Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

none  other  than  the  power  to  pre-empt,  the  reasonable 
assumption is that the statutory text accurately communi-
cates  the  scope  of  Congress’s  pre-emptive  intent.    More-
over, the federalism concerns underlying the presumption 
in  the  Supremacy  Clause  context  are  somewhat  weaker 
here.  Unlike  the  States’  “historic  police  powers,”  Rice, 
supra, at 230, the States’ role in regulating  congressional 
elections—while  weighty  and  worthy  of  respect—has
always  existed  subject  to  the  express  qualification  that  it
“terminates  according  to  federal  law.”  Buckman  Co.  v. 
Plaintiffs’  Legal  Comm.,  531  U. S.  341,  347  (2001).    In 
sum,  there  is  no  compelling  reason  not  to  read  Elections 
Clause legislation simply to mean what it says. 

We  conclude  that  the  fairest  reading  of  the  statute  is 
that  a  state-imposed  requirement  of  evidence  of  citizen-
ship  not  required  by  the  Federal  Form  is  “inconsistent
with”  the  NVRA’s  mandate  that  States  “accept  and  use”
the Federal Form.  Siebold, supra, at 397.  If this reading 
prevails, the Elections Clause requires that Arizona’s rule 
give way.

We  note,  however,  that  while  the  NVRA  forbids  States 
to  demand  that  an  applicant  submit  additional  infor-
mation beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does 
not  preclude  States  from  “deny[ing]  registration  based  on
information  in  their  possession  establishing  the  appli-
cant’s  ineligibility.”7   Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus 
Curiae 24.  The NVRA clearly contemplates that not every 
submitted  Federal  Form  will  result  in  registration.    See 

—————— 

7 The  dissent  seems  to  think  this  position  of  ours  incompatible  with
our  reading  of  §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B),  which  requires  a  State  to  “ensure 
that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . if the
valid  voter  registration  form  of  the  applicant  is  postmarked”  by  a 
certain date.  See post, at 9–10 (opinion of ALITO, J.).  What the dissent 
overlooks is that §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) only requires a State to register an
“eligible  applicant”  who  submits  a  timely  Federal  Form.    (Emphasis 
added.)