Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 43

2 

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC. 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

ter  the  applicant  without  requiring  proof  of  citizenship. 
But the Court does not question Arizona’s authority under 
another provision of the NVRA, §1973gg–4(a)(2), to create
its  own  application  form  that  demands  proof  of  citizen- 
ship;  nor  does  the  Court  dispute  Arizona’s  right  to  refuse
to register an applicant who submits that form without the 
requisite  proof.  I  find  it  very  hard  to  believe  that  this  is
what Congress had in mind. 

These  results  are  not  required  by  the  NVRA.    Proper
respect  for  the  constitutional  authority  of  the  States  de-
mands  a  clear  indication  of  a  congressional  intent  to  pre-
empt state laws enforcing voter qualifications.  And while 
the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Act  are  hardly  models  of
clarity,  their  best  reading  is  that  the  States  need  not 
treat  the  federal  form  as  a  complete  voter  registration 
application. 

I 

A 

In  light  of  the  States’  authority  under  the  Elections
Clause  of  the  Constitution,  Art.  I,  §4,  cl. 1,  I  would  begin
by  applying  a  presumption  against  pre-emption  of  the 
Arizona  law  requiring  voter  registration  applicants  to
submit  proof  of  citizenship.    Under  the  Elections  Clause, 
the States have the authority to specify the times, places, 
and  manner  of  federal  elections  except  to  the  extent  that 
Congress chooses to provide otherwise.  And in recognition
of this allocation of authority, it is appropriate to presume 
that  the  States  retain  this  authority  unless  Congress  has
clearly  manifested  a  contrary  intent.    The  Court  states 
that “[w]e have never mentioned [the presumption against 
pre-emption]  in  our  Elections  Clause  cases,”  ante,  at  10, 
but in United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476 (1917), we
read  a  federal  statute  narrowly  out  of  deference  to  the 
States’ traditional authority in this area.  In doing so, we
explained that “the policy of Congress for [a] great . . . part