Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

10 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

at  9.  But  when  read  in  context,  that  provision  simply 
identifies  the  time  within  which  a  State  must  process 
registration  applications;  it  says  nothing  about  whether 
a  State  may  require  the  submission  of  supplemental  in- 
formation.    The  Court’s  more  expansive  interpretation  of
§1973gg–6(a)(1)(B)  sneaks  in  a  qualification  that  is  no-
where  to  be  found  in  the  text.    The  Court  takes  pains  to
say  that  a  State  need  not  register  an  applicant  who
properly  completes  and  submits  a  federal  form  but  is 
known  by  the  State  to  be  ineligible.    See  ante,  at  12–13. 
But  the  Court  takes  the  position  that  a  State  may  not 
demand  that  an  applicant  supply  any  additional  infor-
mation to confirm voting eligibility.  Nothing in §1973gg– 
6(a)(1)(B)  supports this distinction. 

What is a State to do if it has reason to doubt an appli-
cant’s  eligibility  but  cannot  be  sure  that  the  applicant  is 
ineligible?    Must  the  State  either  grant  or  deny  registra-
tion  without  communicating  with  the  applicant?  Or  does 
the  Court  believe  that  a  State  may  ask  for  additional 
information  in  individual  cases  but  may  not  impose  a 
categorical  requirement  for  all  applicants?    If  that  is  the 
Court’s  position,  on  which  provision  of  the  NVRA  does  it 
rely?  The  Court’s  reading  of  §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B)  is  atex- 
tual and makes little sense. 

* 

* 
Properly  interpreted,  the  NVRA  permits  Arizona  to
require applicants for federal voter registration to provide 
proof of eligibility.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 

*