he found arizona to have had many alternative ways of getting your vote counted. he also said that the disparate impact approach, provisions that can be shown statistically to have a greater impact on minority voters, this impact being the way that fair housing cases and other kinds of discrimination cases are sometimes evaluated, that was not appropriate for this type of case. he thought that the -- she was much more concerned about discriminatory intent than discriminatory impact. he said it was important to look at the context that voting regulations have in the 1980's when the voting rights act was modified to update section two to its current language. keeping in mind what the voting provisions were then, that was a time when people tended to cast votes in person more so than now. it was also a factor to keep in mind. all of those things taken together, he said means that arizona pot regulations are permissible. dissenters took a different view. justice kagan said the totality of circumstances you should be looking at are the totality of certain circumstances