Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 36

12 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Federalist No. 59, at 360 (emphasis deleted); see also U. S. 
Term Limits, Inc., 514 U. S., at 863 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing) (Article I, §4, designed “to ensure that the States hold 
congressional elections in the first place, so that Congress
continues  to  exist”);  id.,  at  863,  and  n.  10  (same,  citing 
ratification  era  sources).    Reflecting  this  understanding
of the reasoning behind Article I, §4, many of the original
13 States proposed constitutional amendments that would 
have strictly cabined the Times, Places and Manner Clause
to  situations  in  which  state  failure  to  hold  elections 
threatened  the  continued  existence  of  Congress.    See  2 
Elliot’s  Debates  177  (Massachusetts);  18  Documentary 
History  71–72 
(J.  Kaminski  &  G.  Saladino  eds.  1995) 
(South  Carolina);  id.,  at  187–188  (New  Hampshire);  3
Elliot’s  Debates  661  (Virginia);  Ratification  of  the  Constitu-
tion  by  the  State  of  New  York  (July  26,  1788)  (New  York),
online  at  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp 
(all Internet materials as visited June 6, 2013, and availa-
ble  in  Clerk  of  Court’s  case  file);  4  Elliot’s  Debates  249 
(North  Carolina);  Ratification  of  the  Constitution  by  the
State  of  Rhode  Island  (May  29,  1790)  (Rhode  Island),  online 
at  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratri.asp. 
  Al- 
though  these  amendments  were  never  enacted,  they  un-
derscore  how  narrowly  the  ratification  conventions  con-
strued Congress’ power under the Times, Places and Man-
ner  Clause.  In  contrast  to  a  state  refusal  to  hold  federal 
elections  at  all,  a  state  decision  to  alter  the  qualifica- 
tions  of  electors  for  state  legislature  (and  thereby  for 
federal elections as well) does not threaten Congress’ very
existence. 

C 
Finding no support in the historical record, respondents
and  the  United  States  instead  chiefly  assert  that  this
Court’s  precedents  involving  the  Times,  Places  and  Man-
ner  Clause  give  Congress  authority  over  voter  qualifica-