Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

under §1973gg–6(a)(1) only if a completed Federal Form is 
not a “valid voter registration form,”  which seems unlikely.
The  statute  empowers  the  EAC  to  create  the  Federal 
Form,  §1973gg–7(a),  requires  the  EAC  to  prescribe  its
contents  within  specified  limits,  §1973gg–7(b),  and  re-
quires States to “accept and use” it, §1973gg–4(a)(1).  It is 
improbable that the statute envisions a completed copy of
the  form  it  takes  such  pains  to  create  as  being  anything
less than “valid.” 

The Act also authorizes States, “[i]n addition to accept-
ing  and  using  the”  Federal  Form,  to  create  their  own,
state-specific  voter-registration  forms,  which  can  be  used
to  register  voters  in  both  state  and  federal  elections. 
§1973gg–4(a)(2) (emphasis added).  These state-developed
forms may require information the Federal Form does not.
(For example, unlike the Federal Form, Arizona’s registra-
tion  form  includes  Proposition  200’s  proof-of-citizenship 
requirement.    See  Arizona  Voter  Registration  Form,  p. 1, 
online at http://www.azsos.gov.)  This permission works in
tandem with the requirement that States “accept and use” 
the  Federal  Form.  States  retain  the  flexibility  to  design
and  use  their  own  registration  forms,  but  the  Federal
Form  provides  a  backstop:  No  matter  what  procedural
hurdles  a  State’s  own  form  imposes,  the  Federal  Form 
guarantees  that  a  simple  means  of  registering  to  vote  in
federal  elections  will  be  available.4    Arizona’s  reading 
—————— 

4 In  the  face  of  this  straightforward  explanation,  the  dissent  main-
tains  that  it  would  be  “nonsensical”  for  a  less  demanding  federal  form 
to exist alongside a more demanding state form.  Post, at 9 (opinion of 
ALITO, J.).  But it is the dissent’s alternative explanation for §1973gg– 
4(a)(2)  that  makes  no  sense.    The  “purpose”  of  the  Federal  Form,  it 
claims,  is  “to  facilitate  interstate  voter  registration  drives.    Thanks  to 
the federal form, volunteers distributing voter registration materials at
a  shopping  mall  in  Yuma  can  give  a  copy  of  the  same  form  to  every
person they meet without attempting to distinguish between residents
of  Arizona  and  California.”  Post,  at  9.  But  in  the  dissent’s  world,  a 
volunteer in Yuma would have to give every prospective voter not only