Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 49

8 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

must also prove that he or she is a citizen or has a qualify-
ing immigration status.  See Application for a Social Secu- 
rity Card, Form SS–5 (2011), http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ 
online/ss-5.pdf.    As  such  examples  illustrate,  when  an 
organization says that it “accepts and uses” an application 
form,  it  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  form  consti-
tutes a complete application.

That  is  not  to  say  that  the  phrase  “accept  and  use”  is 
meaningless  when  issued  as  a  “government  diktat”  in 
§1973gg–4(a)(1).  Ante, at 7.  Arizona could not be said to 
“accept and use” the federal form if it required applicants 
who submit that form to provide all the same information 
a second time on a separate state form.  But Arizona does 
nothing  of  the  kind.  To  the  contrary,  the  entire  basis  for
respondents’  suit  is  that  Proposition  200  mandates  that 
applicants  provide  information  that  does  not  appear  on  a
completed federal form.  Although §1973gg–4(a)(1) forbids 
States  from  requiring  applicants  who  use  the  federal
form to submit a duplicative state form, nothing in that pro- 
vision’s  text  prevents  Arizona  from  insisting  that  federal 
form  applicants  supplement  their  applications  with  addi-
tional information. 

That  understanding  of  §1973gg–4(a)(1)  is  confirmed  by
§1973gg–4(a)(2),  which  allows  States  to  design  and  use
their own voter registration forms “[i]n addition to accept-
ing  and  using”  the  federal  form.  The  Act  clearly  permits
States  to  require  proof  of  citizenship  on  their  own  forms,
see  §§1973gg–4(a)(2)  and  1973gg–7(b)—a  step  that  Ari- 
zona has taken and that today’s decision does not disturb.
Thus,  under  the  Court’s  approach,  whether  someone  can
register  to  vote  in  Arizona  without  providing  proof  of 
citizenship  will  depend  on  the  happenstance  of  which  of
two alternative forms the applicant completes.  That could 
not  possibly  be  what  Congress  intended;  it  is  as  if  the 
Internal  Revenue  Service  issued  two  sets  of  personal
income tax forms with different tax rates.