Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

16 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

demonstrated  to  Arizona’s  satisfaction  that  they  meet  its
citizenship  qualification  for  voting,  the  NVRA,  as  inter-
preted by the Court, would exceed Congress’ powers under
Article I, §4, and violate Article 1, §2.

Fortunately,  Arizona’s  alternative 

interpretation  of 
§1973gg–4(a)(1)  avoids  this  problem.  It  is  plausible  that
Arizona  “accept[s]  and  use[s]”  the  federal  form  under
§1973gg–4(a)(1) so long as it receives the form and consid-
ers it as part of its voter application process.  See post, at 
6–10 (ALITO, J., dissenting); 677 F. 3d, at 444 (Rawlinson,
J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part);  624  F. 3d 
1162, 1205–1208 (CA9 2010) (Kozinski, C. J., dissenting in 
part),  reh’g  649  F. 3d  953  (CA9  2011);  677  F. 3d,  at  439
(Kozinski,  C.  J.,  concurring)  (same).    Given  States’  exclu-
sive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine 
whether  those  qualifications  are  met,  I  would  hold  that 
Arizona  may  request  whatever  additional  information  it 
requires to verify voter eligibility. 

B 
The  majority  purports  to  avoid  the  difficult  constitu-
tional  questions  implicated  by  the  Voter  Qualifications
Clause.  See  ante,  at  13–15.    It  nevertheless  adopts  re-
spondents’  reading  of  §1973gg–4(a)(1)  because  it  inter-
prets  Article  I,  §2,  as  giving  Arizona  the  right  only  to
“obtai[n]  information  necessary  for  enforcement”  of  its
voting  qualifications.  Ante,  at  15.    The  majority  posits 
that Arizona may pursue relief by making an administra-
tive request to the EAC that, if denied, could be challenged 
under  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA).    Ante, 
at 15–17. 

JUSTICE ALITO is correct to point out that the majority’s
reliance  on  the  EAC  is  meaningless  because  the  EAC
has  no  members  and  no  current  prospects  of  new  mem- 
bers.  Post, at 6 (dissenting opinion).  Offering a nonexistent 
pathway to administrative relief is an exercise in futility,