Listen to the excerpt above to hear the comments by Justice Scalia that Prof. Tolson refers to below. You can hear more excerpts as part of our new AFJ Audio Analysis project. It's on our website here.
By Franita Tolson,
Betty T. Ferguson Professor of Voting Rights at
Florida State University College of Law
Arizona’s Proposition 200 requires prospective voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote in
federal elections. This week, the
Supreme Court heard arguments over whether this law interferes with the
National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”), which requires states to accept the
federal form for voter registration in federal elections. This form requires no additional proof of citizenship
to register to vote beyond certifying under oath that one is a U.S. citizen. Under Arizona law, however, voter
registration forms that are not accompanied by sufficient proof of U.S.
citizenship are rejected.
Prof. Franita Tolson |
Unfortunately, the arguments in the case are premised on the
same erroneous assumption that animates most of the Supreme Court’s election
law jurisprudence—that the states, rather than the federal government, are
sovereign over elections. Justice
Scalia, for example, criticized Arizona’s counsel for not challenging the
federal form given “the refusal…to include on the form as additional State
requirements the proof of citizenship.” Similarly,
Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the conflicting voter registration forms
for state and federal elections are problematic because “you would end up with
two different voter rolls.” At least
implicitly, these justices seem to believe that Congress has to defer to state
voter registration requirements because states normally determine voter
qualifications in all elections; moreover, congressional interference could
lead to administrative chaos.
Despite the presumption underlying these criticisms of the
NVRA, however, the premise of state sovereignty over elections implicitly
embraced by Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts is only partially correct. States are, for the most part, sovereign over
state elections. Yet the Constitution’s Elections Clause, by
its very terms, deprives them of sovereignty over federal elections. According
to the text, states may choose the “Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives,” but this authority is subject to
Congress’s power to “at any time make or alter such Regulations.” The Clause,
with its initial allocation of power to the states, and its subsequent
delegation to Congress of the power to alter state electoral arrangements,
deprives the states of the hallmark of sovereign power: final policymaking
authority. While sovereignty is
certainly not an uncontested concept in law or politics, the finality of an
entity’s decision-making authority is a baseline that the Court has often
looked to in determining what “sovereignty” actually entails. With respect to the Elections Clause, Congress
can preempt state law, thereby retaining the final word on federal elections
while the states lack similar preemptive authority.
Congress’s power to
modify state election laws that govern federal elections should not be understated. The Framers of the Constitution rejected a
congressional negative over all state laws because they believed it would have
sharply limited state sovereignty. The
Elections Clause, in their view, represented a compromise of sorts: it gives
Congress the ability to veto state laws in a very limited but important circumstance—when
the laws apply to federal elections. The Framers feared that the states would try
to cripple the federal government by failing to hold federal elections, and
Congress’s ability to “alter or modify” state laws would prevent this situation
from occurring. Given this history, the
idea that Congress has to demur to state voter registration requirements in the
context of federal elections, as some of the justices presume, is
erroneous. Indeed, the practical reality
of compliance with the NVRA may very well mean that a state has to maintain two
separate voter registration rolls which, although inconvenient, is not
inconsistent with Congress’s authority to demand a separate standard for
federal elections. Similarly, the
federal government can refuse to incorporate additional state qualifications
into its registration form for federal elections. The Elections Clause makes it pretty clear
that Congress, and not the states, has the last word on regulations that affect
federal elections.
Franita Tolson is the Betty T. Ferguson Professor of
Voting Rights at the Florida State University College of Law. Her previous post to this Blog discusses the
oral argument in Shelby County V.
Holder, the case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment