State Authority Over Election Administration and Federal Preemption

Election administration in the United States operates under a system of shared federal and state authority. The Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) grants state legislatures the primary authority to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, but reserves to Congress the power to "make or alter such Regulations." The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, along with federal statutes such as the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, impose additional constraints on state election authority. Arizona has been at the center of several landmark cases defining the boundaries between federal and state election power.

Arizona has pursued a number of election administration measures that have generated legal controversy. The state enacted a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, which was partially invalidated by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013) as applied to the federal voter registration form. Arizona subsequently established a dual registration system, with one set of rules for voters who register using the federal form and another for voters who use the state form. The state has also enacted legislation governing mail-in ballot procedures, ballot drop boxes, and election equipment certification, some of which has been challenged in court.

The Elections Clause grants Congress broad authority to regulate federal elections, and when Congress exercises this authority, it preempts conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council held that the National Voter Registration Act's requirement that states "accept and use" the federal voter registration form preempted Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement as applied to federal registrations, because the federal form requires only an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury rather than documentary proof. However, the Court left open the possibility that Arizona could seek to have the Election Assistance Commission add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal form and preserved the state's ability to require proof of citizenship for registration in state and local elections.

The dual registration system that Arizona implemented in response to Inter Tribal Council creates two classes of voters: those who registered with the federal form (eligible to vote in federal elections only) and those who registered with the state form and provided proof of citizenship (eligible to vote in both federal and state elections). This system has been challenged as creating an unequal burden on voters and as violating the Equal Protection Clause, but courts have generally upheld it on the ground that Arizona has a legitimate interest in ensuring that only citizens vote in state elections.

The Moore v. Harper decision addressed the independent state legislature theory, which posited that the Elections Clause grants state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules, free from oversight by state courts applying state constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court rejected the strongest version of this theory, holding that state courts retain the authority to review election laws for compliance with state constitutions. However, the Court also indicated that federal courts may review whether state courts have exceeded their traditional role in interpreting state election law, suggesting some outer boundary on state judicial authority in the election context.

Arizona retains significant authority over election administration, including the ability to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration, to regulate mail-in ballot procedures and drop box availability, and to oversee election equipment certification. However, this authority is constrained by federal statutes, including the NVRA and the VRA, and by constitutional provisions, including the Equal Protection Clause and the Elections Clause. The state should ensure that its election administration measures comply with both federal and state requirements, and should be prepared to defend challenged provisions with evidence demonstrating that they serve legitimate state interests without imposing undue burdens on the right to vote.

This opinion guides county election officials, the Secretary of State's office, and the legislature in navigating the complex federal-state framework for election administration. Election officials should understand the differences between federal and state registration requirements and should implement procedures to ensure that voters are properly registered for the elections in which they are eligible to participate. Voting rights organizations should monitor the implementation of Arizona's dual registration system and other election administration measures for compliance with federal law. Election law attorneys should be prepared for ongoing litigation over Arizona's election procedures and should monitor developments at the Supreme Court that may further define the boundaries of state election authority.