Yes, item (c) in the syllabus leaves the door open for Arizona to correct the shortcoming and still accomplish their aim. Like I said, a highly technical decision supporting the Rule of Law without undermining Arizona’s ultimate aim. This is not the total fail it appears to be at first blush.
People see the headline without reading the decision.
Thank you. It's good to see a realist on this thread among the many hysterical cynics.
JUSTICE ALITO is correct to point out that the majority’s reliance on the EAC is meaningless because the EAC has no members and no current prospects of new members. (Alito dissenting opinion, page 6). Offering a non existent pathway to administrative relief is an exercise in futility, not constitutional avoidance. Even if the EAC were a going concern instead of an empty shell, I disagree with the majority’s application ofthe constitutional avoidance canon. I would not require Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements from the Federal Government, for, as I have shown, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to withhold such approval. Accordingly, it does not have the authority to command States to seek it.
Alito (dissent) page 6
In refusing to give any weight to Arizona’s interest in enforcing its voter qualifications, the Court suggests that the State could return to the Election Assistance Commission and renew its request for a change to the federal form. But that prospect does little to assuage constitutional concerns. The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic. The most that the Court is prepared to say is that the State “might” succeed by seeking a writ of mandamus, and failing that, “might” be able to mount a constitutional challenge.
Agreed. Seems it was a similar type of decision in Bush v. Gore that intervened in a State that was openly subverting Federal election law to the benefit of a Democratic candidate. AZ can rememdy this and still have a voter ID law in place.
If you are correct, then that is a good thing. I cannot read or understand legalese, no matter how many times I try.