Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

6 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Art. I,  §4,  cl. 1,  a  federal  law  that  frustrates  a  State’s
ability to enforce its voter qualifications would be constitu-
tionally suspect.  Ante, at 15; see ante, at 4–8 (THOMAS, J., 
dissenting).  The  Court  nevertheless  reads  the  NVRA  to 
restrict  Arizona’s  ability  to  enforce  its  law  providing  that
only  United  States  citizens  may  vote.  See  Ariz.  Const., 
Art.  VII,  §2.    We  are  normally  more  reluctant  to  inter-
pret federal statutes as upsetting “the usual constitutional 
balance of federal and state powers.”  Gregory v. Ashcroft, 
501  U. S.  452,  460  (1991);  see  Frankfurter,  Some  Reflec-
tions  on  the  Reading  of  Statutes,  47  Colum.  L. Rev.  527,
540 (1947) (“[W]hen the Federal Government . . . radically 
readjusts  the  balance  of  state  and  national  authority,
those  charged  with  the  duty  of  legislating  are  reasonably 
explicit”).

In  refusing  to  give  any  weight  to  Arizona’s  interest  in
enforcing  its  voter  qualifications,  the  Court  suggests  that
the  State  could  return  to  the  Election  Assistance  Com- 
mission and renew its request for a change to the federal 
form.  Ante,  at  16–17.  But  that  prospect  does  little  to
assuage  constitutional  concerns.  The  EAC  currently  has 
no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will 
be  restored  to  life  in  the  near  future.    If  that  situation 
persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of 
its constitutional claim is problematic.  The most that the 
Court is prepared to say is that the State “might” succeed
by seeking  a writ of mandamus, and failing that, “might” 
be  able  to  mount  a  constitutional  challenge.    Ante,  at  17, 
n. 10.  The  Court  sends  the  State  to  traverse  a  veritable 
procedural  obstacle  course  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  a 
judicial  decision  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  relevant
provisions  of  the  NVRA.    A  sensible  interpretation  of  the 
Act would obviate these difficulties. 

The NVRA does not come close to manifesting the clear 

II