Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 50

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

We  could  avoid  this  nonsensical  result  by  holding  that 
the  Act  lets  the  States  decide  for  themselves  what  in-
formation  “is  necessary  . . .  to  assess  the  eligibility  of  the
applicant”—both  by  designing  their  own  forms  and  by 
requiring  that  federal  form  applicants  provide  supple-
mental  information  when  appropriate.  §1973gg–7(b)(1).
The Act’s provision for state forms shows that the purpose
of the federal form is not to supplant the States’ authority
in  this  area  but  to  facilitate  interstate  voter  registration 
drives.  Thanks  to  the  federal  form,  volunteers  distrib-
uting  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.    See  H. R.  Rep.  No. 
103–9, p. 10 (1993) (“Uniform mail forms will permit voter 
registration drives through a regional or national mailing,
or for more than one State at a central location, such as a 
city  where  persons  from  a  number  of  neighboring  States
work,  shop  or  attend  events”).  The  federal  form  was 
meant  to  facilitate  voter  registration  drives,  not  to  take 
away  the  States’  traditional  authority  to  decide  what
information registrants must supply.3 

The  Court  purports  to  find  support  for  its  contrary
approach  in  §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B),  which  says  that  a  State
must  “ensure  that  any  eligible  applicant  is  registered  to 
vote  in  an election  . . .  if  the  valid  voter  registration  form 
of  the  applicant  is  postmarked”  within  a  specified  period. 
Ante,  at  8–9.  The  Court  understands  §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) 
to mean that a State must register an eligible applicant if 
he or she submits a “ ‘valid voter registration form.’ ”  Ante, 

—————— 

3 The  Court  argues  that  the  federal  form  would  not  accomplish  this
purpose  under  my  interpretation  because  “a  volunteer  in  Yuma  would 
have to give every prospective voter not only a Federal Form, but also
a  separate  set  of  either  Arizona-  or  California-specific  instructions.” 
Ante, at 10, n. 4.  But this is exactly what Congress envisioned.  Eigh- 
teen of the federal form’s 23 pages are state-specific instructions.