Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Does the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 preempt Arizona's state law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form?
The Decision
7-2 decision · Opinion by Antonin Scalia · 2013
Majority Opinion— Antonin Scaliaconcurring ↓dissent ↓
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held that the NVRA preempted Arizona's requirement that voter registration applicants submit documentary proof of citizenship when using the Federal Form. The Court concluded that when Congress told states they must 'accept and use' the Federal Form, it meant that the form — which requires only an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury — must be accepted as sufficient on its own to register a person to vote in federal elections. Arizona's insistence on additional documents effectively rejected the Federal Form, which conflicted with the NVRA's mandate.
The majority grounded its analysis in the Elections Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1), which gives Congress the authority to 'make or alter' state regulations concerning the 'Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections' for Congress. Justice Scalia emphasized that this clause gives the federal government uniquely broad power over state election rules — broader than the ordinary federal preemption power. When Congress exercises this authority, conflicting state laws must yield. The Court found that the NVRA was a valid exercise of this power and that its 'accept and use' language left no room for Arizona to layer on additional requirements.
Importantly, however, the majority did not entirely shut the door on Arizona. The Court noted that Arizona had the option of requesting that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — the federal agency that maintains the Federal Form — modify the form's state-specific instructions to include Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement. If the EAC refused, Arizona could seek judicial review of that decision. This procedural avenue, the Court suggested, was the proper way for Arizona to pursue its interest in verifying citizenship, rather than unilaterally adding requirements that contradict the federal form.
The majority also acknowledged the states' constitutional authority to establish voter qualifications, including citizenship. But it drew a careful line: while states set the qualifications, Congress has broad power under the Elections Clause to regulate the procedures and manner by which those qualifications are verified during the registration process. The NVRA's chosen method — a sworn attestation under penalty of perjury — was Congress's prerogative to impose.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion in full but also wrote a brief concurrence emphasizing that the case should not be read to suggest that Congress has unlimited power to override all state voter registration requirements, and underscoring that the states retain significant authority over voter qualifications. He cautioned that the federal-state balance in election administration requires ongoing vigilance.
Dissenting Opinions
Clarence Thomas
Justice Thomas argued that the Elections Clause grants Congress power only over the manner of holding elections — meaning the mechanics of voting itself — and does not extend to voter registration, which he viewed as closely tied to the states' exclusive power to determine voter qualifications. He contended that Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement was an exercise of the state's sovereign authority to ensure that only qualified voters appear on its rolls.
- The original understanding of the Elections Clause's 'Manner' of holding elections referred to things like the time and place of voting, the use of ballots, and similar procedural mechanics — not voter registration or the verification of voter qualifications.
- Voter registration is fundamentally about determining who is qualified to vote, a power the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states, and Congress cannot use the Elections Clause to override state choices about how to verify those qualifications.
- The majority's reading gives Congress virtually unlimited power to control who ends up on state voter rolls, effectively nullifying the states' role in setting and enforcing voter qualifications.
Samuel Alito
Justice Alito argued that the NVRA's instruction to 'accept and use' the Federal Form should be read more modestly — to mean that states must accept the form as a valid registration document and process it, but not that they are barred from also requiring supplemental proof of eligibility such as documentary evidence of citizenship.
- The phrase 'accept and use' most naturally means that states cannot refuse to handle the Federal Form, but it does not mean that the form alone must be treated as sufficient proof of eligibility without any supplemental verification.
- Reading the NVRA to forbid states from verifying citizenship through documentation creates a serious constitutional problem, because it effectively prevents states from exercising their recognized power to enforce the citizenship qualification for voting.
- The Court should have adopted a narrower reading of the statute to avoid this constitutional tension, consistent with the principle that federal statutes should be interpreted to preserve, rather than undermine, the traditional authority of the states.
Background & Facts
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a ballot initiative that, among other things, required anyone registering to vote in Arizona to provide documentary proof of United States citizenship. Acceptable documents included a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization documents, or other similar evidence. This was a significant departure from the system established by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), a federal law that created a standardized mail-in voter registration form — commonly known as the 'Federal Form.' The Federal Form required applicants to affirm under penalty of perjury that they were U.S. citizens, but it did not require them to attach any documentary proof of that claim.
The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, along with other organizations and individual voters, challenged Proposition 200's proof-of-citizenship requirement, arguing that it conflicted with and was preempted by the NVRA. The challengers contended that Arizona could not pile additional requirements on top of the Federal Form, which Congress had designed to be a simple, accessible way for Americans to register to vote in federal elections. Arizona countered that it had a sovereign right to determine the qualifications of its own voters and to take reasonable steps to prevent noncitizens from registering.
The case had a lengthy journey through the lower courts. A federal district court initially refused to block Arizona's law. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which — sitting as a full eleven-judge panel (en banc) — ultimately ruled in favor of the challengers. The Ninth Circuit held that the NVRA preempted Arizona's documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement as applied to the Federal Form, because the federal statute required states to 'accept and use' the Federal Form, and Arizona's added requirement was inconsistent with that mandate.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because it raised fundamental questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states over voter registration for federal elections, and because the proper interpretation of the NVRA's 'accept and use' provision had significant implications for election administration across the country.
The Arguments
Arizona argued that its requirement for documentary proof of citizenship was a permissible exercise of the state's constitutional authority to establish voter qualifications. The state maintained that the NVRA did not strip states of the power to verify that registrants actually meet the eligibility requirements — including citizenship — that both federal and state constitutions impose.
- The Constitution reserves to the states the power to set voter qualifications, including citizenship, and Proposition 200 was a reasonable means of enforcing that qualification.
- The NVRA's requirement that states 'accept and use' the Federal Form means only that states must receive the form, not that they must treat it as the sole and complete application for registration.
- Allowing registration based solely on an applicant's unverified attestation of citizenship, without documentary proof, undermines election integrity and invites fraud.
The Inter Tribal Council argued that Congress, exercising its broad power under the Elections Clause, enacted the NVRA to create a streamlined and uniform voter registration process, and that Arizona's additional documentary requirement was preempted because it effectively rejected the sufficiency of the Federal Form.
- The NVRA's command that states 'accept and use' the Federal Form means states must treat it as a complete and sufficient registration application, without demanding additional documentation not required by the form itself.
- The Elections Clause gives Congress sweeping authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections, which includes the power to set rules for voter registration procedures.
- Arizona's added requirement disproportionately burdened eligible voters — particularly Native Americans, the elderly, and the poor — who may lack easy access to documentary proof of citizenship, thereby frustrating the NVRA's purpose of increasing voter participation.