Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

the  “Times,  Places  and  Manner”  of  holding  congressional 
elections  includes  the  power  to  impose  limits  on  the  evi-
dence  that  a  State  may  consider  when  maintaining  its 
voter  rolls.    See  Brief  for  Respondents  51–55;  see  also 
Art. I, §4, cl. 1 (“The Times, Places and Manner of holding 
Elections  for  Senators  and  Representatives,  shall  be  pre-
scribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature  thereof;  but  the 
Congress  may  at  any  time  by  Law  make  or  alter  such 
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators”).  
But, as originally understood, the Times, Places and Man-
ner  Clause  grants  Congress  power  “only  over  the  ‘when, 
where,  and  how’  of  holding  congressional  elections,”  not 
over the question of who can vote.  Inter Tribal Council of 
Ariz.,  supra,  at  29  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.)  (quoting  T. 
Parsons, Notes of Convention Debates, Jan. 16, 1788, in 6 
Documentary  History  of  the  Ratification  of  the  Constitu-
tion  1211  (J.  Kaminski  &  G.  Saladino  eds.  2000)  (Massa-
chusetts ratification delegate Sedgwick)).  The “ ‘Manner of 
holding Elections’ ” was understood to refer to “the circum-
stances under which elections were held and the mechan-
ics of the actual election.”  570 U. S., at 30 (quoting Art. I, 
§4,  cl. 1).    It  does  not  give  Congress  the  authority  to  dis-
place state voter qualifications or dictate what evidence a 
State  may  consider  in  deciding  whether  those  qualifica-
tions have been met.  See 570 U. S., at 29–33.  The Clause 
thus does not change the fact that respondents’ reading of 
the NVRA is constitutionally suspect. 
  The Court’s interpretation of the NVRA was already the 
correct reading of the statute: The NVRA does not prohibit 
a State from considering failure to vote as evidence that a 
registrant  has  moved.    The  fact  that  this  reading  avoids 
serious  constitutional  problems  is  an  additional  reason 
why, in my view, today’s decision is undoubtedly correct.