Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tion  of  the  times,  the  places,  and  the  manner  of  elec-
tions.”  Id., at 369. 

Ratification  debates  in  several  States  echoed  Hamilton’s 
argument.  The North Carolina debates provide a particu-
larly  direct  example.  There,  delegate  John  Steele  relied 
on  the  established  “maxim  of  universal  jurisprudence,  of 
reason  and  common  sense,  that  an  instrument  or  deed  of 
writing  shall  be  construed  as  to  give  validity  to  all  parts 
of it, if it can be done without involving any absurdity” in
support of the argument that Article I, §2’s grant of voter 
qualifications  to  the  States  required  a  limited  reading  of 
Article I, §4.  4 Elliot’s Debates 71. 

This  was  no  isolated  view.    See  2 id.,  at  50–51  (Massa-
chusetts delegate Rufus King observing that “the power of 
control  given  by  [Article  I,  §4,]  extends  to  the  manner  of 
election, not the qualifications of the electors”); 4 id., at 61 
(same, North Carolina’s William Davie); 3 id., at 202–203 
(same, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph); Roger Sher-
man,  A  Citizen  of  New  Haven:  Observations  on  the  New 
Federal  Constitution,  Connecticut  Courant,  Jan.  7,  1788, 
in  15  Documentary  History  282  (J.  Kaminski  &  G.  Sala- 
dino  eds.  1983)  (same);  A  Freeman  [Letter]  II  (Tench  Coxe), 
Pennsylvania Gazette, Jan. 30, 1788, in id., at 508 (same).
It  was  well  understood  that  congressional  power  to  regu-
late  the  “Manner”  of  elections  under  Article  I,  §4,  did  not
include  the  power  to  override  state  voter  qualifications
under Article I, §2. 

3 
The concern that gave rise to Article I, §4, also supports
this  limited  reading.  The  Times,  Places  and  Manner 
Clause was designed to address the possibility that States 
might refuse to hold any federal elections at all, eliminat-
ing  Congress,  and  by  extension  the  Federal  Government.
As  Hamilton  explained,  “every  government  ought  to  con-
tain  in  itself  the  means  of  its  own  preservation.”    The