Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

6 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

plained that “reduc[ing] the different qualifications in the 
different  States  to  one  uniform  rule  would  probably  have
been  as  dissatisfactory  to  some  of  the  States  as  it  would 
have been difficult to the convention.”  The Federalist No. 
52, at 323; see also J. Story, Commentaries on the Consti-
tution of the United States 217 (abridged ed. 1833) (same). 
Justice  Story  elaborated  that  setting  voter  qualifications 
in  the  Constitution  could  have  jeopardized  ratification,
because  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  convince  States  to 
give up their right to set voting qualifications.  Id., at 216, 
218–219.  See also Keyssar 306–313 (Tables A.1 and A.2) 
(state-by-state analysis of 18th- and 19th-century voter qual- 
ifications,  including  property,  taxpaying,  residency,  sex, 
and race requirements).

The  Convention,  thus,  chose  to  respect  the  varied  state
voting  rules  and  instead  struck  the  balance  enshrined  in
Article I, §2’s requirement that federal electors “shall have 
the  Qualifications  requisite  for  Electors of  the  most numer-
ous  Branch  of  the  State  Legislature.”  That  compromise
gave  States  free  reign  over  federal  voter  qualifications 
but  protected  Congress  by  prohibiting  States  from  chang-
ing  the  qualifications  for  federal  electors  unless  they  also
altered  qualifications  for  their  own  legislatures.    See  The 
Federalist  No.  52,  at  323.    This  balance  left  the  States 
with nearly complete control over voter qualifications. 

2 
Respondents appear to concede that States have the sole
authority  to  establish  voter  qualifications,  see,  e.g.,  Brief 
for Gonzalez Respondents 63, but nevertheless argue that
Congress  can  determine  whether  those  qualifications  are
satisfied.  See,  e.g.,  id.,  at  61.  The  practical  effect  of  re-
spondents’ position is to read Article I, §2, out of the Con-
stitution.  As the majority correctly recognizes, “the power
to  establish  voting  requirements  is  of  little  value  without
the power to enforce those requirements.”  See ante, at 15.