the oral arguments said that a primary issue discussed by the justices was the standard that should be used to evaluate when discrimination occurs under Section 2 of the VRA.

He also stated that data from the 2020 election showed, "A policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies — minority and non-minority alike — is unlikely to render a system unequally open.".

2023, Alito referred to the per curiam decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006): "A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.

"[25] He stated that the respondents had failed to show that the law had a disparate impact:[25] "Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence.

[26][27] The non-binding slip opinion stated in its syllabus, "The Court declines in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA [Section 2] challenges to rules that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots.

"[26] Kagan further wrote "What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.

'"[30] RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel called the decision as a "resounding victory for election integrity", claiming "Democrats were attempting to make Arizona ballots less secure for political gain, and the Court saw right through their partisan lies.