Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

ment  which  ought  to  be  dependent  on  the  people  alone.” 
The Federalist No. 52, at 326 (J. Madison).

Since  the  power  to  establish  voting  requirements  is  of
little  value  without  the  power  to  enforce  those  require-
ments,  Arizona  is  correct  that  it  would  raise  serious  con-
stitutional  doubts  if  a  federal  statute  precluded  a  State
from  obtaining  the  information  necessary  to  enforce  its
voter qualifications.9  If, but for Arizona’s interpretation of
the  “accept  and  use”  provision,  the  State  would  be  pre-
cluded  from  obtaining  information  necessary  for  enforce-
ment,  we  would  have  to  determine  whether  Arizona’s 
interpretation,  though  plainly  not  the  best  reading,  is  at 
least  a  possible  one.  Cf.  Crowell  v.  Benson,  285  U. S.  22, 
62 (1932) (the Court will “ascertain whether a construction
of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional]
question  may  be  avoided”  (emphasis  added)).    Happily,
we  are  spared  that  necessity,  since  the  statute  provides
another  means  by  which  Arizona  may  obtain  information
needed for enforcement. 

Section  1973gg–7(b)(1)  of  the  Act  provides  that  the
Federal  Form  “may  require  only  such  identifying  infor-
mation  (including  the  signature  of  the  applicant)  and 
other  information  (including  data  relating  to  previous
registration  by  the  applicant),  as  is  necessary  to  enable 
the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibil-
ity  of  the  applicant  and  to  administer  voter  registration
and other parts of the election process.”  At oral argument, 

—————— 

9 In their reply brief, petitioners suggest for the first time that “regis-
tration is itself a qualification to vote.”  Reply Brief for State Petition-
ers 24 (emphasis deleted); see also post, at 1, 16 (opinion of THOMAS, J.);
cf. Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F. 3d 1411, 1413, and n. 1 (CA9
1995),  cert.  denied,  516  U. S.  1093  (1996);  Association  of  Community 
Organizations  for  Reform  Now  (ACORN)  v.  Edgar,  56  F. 3d  791,  793 
(CA7 1995).  We resolve this case on the theory on which it has hitherto
been  litigated:  that  citizenship  (not  registration)  is  the  voter  qualifica-
tion Arizona seeks to enforce.  See Brief for State Petitioners 50.