Voting Rights and Democracy

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona involved a challenge to Arizona’s Proposition 200, which required citizens seeking to register to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of citizenship.

Case Summary

Plaintiffs argued that Proposition 200 violated the National Voter Registration Act, which requires that states “accept and use” the Federal Form for mail-in voter registration, a form that requires an individual to attest under penalty of perjury that he or she is a citizen but does not require documentary proof of citizenship.   The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that Arizona’s requirement was pre-empted by the NVRA.  The Supreme Court granted Arizona’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

On January 22, 2012, Constitutional Accountability Center, together with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of prominent constitutional law professors, including Pulitzer Prize winning historian Jack Rakove, urging the Justices to strike down the Arizona law.  As we demonstrated in our brief, the text and history of the Elections Clause explicitly empower Congress to “make or alter” state election law through federal laws exactly like the NVRA in order to protect the right to vote in federal elections.  When Congress acts under the Elections Clause, the very point is to displace state laws, such as Arizona’s effort to impose additional obstacles to registering to vote.

On June 17, 2013, in a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held, as we had urged, that Arizona’s requirement that a citizen provide satisfactory documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections was preempted by federal law.  As our brief argued, the Court held that the only purpose of the Elections Clause is to displace state laws, and therefore Congress should be presumed to have displaced states when it acts.  Justice Scalia’s majority opinion (joined also by Chief Justice Roberts, among others) emphasized the broad substantive scope of the Clause, explaining that it provides Congress with the “comprehensive” and “paramount” power to regulate the mechanics of federal elections, including voter registration.  At a time when states are looking for new ways to suppress the vote, the Supreme Court’s opinion is an important reaffirmation of congressional power to protect the right to vote in federal elections.  Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, and would have upheld the Arizona law.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
----- District Courts -----

Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute

In Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, the Florida District Court of Appeals is considering whether a congressional map diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians in violation of the Florida Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 13, 2023

US Supreme Court may make it harder to prove racial gerrymandering

Reuters
WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the verge of...
By: David H. Gans, John Kruzel
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 11, 2023

RELEASE: At Supreme Court Oral Argument This Morning, Justices Debated A Textbook Case of Racial Gerrymandering

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Alexander v....
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 10, 2023

Supreme Court to hear arguments on use of race in South Carolina congressional map

Roll Call
A lower court said district lines violated the Fourteenth Amendment
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2023

Friend or Foe: Amicus Briefs In SCOTUS Case Over South Carolina Congressional Map

Democracy Docket
On Oct. 11, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Alexander v. South Carolina...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Alexander v. The South Carolina Conference of the NAACP

In Alexander v. The South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court is considering whether South Carolina’s District 1 is a racial gerrymander and was designed with a racially discriminatory purpose, thereby violating the...