Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 38

14 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

lack of state control over the qualifications of the elected.” 
514 U. S., at 806 (emphasis added).  Most of the remaining
cases  cited  by  respondents  and  the  Government  merely 
confirm  that  Congress’  power  to  regulate  the  “Manner 
of  holding  Elections”  is  limited  to  regulating  events  sur-
rounding  the  when,  where,  and  how  of  actually  casting 
ballots.  See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Classic,  313  U. S.  299 
(1941)  (upholding  federal  regulation  of  ballot  fraud  in
primary voting); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 (1884) 
(upholding  federal  penalties  for  intimidating  voter  in
congressional  election);  see  also  Foster  v.  Love,  522  U. S. 
67  (1997)  (overturning  Louisiana  primary  system  whose 
winner  was  deemed  elected  if  he  received  a  majority  of
votes  in  light  of  federal  law  setting  the  date  of  federal 
general  elections);  Roudebush,  supra  (upholding  Indiana 
ballot recount procedures in close Senate election as within 
state  power  under  Article  I,  §4).  It  is,  thus,  difficult  to 
maintain that the Times, Places and Manner Clause gives 
Congress  power  beyond  regulating  the  casting  of  ballots
and related activities, even as a matter of precedent.2 

—————— 

2 Article I, §§2 and 4, and the Seventeenth Amendment concern con-
gressional elections.  The NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement applies 
to  all  federal  elections,  even  presidential  elections.    See  §1973gg– 
4(a)(1).  This  Court  has  recognized,  however,  that  “the  state  legisla-
ture’s power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors
is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.”  Bush v. Gore, 
531  U. S.  98,  104  (2000)  (per  curiam)  (citing  U. S.  Const.,  Art. II,  §1, 
and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892)).  As late as 1824, six 
State Legislatures chose electoral college delegates, and South Carolina 
continued  to  follow  this  model  through  the  1860  election.    1  Guide  to 
U. S. Elections 821 (6th ed. 2010).  Legislatures in Florida in 1868 and 
Colorado in 1876 chose delegates, id., at 822, and in recent memory, the
Florida Legislature in 2000 convened a special session to consider how 
to  allocate  its  25  electoral  votes  if  the  winner  of  the  popular  vote  was 
not  determined  in  time  for  delegates  to  participate  in  the  electoral
college,  see  James,  Election  2000:  Florida  Legislature  Faces  Own
Disputes  over  Electors,  Wall  Street  Journal,  Dec.  11,  2000,  p.  A16, 
though  it  ultimately  took  no  action.    See  Florida’s  Senate  Adjourns