Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 42

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–71 
_________________ 

ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER 

TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 17, 2013] 

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
The Court reads an ambiguous federal statute in a way 
that  brushes  aside  the  constitutional  authority  of  the
States and produces truly strange results. 

Under  the  Constitution,  the  States,  not  Congress,  have
the  authority  to  establish  the  qualifications  of  voters  in
elections  for  Members  of  Congress.    See  Art.  I,  §2,  cl.  1 
(House);  Amdt.  17  (Senate).  The  States  also  have  the 
default  authority  to  regulate  federal  voter  registration.
See Art. I, §4, cl. 1.  Exercising its right to set federal voter
qualifications,  Arizona,  like  every  other  State,  permits 
only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona
has  concluded  that  this  requirement  cannot  be  effectively 
enforced unless applicants for registration are required to
provide proof of citizenship.  According to the Court, how-
ever, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) 
deprives Arizona of this authority.  I do not think that this 
is what Congress intended.

I  also  doubt  that  Congress  meant  for  the  success  of 
an application for voter registration to depend on which of
two valid but substantially different registration forms the 
applicant  happens  to  fill  out  and  submit,  but  that  is  how 
the  Court  reads  the  NVRA.    The  Court  interprets  one
provision,  42  U. S. C.  §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B),  to  mean  that,  if 
an applicant fills out the federal form, a State must regis-