## Facts

- Arizona voters enacted Proposition 200 (2004), which required documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and identification at the polls.
- The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to “accept and use” a uniform Federal Form for voter registration in federal elections.
- The Federal Form requires applicants to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury but does not require documentary proof of citizenship.
- Arizona election officials applied Proposition 200 to reject Federal Form applications lacking documentary proof of citizenship.
- Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and others challenged the proof-of-citizenship requirement as conflicting with the NVRA and federal election law.
- The Ninth Circuit held the NVRA preempted Arizona’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement as applied to Federal Form applicants, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the NVRA’s command that states “accept and use” the Federal Form preempts Arizona’s requirement of documentary proof of citizenship for applicants using that form.
2. How the Elections Clause allocation of authority between states and Congress affects preemption of state regulations governing federal election registration.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement as applied to applicants who register for federal elections using the Federal Form.
- The Court construed “accept and use” to require states to treat the Federal Form as sufficient for federal registration when properly completed.
- The Court explained that Arizona may pursue additional citizenship-related instructions through the NVRA’s administrative mechanism by requesting that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) modify the Federal Form, with possible judicial review if the request is denied.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Elections Clause, Congress may “make or alter” state regulations governing the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, including voter registration procedures, and may displace conflicting state rules.
- The NVRA’s requirement that states “accept and use” the Federal Form bars states from conditioning federal registration on additional documentary requirements beyond what the Federal Form demands.
- States retain authority to set voter qualifications (including citizenship), but federal law may control the registration mechanism through which those qualifications are implemented for federal elections.
- When a state contends that the Federal Form does not provide sufficient means to enforce state voter-qualification rules, the NVRA channels relief through the EAC request process rather than unilateral state alteration of the Federal Form’s requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the NVRA requires states to register eligible applicants who properly complete the Federal Form without demanding documentary proof of citizenship, while leaving states to enforce voter qualifications through methods consistent with the federal registration scheme and the NVRA’s EAC process.


Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013)