Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.

Background

A group of Arizona residents and nonprofit groups sued over Proposition 200, which requires people registering to vote to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires States to accept and use a single federal registration form made by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Federal Form asks applicants to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens but does not require documentary proof. Arizona directed officials to reject any Federal Form not accompanied by such proof; the dispute reached this Court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the NVRA’s command that States "accept and use" the Federal Form pre-empts Arizona’s rule requiring additional documentary proof. The Court held that "accept and use" means the Federal Form must be accepted as sufficient for federal registration and that Arizona may not demand extra documentary evidence from Federal Form applicants. The majority explained that Elections Clause statutes can displace state rules and declined to apply the usual presumption against pre-emption. It also said States may deny registration when they already have reliable information showing an applicant is ineligible, and that Arizona can ask the EAC to add state-specific instructions and seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Real world impact

The ruling means people who complete and submit the Federal Form generally cannot be forced by Arizona to attach passports, birth certificates, or other documentary proof just to register for federal elections. Election officials must accept the Federal Form as sufficient for federal registration, though States may still use their own forms that require evidence. Arizona and other States may try to change the Federal Form through the EAC or challenge agency inaction in court.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissenters (Justices Thomas and Alito) said the Court’s reading threatens States’ constitutional authority to set voter qualifications and would allow Arizona to require proof; Justice Kennedy agreed with the judgment but disagreed with the majority’s view on the pre-emption presumption.