Court Opinion

ID: 9835997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:52:15.403428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:11.351095
License: Public Domain

Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on the ground that appellants have not demonstrated irreparable harm.
*822The Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. recognized that under Article I, § 2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states—not the federal’ government—have the power to establish “voting requirements” in federal elections. - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2247, 2258-59, 186 L.Ed.2d 239 (2013).
The Court also held that it would “raise serious constitutional doubts” if the Election Assistance Commission prevented a state from “enforcing its voter qualifications” and that the Commission may be “under a nondiscretionary duty to include [a state’s proof of citizenship requirements] on the Federal Form.” Id. at 2259-60. That issue is not presented because the Commission’s Executive Director granted the requests of Kansas, Georgia and Alabama to include their requirements on the Federal Form. But the issue would arise if a court issued a final injunction in this case forbidding the Commission from including the states’ requirements.