Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

not constitutional avoidance. 

Even  if  the  EAC  were  a  going  concern  instead  of  an 
empty  shell,  I  disagree  with  the  majority’s  application  of
the  constitutional  avoidance  canon.  I  would  not  require
Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements
from  the  Federal  Government,  for,  as  I  have  shown,  the 
Federal  Government  does  not  have  the  constitutional 
authority to withhold such approval.  Accordingly, it does
not  have  the  authority  to  command  States  to  seek  it.    As 
a  result,  the  majority’s  proposed  solution  does  little  to
avoid  the  serious  constitutional  problems  created  by  its
interpretation. 

* 

* 

* 
Instead  of  adopting  respondents’  definition  of  “accept
and  use”  and  offering  Arizona  the  dubious  recourse  of 
bringing  an  APA  challenge  within  the  NVRA  framework,
I  would  adopt  an  interpretation  of  §1973gg–4(a)(1)  that 
avoids  the  constitutional  problems  with  respondents’  in-
terpretation.    The  States,  not  the  Federal  Government, 
have  the  exclusive  right  to  define  the  “Qualifications
requisite for Electors,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, which 
includes  the  corresponding  power  to  verify  that  those 
qualifications have been met.  I would, therefore, hold that 
Arizona may “reject any application for registration that is 
not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States 
citizenship,”  as  defined  by  Arizona  law.    Ariz.  Rev.  Stat. 
Ann. §16–166(F).

I respectfully dissent.