In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, decided 7-2 in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not demand documentary proof of citizenship from people who registered to vote in federal elections using the federal mail-in form. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, holding that the National Voter Registration Act requires states to “accept and use” that form as submitted, and Arizona’s extra paperwork rule conflicted with that command.1Cornell Law School. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz.
The Arizona Rule at the Center of the Case
Arizona voters passed Proposition 200 in 2004. The measure told county election officials to reject any new voter registration that did not come with tangible evidence of United States citizenship, such as a driver’s license issued after October 1, 1996, a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers, or a tribal enrollment number. People already on the rolls in their county before the law took effect were generally not affected.2Arizona Secretary of State. Arizona Proposition 200 – Section: Analysis by Legislative Council
Supporters framed the requirement as a fraud-prevention measure. The problem was what it meant for applicants using the federal form, which asks for no such documents.
The Federal Form and Its Attestation Model
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 created a uniform mail application, commonly called the Federal Form, for registering voters in elections for federal office.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 U.S.C. § 205055Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 U.S.C. § 20508
Rather than requiring physical documents, the Federal Form asks the applicant to attest to citizenship and other eligibility requirements by signing under penalty of perjury. A false statement can bring federal criminal penalties, including fines and up to five years in prison.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 U.S.C. § 20511 Arizona’s rule, by refusing forms without extra paperwork, layered a documentary requirement on top of that federal design.
Why Federal Law Controlled
The Elections Clause in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution lets state legislatures set the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, but it also lets Congress make or alter those regulations.7U.S. Congress. U.S. Constitution Article I When Congress acts on the manner of federal elections, its rules govern.
Applying that framework, the majority read “accept and use” to mean what it says. A state processing a completed Federal Form for a federal election cannot reject it for missing documents the form itself does not require. The attestation method remains the standard for federal registration nationwide.1Cornell Law School. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz.
What States Can Still Do
The decision left states a route to seek additional verification. A state that wants proof-of-citizenship language added to its instructions on the Federal Form can petition the federal Election Assistance Commission. If the Commission denies the request, the state can challenge that denial in court, where it may try to show the additions are needed to assess eligibility.1Cornell Law School. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz.
The ruling addressed registration for federal elections through the Federal Form. It did not resolve every question about what states may require through their own state registration forms or for state-level contests.