Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

14 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

vens, J., dissenting).8 

Prescribing  voting  qualifications,  therefore,  “forms  no 
part  of  the  power  to  be  conferred  upon  the  national  gov-
ernment”  by  the  Elections  Clause,  which  is  “expressly
restricted  to  the  regulation  of  the  times,  the  places,  and 
the  manner  of  elections.”    The  Federalist  No.  60,  at  371 
(A. Hamilton);  see  also  id.,  No.  52,  at  326  (J. Madison).
This  allocation  of  authority  sprang  from  the  Framers’ 
aversion  to  concentrated  power.    A  Congress  empowered
to  regulate  the  qualifications  of  its  own  electorate,  Madi-
son  warned,  could  “by  degrees  subvert  the  Constitution.”
2  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787,  p.  250 
(M. Farrand  rev.  1966).    At  the  same  time,  by  tying  the 
federal  franchise  to  the  state  franchise  instead  of  simply 
placing it within the unfettered discretion of state legisla-
tures, the Framers avoided “render[ing] too dependent on 
the  State  governments  that  branch  of  the  federal  govern-
—————— 

8 In  Mitchell,  the  judgment  of  the  Court  was  that  Congress  could 
compel the States to permit 18-year-olds to vote in federal elections.  Of 
the five Justices who concurred in that outcome, only Justice Black was 
of the view that congressional power to prescribe this age qualification
derived  from  the  Elections  Clause,  400  U. S.,  at  119–125,  while  four 
Justices  relied  on  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  id.,  at  144  (opinion  of
Douglas,  J.),  231  (joint  opinion  of  Brennan,  White,  and  Marshall,  JJ.).
That result, which lacked a majority rationale, is of minimal preceden-
tial value here.  See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 66 
(1996);  Nichols  v.  United  States,  511  U. S.  738,  746  (1994);  H. Black, 
Handbook  on  the  Law  of  Judicial  Precedents  135–136  (1912).    Five 
Justices took the position that the Elections Clause did not confer upon
Congress the power to regulate voter qualifications in federal elections. 
Mitchell, supra, at 143 (opinion of Douglas, J.), 210 (opinion of Harlan, 
J.), 288 (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun,
J.).    (Justices  Brennan,  White,  and  Marshall  did  not  address  the 
Elections  Clause.)    This  last  view,  which  commanded  a  majority  in 
Mitchell, underlies our analysis here.  See also U. S. Term Limits, 514 
U. S.,  at  833.    Five  Justices  also  agreed  that  the  Fourteenth  Amend-
ment  did  not  empower  Congress  to  impose  the  18-year-old-voting 
mandate.  See  Mitchell,  supra,  at  124–130  (opinion  of  Black,  J.),  155 
(opinion of Harlan, J.), 293–294 (opinion of Stewart, J.).