Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

III
 
A 

Arizona  has  not  challenged  the  constitutionality  of  the
NVRA itself in this case.  Nor has it alleged that Congress 
lacks  authority  to  direct  the  EAC  to  create  the  federal 
form.  As  a  result,  I  need  not  address  those  issues.    Ari-
zona did, however, argue that respondent’s interpretation
of §1973gg–4(a)(1) would raise constitutional concerns.  As 
discussed,  supra,  I  too  am  concerned  that  respondent’s 
interpretation of §1973gg–4(a)(1) would render the statute 
unconstitutional under Article I, §2.  Accordingly, I would
interpret §1973gg–4(a)(1) to avoid the constitutional prob-
lems  discussed  above.  See  Zadvydas  v.  Davis,  533  U. S. 
678,  689  (2001)  (“ ‘[I]t  is  a  cardinal  principle’  of  statutory 
interpretation,  however,  that  when  an  Act  of  Congress
raises  ‘a  serious  doubt’  as  to  its  constitutionality,  ‘this 
Court  will  first  ascertain  whether  a  construction  of  the 
statute  is  fairly  possible  by  which  the  question  may  be
avoided’ ”  (quoting  Crowell  v.  Benson,  285  U. S.  22,  62 
(1932))).

I cannot, therefore, adopt the Court’s interpretation that
§1973gg–4(a)(1)’s  “accept  and  use”  provision  requires
states  to  register  anyone  who  completes  and  submits  the 
form.  Arizona  sets  citizenship  as  a  qualification  to  vote,
and it wishes to verify citizenship, as it is authorized to do 
under  Article  1,  §2.  It  matters  not  whether  the  United 
States  has  specified  one  way  in  which  it  believes  Arizona 
might  be  able  to  verify  citizenship;  Arizona  has  the  inde-
pendent  constitutional  authority  to  verify  citizenship  in 
the  way  it  deems  necessary.    See  in  Part  II–A–2,  supra. 
By  requiring  Arizona  to  register  people  who  have  not 

—————— 

Without  Naming  Electors,  Wall  Street  Journal,  Dec.  15,  2000,  p.  A6.  

Constitutional avoidance is especially appropriate in this area because 

the  NVRA  purports  to  regulate  presidential  elections,  an  area  over  

which the Constitution gives Congress no authority whatsoever.