This week’s Supreme Court rulings honor our democratic inheritance

The same reasoning applies to the second provision. The court noted that Arizona gives people many ways to cast ballots, including no-excuse mail voting and many days of in-person early voting. This implies that, had Arizona only allowed in-person voting on Election Day, the court might have found the practice in violation of the law. But in the absence of that, assigning people to precincts is both a reasonable way to administer a complex election process and to spread access to the ballot. It also matters for elections, as each precinct is within a different combination of districts for different races, and thus gives its voters different ballots to cast. Given the large number of ways a person can vote and the tiny fraction — less than 2 percent — who have historically been affected by out of precinct voting, the Arizona law clearly is tailored to implement its interest in election integrity and efficiency.