From Slate: This Time, Scalia Doesn’t Want to See Your Papers

I'm linking to this because the story highlights a part of the constitution we went over in class today and how it explains Justice Scalia's decision to vote against Arizona in the case regarding whether a state can require additional requirements to register to vote beyond what is required by the national government.

Here is the constitutional text - From Article One:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators."

The author comments further:

So the states get to make the rules, and then Congress gets to remake them. Scalia says this was the framers’ way of making sure that the states wouldn’t refuse to provide for elections to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Apparently “widespread vociferous opposition to the proposed Constitution” made this a live possibility back in the day. (Now, of course, we like to elect our own representatives to the House and wish that everyone else’s would stay home.)

But the minority opinion points out that other language in the Constitution supports Arizona's argument that they have full discretion over who gets to vote in the state from another part of Article One - which we also discussed in class:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

This means that the states get to determine who gets to vote in federal elections (except for the modifications we noted in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments). Scalia acknowledges this, and states that the states have to go through an additional process in order to place the additional requirement of submitting proof of citizenship as a precondition for being able to register to vote:

Thomas is right that the states get to decide who may vote in federal elections. This state authority lies in another part of the Constitution. (For House elections, look in Article I. For Senate elections, it’s in the 17^th Amendment.) Doesn’t that mean Arizona can in fact require aspiring voters to be citizens, as it has since becoming a state in 1912?

Here is the neat answer Scalia comes up with to that question: Yes, Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote—the state just can’t do it by passing a law superseding the federal form. Instead, Arizona has to go to the federal Election Assistance Commission to ask for a change to the federal form, so that it will include all the information the state says is needed to decide voter eligibility. If the EAC turns Arizona down, the state can sue. Arizona hasn’t done this yet, but the court says the state still could. Never mind, as Alito points out, that the EAC has no actual commissioners at the moment. Arizona still has to try to compel the agency to act.

I may be looking at this the wrong way, but I'm drawn to stories that point out areas where the Constitution contradicts itself - or at least creates tensions - and this seems to be one.