Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

E59482

United States Supreme Court case election law case voting rights case

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the scope of federal protections against voting discrimination, particularly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee canonical	4
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)	1
Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T471022 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Context triple: [Voting Rights Act of 1965, landmarkCase, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee]

A. DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
B. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
C. Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
D. Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
E. Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Target entity description: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the scope of federal protections against voting discrimination, particularly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A. DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
B. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
C. Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
D. Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
E. Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ election law case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	election administration ⓘ voting rights ⓘ
arguedDate	March 2, 2021 ⓘ
challengedLaw	Arizona ballot collection law (H.B. 2023) ⓘ Arizona out-of-precinct voting rule ⓘ
citation	594 U.S. ___ (2021) ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionConsidered	Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	July 1, 2021 ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy	Elena Kagan ⓘ
docketNumber	19-1257 ⓘ
effect	made it more difficult to challenge state voting regulations under federal law ⓘ narrowed the scope of Section 2 vote-denial claims ⓘ
fullName	Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al. ⓘ linked to: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
holding	Arizona’s ballot collection law is not enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ Arizona’s restrictions on third-party ballot collection do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ
impactOn	federal protections against voting discrimination ⓘ
joinedByInDissent	Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Amy Coney Barrett ⓘ Brett M. Kavanaugh ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ
jurisdictionType	appellate review ⓘ
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalIssue	interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ validity of Arizona out-of-precinct voting policy ⓘ validity of Arizona third-party ballot collection restrictions ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
originatingJurisdiction	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ
petitioner	Mark Brnovich ⓘ
petitionerRole	Attorney General of Arizona ⓘ linked to: Attorney General
relatedCase	Shelby County v. Holder ⓘ
relatedTopic	racial discrimination in voting ⓘ voter suppression ⓘ
respondent	Arizona Democratic Party ⓘ Democratic National Committee ⓘ
standardAnnounced	set guideposts for evaluating Section 2 vote-denial claims ⓘ
stateInvolved	Arizona ⓘ
statuteInterpreted	Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ linked to: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
term	October Term 2020 ⓘ
voteSplit	6–3 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (6)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 → landmarkCase → Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ⓘ

VRA → relatedCase → Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ⓘ

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee → fullName → Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al. ⓘ

linked to: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act → keyCase → Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ⓘ

Arizona ballot collection law (H.B. 2023) → subjectOfCase → Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ⓘ

Arizona ballot collection law (H.B. 2023) → upheldInDecision → Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) ⓘ