NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States KRIS W. KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State; MICHELE REAGAN, Arizona Secretary of State; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Mark Brnovich Kris W. Kobach Attorney General Secretary of State John R. Lopez IV Counsel of Record Solicitor General Kansas Secretary of State’s Office Paula S. Bickett 120 S.W. 10th Avenue Chief Counsel, Civil Appeals Topeka, Kansas 66612 Arizona Attorney General’s Office (785) 296-4564 1275 West Washington Street [email protected] Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-3333 Jeffrey A. Chanay Chief Deputy Attorney General Dwight Carswell Assistant Solicitor General Kansas Attorney General’s Office 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Counsel for Petitioners Topeka, KS 66612 (785) 296-2215 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The court of appeals held that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) did not abuse its discretion in denying Arizona’s and Kansas’s requests that the EAC modify the federal mail voter registration form (“Federal Form”) to include their state law requirements that registration applicants provide evidence of citizenship in the state-specific instructions that accompany the Federal Form. The questions presented are the following: 1. Whether Article I, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require the EAC to defer to the States’ determination that provision of documentary evidence of citizenship is necessary to enforce the States’ voter qualifications. 2. Whether Article I, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permit a dual voter rolls system in which some voters who are qualified to vote for federal office holders are not also qualified to vote for those “in the most numerous branch of the state legislature.” ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are the State of Kansas, the State of Arizona, the Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, and the Arizona Secretary of State,1 and were the plaintiffs-appellees in the court below. Respondents, the United States Election Assistance Commission and the acting Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the United States Election Assistance Commission Alice Miller, were defendants-appellants in the court below. Respondents, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; Steve Gallardo; Project Vote, Inc.; League of Women Voters of the United States; League of Women Voters of Arizona; League of Women Voters of Kansas; Valle del Sol; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Common Cause; Chicanos por La Causa, Inc.; Debra Lopez, were defendant intervenors-appellants in the court below. 1 Michele Reagan is the current Arizona Secretary of State and is substituted for Ken Bennett, the former Arizona Secretary of State, under Supreme Court Rule 35.3. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ............ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. vi OPINIONS BELOW ......................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................ 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................... 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................. 8 1. The NVRA and the EAC ................. 8 2. Arizona’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement......................... 10 3. Kansas’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement......................... 11 4. The EAC and District Court Decisions .... 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ....... 17 I. The Tenth Circuit Opinion Conflicts with ITCA Because It Gives the Federal Government, Not the States, the Authority to Enforce Voter Qualifications........................... 17 A. The Tenth Circuit Incorrectly Found that the States’ Qualification Clause Authority Does Not Trump Congress’s Elections Clause Authority............................ 19 iv B. The Tenth Circuit Opinion Conflicts with ITCA by Giving the EAC the Authority to Determine What Information Is “Necessary” for a State to Enforce Its Voter Qualifications........................ 22 II. This Case Presents an Issue of Great National Importance Because the Voter Qualifications for Congressional Elections Now Differ from the Voter Qualifications for State Legislative Elections, in Violation of Article I, Section 2............................... 31 CONCLUSION ............................ 36 APPENDIX Appendix A Opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (November 7, 2014) ...........App. 1 Appendix BMemorandum and Order in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (March 19, 2014) ............App. 32 Appendix C Memorandum of Decision from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (January 17, 2014) ...........App. 71 Appendix DOrder Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (December 29, 2014) ........App. 131 v Appendix E Relevant Statutes 52 U.S.C. § 20501 ...........App. 133 52 U.S.C. § 20504 ...........App. 134 52 U.S.C. § 20505 ...........App. 137 52 U.S.C. § 20508 ...........App. 139 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ................... 18, 19 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013) ................ passim Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Dep’t, 476 U.S. 573 (1986) ...................... 21 Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934) ...................... 35 Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525 (2000) ..................... 35 Cohens v. Virgina, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ....................... 20 Dep’t of Revenue v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U.S. 332 (1994) ...................... 25 Dunn v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Morton Cnty., 194 P.2d 924 (Kan. 1948) .................. 32 Gonzalez v. Ariz., 435 F.Supp.2d 997 (D. Ariz. 2006) ....... 10, 11 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ........................ 20 Oregon v. Mitchell, 460 U.S. 112 (1970) ...................... 19 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) ........................ 10 vii Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) .................... 35 Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) ...................... 20 U.S. v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) ................... 20, 21 U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) ...................... 20 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES U.S. Const. Article I, § 2, cl. 1............. passim U.S. Const. Article I, § 4, cl. 1............... 2, 20 U.S. Const. amend. XVII................. passim 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) ........................... 13 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) .......................... 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10 .............. 8 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 to 15545 ................... 8 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501 to 20511 .............. passim 52 U.S.C. § 20501 ........................... 8 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3) ...................... 26 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(4) ...................... 26 52 U.S.C. § 20503 .......................... 31 52 U.S.C. § 20504 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(1) ...................... 24 viii 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(2)(B)(ii) ................. 24 52 U.S.C. § 20505 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20505(a)(2) ...................... 24 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a) ........................ 10 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) ....................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b) ...................... 9, 24 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1) ............. 22, 23, 24, 29 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901 to 21145 ................... 8 52 U.S.C. § 20923 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20928 .......................... 10 52 U.S.C. § 20929 ....................... 10, 24 Ala. Code § 31-13-28........................ 34 A.R.S. § 16-166(F) ...................... passim A.R.S. § 16-121(A) .......................... 32 A.R.S. § 16-1016 ........................... 30 A.R.S. § 16-182 ............................ 30 Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-21(g)................... 14 Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-216(g)(1) ................ 34 K.S.A. § 25-2309(l) ...................... passim K.S.A. § 25-2411(d) ......................... 30 K.S.A. § 25-2416 ........................... 30 ix REGULATIONS 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(a) ......................... 9 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b) ........................ 25 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(b)(1) ...................... 25 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6 ........................... 9 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6(c) ........................ 26 OTHER AUTHORITIES The Federalist No. 52 (J. Madison) ...... 28, 32, 34 The Federalist No. 59 (A. Hamilton) ........... 34 The Federalist No. 60 (A. Hamilton) ........... 19 National Mail Voter Registration Form Public Comments available at http://www.regulations. gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp =25;po=0;dct=PS;D= EAC-2013-0004) ......................... 13 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners, the State of Kansas, State of Arizona, Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, and Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, respectfully petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The order denying rehearing is not reported and reproduced in the appendix (“App.”) hereto at App. 131. The opinion of the Tenth Circuit is reported at 772 F.3d 1183 and reproduced in the appendix hereto at App. 1- 31. The opinion of the District Court for the District