disrupts the goal of the NVRA — to streamline the registration process. See Majority Opinion, pp. 400-01. Although the NVRA seeks to simplify and harmonize registration procedures, the statute also identifies “protecting] the integrity of the electoral process” and “enhancing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office” as guiding purposes of the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b) (emphasis added). Even under the majority’s complementary analysis conducted pursuant to Siebold and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed:2d 369 (1997), see Majority Opinion, p. 394, Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship procedure complements— rather than conflicts with — these important purposes. See Siebold, 100 U.S. at 384; Foster, 522 U.S. at 74, 118 S.Ct. 464 (<HOLDING>). The stated harmonious purposes are not served
holding to the effect that section 341 fifth as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding that a state election law is preempted only to the extent that it conflicts with federal law holding the state law claims were not preempted holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law