Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 14 (2001)

Page:   Index   Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Cite as: 531 U. S. 510 (2001)

Opinion of the Court

provision gives the States authority over congressional elections, and no such authority could be reserved under the Tenth Amendment. By process of elimination, the States may regulate the incidents of such elections, including balloting, only within the exclusive delegation of power under the Elections Clause.

With respect to the Elections Clause, petitioner argues that Article VIII "merely regulates the manner in which elections are held by disclosing information about congressional candidates." 17 As such, petitioner concludes, Article VIII is a valid exercise of Missouri's delegated power.

We disagree. To be sure, the Elections Clause grants to the States "broad power" to prescribe the procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 217 (1986); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932) ("It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections"). Nevertheless, Article VIII falls outside of that grant of authority. As we made clear in U. S. Term Limits, "the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints." 514 U. S., at 833-834. Article VIII is not a procedural regulation. It does not regulate the time of elections; it does not regulate the place of elections; nor, we believe, does it regulate the manner of elections.18 As to the last point,

Article VIII bears no relation to the "manner" of elections as we understand it, for in our commonsense view that term encompasses matters like "notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and cor-17 Brief for Petitioner 28; see also id., at 38.

18 Petitioner once shared our belief, when, in deposition testimony before the District Court, she admitted that Article VIII does not regulate the time, place, or manner of elections. App. 58.

523

Page:   Index   Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007