By: Bob Davis

Bob Davis — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:48:23 +0000

I am reminded that Churchill found it necessary to remind the British people that Dunkirk was a defeat, not a victory. I may be wrong, but this is my understanding of the decision. The NVRA preempted the ability of the state to set voter qualifications for voting in all federal elections. Arizona was left free to set voter qualifications for all state
elections. This was the bow to federalism by the court. The federal registration form may be kept "in the back room gathering dust" here, but it must be used exclusively when it comes to federal elections. Originally the states set all voting requirements. It is only remotely possible that the constitution would have been approved by the states had the provision for voting been otherwise.

If Arizona sets different qualifications for voting in state elections, it would necessitate two separate lists of qualified voters, separate ballots for state and federal elections etc. In other words it would be a costly administrative nightmare for the states. The same option for the states has come up previously, with the poll tax or 18 year old vote (can't remember which), and it was generally agreed that the states, as a practical matter, would never find separate registration lists a viable option. It is interesting to look at the difference in wording between the 24th and 26th Amendments.

In sum, the decision does violence to federalism, and ought to have been decided differently as Thomas and Alito argued.

Comments on: Ooops, maybe Arizona wasn’t a “victory” after all

By: Bob Davis