Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 37

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

13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tions.  See, e.g., Brief for Respondent Inter Tribal Council
of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA) et al. 30–31, 48–50 (hereafter Brief 
for  ITCA  Respondents;  Brief  for  Gonzalez  Respondents
44–50;  Brief  for  United  States  24–27,  31–33.    But  this 
Court  does  not  have  the  power  to  alter  the  terms  of 
the  Constitution.    Moreover,  this  Court’s  decisions  do  not 
support  the  respondents’  and  the  Government’s  position.
Respondents and the United States point out that Smi-
ley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355 (1932), mentioned “registration” 
in  a  list  of  voting-related  subjects  it  believed  Congress
could  regulate  under  Article  I,  §4.    Id.,  at  366  (listing
“notices,  registration,  supervision  of  voting,  protection  of
voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting
of  votes,  duties  of inspectors  and  canvassers,  and  making
and  publication  of  election  returns”  (emphasis  added)). 
See  Brief  for  ITCA  Respondents  49;  Brief  for  Gonzalez 
Respondents  48;  Brief  for  United  States  21.    But  that 
statement  was  dicta  because  Smiley  involved  congres-
sional  redistricting,  not  voter  registration.    285  U. S.,  at 
361–362.  Cases since Smiley have similarly not addressed
the  issue  of  voter  qualifications  but  merely  repeated  the
word “registration” without further analysis.  See Cook v. 
Gralike,  531  U. S.  510,  523  (2001);  Roudebush  v.  Hartke, 
405 U. S. 15, 24 (1972).
  Moreover,  in  Oregon  v.  Mitchell,  400  U. S.  112  (1970), 
a majority of this Court, “took the position that [Article I,
§4,]  did  not  confer  upon  Congress  the  power  to  regulate
voter  qualifications  in  federal  elections,”  as  the  majority
recognizes.  Ante,  at  14,  n.  8.    See  Mitchell,  400  U. S.,  at 
288  (Stewart,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in
part);  id.,  at  210–212  (Harlan,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and
dissenting  in  part);  id.,  at  143  (opinion  of  Douglas,  J.). 
And  even  the  majority’s  decision  in  U. S.  Term  Limits, 
from  which  I  dissented,  recognized  that  Madison’s  Feder-
alist No. 52 “explicitly contrasted the state control over the 
qualifications  of  electors”  with  what  it  believed  was  “the