Courtesy of Hans von Spakovsky.

ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC.
Scalia delivered the opinion in which Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kennedy (in part) joined, affirming the 9th Circuit. The Court held that an Arizona statute requiring rejection of federal voter registration forms that are submitted without proof of citizenship is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act. The NVRA requires states to “accept and use” the federal form. This is well within Congress’s power to specify the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, which includes regulations relating to registration. This does not prevent Arizona from using a state voter registration form with a proof of citizenship requirement or stop the state from denying registration based on information in its possession establishing ineligibility. Arizona can also request that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which regulates the federal form, include a state-specific instruction for Arizona including the proof of citizenship requirement. Arizona could then sue the EAC under the Administrative Practice Act if the EAC refuses to include the instruction, claiming such a decision is arbitrary, particularly since the EAC approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants without a driver’s licenses, ID card, or social security number to attach additional documentation to the completed federal form. Thomas filed a dissenting opinion arguing that while Arizona must accept and use the form as part of its registration process, the state is free to request whatever additional information is necessary to determine the qualifications of a voter. Alito also dissented that the Court misreads an ambiguous statute and interferes with the constitutional power of states to determine the qualifications of voters.