Husted is, therefore, more than just a case about statutory interpretation. It also implicates the Constitution’s allocation of power to the states and the federal government under the Elections Clause. As both the Arizona and Ohio laws illustrate, allowing states to supplement the NVRA could significantly undermine one of the key goals of this federal scheme: increasing voter participation in federal elections. These state laws thus infringe on federal power under the Elections Clause, which, in the Court’s own words, is “paramount.”