Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

the  United  States  expressed  the  view  that  the  phrase 
“may  require  only”  in  §1973gg–7(b)(1)  means  that  the 
EAC  “shall  require  information  that’s  necessary,  but  may
only  require  that  information.”  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  52  (em-
phasis added); see also Brief for ITCA Respondents 46; Tr. 
of  Oral  Arg.  37–39  (ITCA  Respondents’  counsel).    That  is 
to  say,  §1973gg–7(b)(1)  acts  as  both  a  ceiling  and  a  floor 
with respect to the contents of the Federal Form.  We need 
not consider the Government’s contention that despite the 
statute’s  statement  that  the  EAC  “may”  require  on  the 
Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appro-
priate State election official to assess the eligibility of the
applicant,”  other  provisions  of  the  Act  indicate  that  such
action  is  statutorily  required.    That  is  because  we  think 
that—by  analogy  to  the  rule  of  statutory  interpretation
that  avoids  questionable  constitutionality—validly  con-
ferred  discretionary  executive  authority  is  properly  exer-
cised  (as  the  Government  has  proposed)  to  avoid  serious 
constitutional doubt.  That is to say, it is surely permissi-
ble  if  not  requisite  for  the  Government  to  say  that  neces-
sary information which may be required will be required. 
Since, pursuant to the Government’s concession, a State
may  request  that  the  EAC  alter  the  Federal  Form  to  in-
clude information the State deems necessary to determine 
eligibility, see §1973gg–7(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 55 (United
States),  and  may  challenge  the  EAC’s  rejection  of  that 
request in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 
see  5  U. S.  C.  §701–706,  no  constitutional  doubt  is  raised 
by  giving  the  “accept  and  use”  provision  of  the  NVRA  its
fairest  reading.  That  alternative  means  of  enforcing  its
constitutional  power  to  determine  voting  qualifications
remains  open  to  Arizona  here.    In  2005,  the  EAC  divided 
2-to-2 on the request by Arizona to include the evidence-of-
citizenship  requirement  among  the  state-specific  instruc-
tions on the Federal Form, App. 225, which meant that no
action could be taken, see 42 U. S. C. §15328 (“Any action