Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ARIZONA ET AL. v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF 

ARIZONA, INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 12–71.  Argued March 18, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires States to
“accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal 
elections.  42  U. S. C.  §1973gg–4(a)(1).    That  “Federal  Form,”  devel-
oped by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires 
only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a cit-
izen.  Arizona  law,  however,  requires  voter-registration  officials  to
“reject”  any  application  for  registration,  including  a  Federal  Form,
that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.  Re-
spondents,  a  group  of  individual  Arizona  residents  and  a  group  of 
nonprofit organizations, sought to enjoin that Arizona law.  Ultimate-
ly,  the  District  Court  granted  Arizona  summary  judgment  on  re-
spondents’  claim  that  the  NVRA  pre-empts  Arizona’s  requirement.  
The  Ninth  Circuit  affirmed  in  part  but  reversed  as  relevant  here, 
holding  that  the  state  law’s  documentary-proof-of-citizenship  re-
quirement is pre-empted by the NVRA.   

Held: Arizona’s  evidence-of-citizenship  requirement,  as  applied  to  Fed-
eral  Form  applicants,  is  pre-empted  by  the  NVRA’s  mandate  that
States “accept and use” the Federal Form.  Pp. 4–18.

(a) The  Elections  Clause  imposes  on  States  the  duty  to  prescribe
the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  electing  Representatives  and  Sena-
tors,  but  it  confers  on  Congress  the  power  to  alter  those  regulations
or  supplant  them  altogether.  See  U. S.  Term  Limits,  Inc.  v. 
Thornton,  514  U. S.  779,  804–805.    This  Court  has  said  that  the 
terms  “Times,  Places,  and  Manner”  “embrace  authority  to  provide  a
complete  code  for  congressional  elections,”  including  regulations  re-
lating to “registration.”  Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366.  Pp. 4–6.

(b) Because  “accept  and  use”  are  words  “that  can  have  more  than