Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

§1973gg–7(b)(1)  (Federal  Form  “may  require  only”  infor-
mation “necessary to enable the appropriate State election
official to assess the eligibility of the applicant” (emphasis
added));  §1973gg–6(a)(2)  (States  must  require  election
officials to “send notice to each applicant of the disposition
of the application”). 

III 
Arizona  contends,  however,  that  its  construction  of  the 
phrase  “accept  and  use”  is  necessary  to  avoid  a  conflict 
between the NVRA and Arizona’s constitutional authority 
to establish qualifications (such as citizenship) for voting. 
Arizona  is  correct  that  the  Elections  Clause  empowers
Congress  to  regulate  how  federal  elections  are  held,  but 
not who may vote in them.  The Constitution prescribes a
straightforward  rule  for  the  composition  of  the  federal 
electorate.  Article  I,  §2,  cl. 1,  provides  that  electors  in
each  State  for  the  House  of  Representatives  “shall  have
the  Qualifications  requisite  for  Electors  of  the  most  nu-
merous  Branch  of  the  State  Legislature,”  and  the  Seven-
teenth Amendment adopts the same criterion for senatorial
elections.  Cf.  also  Art. II,  §1,  cl. 2  (“Each  State  shall
appoint,  in  such  Manner  as  the  Legislature  thereof  may 
direct,”  presidential  electors).    One  cannot  read  the  Elec-
tions Clause as treating implicitly what these other consti-
tutional provisions regulate explicitly.  “It is difficult to see 
how  words  could  be  clearer  in  stating  what  Congress  can
control  and  what  it  cannot  control.    Surely  nothing  in
these provisions lends itself to the view that voting quali-
fications  in  federal  elections  are  to  be  set  by  Congress.” 
Oregon  v.  Mitchell,  400  U. S.  112,  210  (1970)  (Harlan,  J., 
concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part);  see  also  U. S. 
Term  Limits,  514  U. S.,  at  833–834;  Tashjian  v.  Republi-
can  Party  of  Conn.,  479  U. S.  208,  231–232  (1986)  (Ste-