Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

President”  with  respect  to  whether  a  major  disaster  war-
rants  an  exception  to  the  Endangered  Species  Act’s  re-
quirements); §4026(b)(2), 118 Stat. 3725, note following 22 
U. S. C.  §2751,  p.  925  (FAA  Administrator  “shall  accept 
the  certification  of  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security
that a missile defense system is effective and functional to 
defend commercial aircraft against” man-portable surface-
to-air missiles); 25 U. S. C. §1300h–6(a) (“For the purpose
of  proceeding  with  the  per  capita  distribution”  of  certain
funds, “the Secretary of the Interior shall accept the tribe’s 
certification  of  enrolled  membership”);  30  U. S. C.  §923(b) 
(the  Secretary  of  Labor  “shall  accept  a  board  certified  or
board eligible radiologist’s interpretation” of a chest X ray 
used to diagnose black lung disease); 42 U. S. C. §1395w–
21(e)(6)(A)  (“[A]  Medicare+Choice  organization  . . .  shall 
accept  elections  or  changes  to  elections  during”  specified
periods).3 

Arizona’s  reading  is  also  difficult  to  reconcile  with
neighboring  provisions  of  the  NVRA.  Section  1973gg–
6(a)(1)(B)  provides  that  a  State  shall  “ensure  that  any 
eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election . . . if 
the  valid  voter  registration  form  of  the  applicant  is  post-
marked”  not  later  than  a  specified  number  of  days  before
the  election. 
(Emphasis  added.)  Yet  Arizona  reads  the 
phrase  “accept  and  use”  in  §1973gg–4(a)(1)  as  permitting
it to reject a completed Federal Form if the applicant does
not  submit  additional  information  required  by  state  law.
That  reading  can  be  squared  with  Arizona’s  obligation 

—————— 

3 The  dissent  accepts  that  a  State  may  not  impose  additional  re-
quirements that render the Federal Form entirely superfluous; it would
require  that  the  State  “us[e]  the  form  as  a  meaningful  part  of  the
registration process.”  Post, at 7 (opinion of ALITO, J.).  The dissent does 
not  tell  us  precisely  how  large  a  role  for  the  Federal  Form  suffices  to
make it “meaningful”: One step out of two?  Three?  Ten?   There is no 
easy  answer,  for  the  dissent’s  “meaningful  part”  standard  is  as  inde-
terminate as it is atextual.