Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc. (12-71)

argument 12-71

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 3m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twelve seventy one, Arizona versus the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. General Horn.

Tom Horne 0:10

Thank you, Mr. Uh Mr Chief Justice and may it please the Court The NVRA should not be construed to preempt Arizona's Proposition two hundred for three reasons. First Prohibiting a state from effectively enforcing the citizenship requirement is so far reaching that if Congress had intended that, it would have put the prohibition in the statute expressly, which it did not do. Congressional silence should not disable states from taking sensible precautions to exclude non citizens from voting. Second. When Congress wanted to expressly prohibit something, it knew how to do it. It expressly prohibited notarisation and other forms of authentication. This court has frequently held that statutory language That indicates that

Tom Horne 1:00

Prohibits one thing. indicates there is no other implicit prohibition. the expressio unius rule. Third. Proposition two hundred is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the N VRA. Because the purpose of the and

Elena Kagan 1:16

If I see the purpose of the NVRA to simplify registration.

Tom Horne 1:23

Yes,

Elena Kagan 1:23

but how is Arizona's provisions consistent with that objective and purpose? Given that some of the amica I explained that many people don't have the documents that Arizona requires.

Tom Horne 1:39

Yes, Your Honor. First of all, the simplifying the procedure is one of two important purposes of the N VRA. The other is the integrity of the system.

Elena Kagan 1:48

Well why does one take precedence over another?

Tom Horne 1:51

Um I I would say, Your Honor, that neither takes precedence over the other. They're both equally important. Um and so

Elena Kagan 1:57

if something you do conflicts with one of those purposes, why isn't it preempted by the federal law.

Tom Horne 2:04

Your Honor, I think the the the question is, if you take the two purposes together, does the the Proposition two hundred strongly fulfill one and have a minimal burden on the other? And Your Honor, I would rely on the findings of the of the District Court in this case. Um in fact, this court instructed the Ninth Circuit to defer to the factual findings of the district court in the Purcell case, which was this case in an earlier stage.

Elena Kagan 2:29

Why would you think that Congress in doing the short form registration didn't consider the issue of fraud and decide that it had arrived at the balance it wanted.

Tom Horne 2:41

Um because Your Honor, the the Congress did not specify what the states could or could not do.

Unknown 2:47

But it did but Congress did specify how citizenship was to be handled and it was to be an attestation assigned attestation subject Two to the penalty of perjury. So it's not as though The federal form didn't relate to citizenship, it did and it said this is the way we deal with citizenship. then Arizona adds something else. So I would like um General Horn for you to respond to a question that's already been raised in by No The panel that decided this case originally, which was the statute said says each state must accept and use the federal form. Period. That's the end of it. And then it says In addition to that, the state can do other things. The judge who asked that question thought it was perfectly clear.

Unknown 3:49

You use the federal form. Then if you want to do something in addition. But you must use and accept the federal form and not add something to it.

Tom Horne 4:01

Yes, Your Honor. I think it's very clear that this statute does not say the signature is the only thing that the states can use to verify the eligibility of the applicant. Now in in using the term ac accept and use, Your Honour, Um accept and use in ordinary language, we've given lots of examples in our briefs. One can accept and use a form for a particular purpose. without that form being sufficient to accomplish that purpose. Um I came here from Arizona on an airplane. If the airline said we accept and use an an email ticket, you don't need to bring a paper ticket. Um and then I got there and they said we want to see uh identification to prove that you are who you say you are. That would not contradict the statement that they are accepting and using the e ticket.