October Term 2012 · Docket 12-71

Can Arizona require proof of citizenship on federal voter forms?

Arizona demands documentary proof of citizenship. Federal law mandates a simple signed attestation. The conflict centers on state authority versus federal preemption.

Official caption
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Arizona argues the National Voter Registration Act does not preempt Proposition 200.

    The state claims Congress did not expressly prohibit state enforcement of citizenship rules.

    The Inter Tribal Council argues the federal form streamlines the registration process.

    The challengers assert federal law preempts state-added documentary requirements.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute involves the National Voter Registration Act. Arizona enacted Proposition 200. This measure requires documentary proof of citizenship. Federal law requires a signed attestation. The state argues federal law does not preempt its stricter rule. The challengers argue federal law preempts the state requirement.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 18, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Arizona wants to enforce its documentary proof requirement on federal forms.

The Inter Tribal Council wants to invalidate the state documentary proof requirement.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Arizona argues Congress did not expressly prohibit state enforcement of citizenship requirements.

The Inter Tribal Council argues federal law streamlines registration and preempts state additions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why one requirement takes precedence over another.

Justice Scalia asked why the state did not challenge the federal form directly.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between state and federal voter registration authority. It determines whether states can impose stricter citizenship documentation rules. This affects the uniformity of federal voter registration processes nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON