Election Law Chapter 2

What is the main focus of Chapter 2?

Chapter 2 examines constitutional restrictions on who may vote, particularly residency requirements and other qualifications governments may impose on voters.

What general principle governs restrictions on the right to vote?

Because voting is a fundamental political right, restrictions on voting generally require substantial constitutional justification.

Why is the right to vote especially important under the Constitution?

Voting helps preserve other rights because citizens use elections to participate in government and hold elected officials accountable.

Does the original Constitution explicitly grant every citizen an affirmative right to vote?

No. The Constitution contains several protections against particular voting restrictions, but the constitutional right to vote developed substantially through amendments, statutes, and Supreme Court decisions.

What role does the Equal Protection Clause play in voting-rights cases?

It limits states' ability to impose unjustified or discriminatory voting qualifications and has been used to protect equal access to the ballot.

What is strict scrutiny?

A highly demanding level of judicial review requiring the government to show that a restriction serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Why might strict scrutiny apply to restrictions on voting?

Because voting is considered a fundamental right, serious restrictions on access to the ballot can trigger heightened constitutional review.

What is a durational residency requirement?

A rule requiring a person to live in a state or jurisdiction for a specified amount of time before becoming eligible to vote there.

What is the difference between a bona fide residency requirement and a durational residency requirement?

A bona fide residency requirement requires a voter actually to reside in the jurisdiction at the time of voting; a durational residency requirement requires the voter to have lived there for an additional specified period before the election.

May states generally require voters to be bona fide residents?

Yes. States may generally require voters to actually reside within the jurisdiction whose elections they participate in.

Why can states require bona fide residency?

A government may legitimately limit participation in its elections to members of the relevant political community.

Why are lengthy durational residency requirements constitutionally more problematic?

They prevent otherwise qualified new residents from voting simply because they have not lived in the jurisdiction long enough.

What Supreme Court case struck down lengthy durational residency requirements for voting?

Dunn v. Blumstein.

What was challenged in Dunn v. Blumstein?

Tennessee requirements that a person live in the state for one year and in the county for three months before being eligible to vote.

What was the outcome of Dunn v. Blumstein?

The Supreme Court struck down Tennessee's durational residency requirements.

What constitutional interests were implicated in Dunn v. Blumstein?

The fundamental right to vote and the right to interstate travel.

Why did the Court apply strict scrutiny in Dunn v. Blumstein?

The requirements penalized the exercise of the right to travel and denied new residents access to the fundamental right to vote.

What governmental interests did Tennessee assert in Dunn v. Blumstein?

Tennessee argued that the residency periods helped prevent fraud and ensured that voters were knowledgeable about local issues.

Why did Tennessee's arguments fail in Dunn v. Blumstein?

The lengthy waiting periods were not sufficiently necessary or narrowly tailored to accomplish those objectives.

What important principle came from Dunn v. Blumstein?

States cannot impose lengthy durational residency requirements as a condition of voting merely because a person recently moved into the jurisdiction.

After Dunn v. Blumstein, can a state require a voter to live within the jurisdiction at all?

Yes. Dunn prohibited lengthy waiting periods, not ordinary bona fide residency requirements.

What is the key distinction created by Dunn v. Blumstein?

A state can require actual residency, but generally cannot make a new resident wait an extended period before exercising the right to vote.

Why is Dunn v. Blumstein important as a turning point?

It sharply limited states' ability to use lengthy residency periods to exclude otherwise qualified voters and reinforced the fundamental status of voting.

How could Dunn v. Blumstein appear on an exam?

A question might ask which type of residency requirement the Court invalidated, why strict scrutiny applied, or the difference between bona fide residency and durational residency.

What is the basic rule regarding nonresidents and local elections?

Governments generally may limit voting to residents of the relevant political jurisdiction even when governmental decisions also affect people living outside its boundaries.

What case addressed whether people outside a city's boundaries had a constitutional right to vote in the city's elections?

Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa.

What was the factual situation in Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa?

People living outside Tuscaloosa's city limits but within its police jurisdiction were subject to some city authority and taxes but could not vote in city elections.

How far did Tuscaloosa's police jurisdiction extend outside the city?

Three miles beyond the city's boundaries.

What powers did Tuscaloosa exercise over its police jurisdiction?

The area was subject to the city's criminal laws and municipal-court jurisdiction, and businesses there paid some city taxes.

Why did the plaintiffs in Holt Civic Club claim they should be allowed to vote?

Although they lived outside the city limits, Tuscaloosa exercised governmental authority over them, giving them an interest in city decisions.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa?

The Court upheld the exclusion of residents outside the city limits from voting in Tuscaloosa's elections.

Why did the Court uphold the voting restriction in Holt Civic Club?

A governmental entity's decisions inevitably affect some people outside its boundaries, but that does not mean all affected nonresidents must be allowed to vote.

What general rule does Holt Civic Club establish?

A government may generally restrict participation in its elections to residents of that political jurisdiction.

Did the Court hold that people must be allowed to vote whenever governmental decisions affect them?

No. Being affected by a government's decisions does not automatically create a constitutional right to vote in that government's elections.

Who dissented in Holt Civic Club?

Justice Brennan.

What did Justice Brennan argue in Holt Civic Club?

Although nonresidents generally can be denied the vote, he argued that people living within Tuscaloosa's police jurisdiction should effectively be treated as residents because of the city's substantial authority over them.

Why is Holt Civic Club important?

It establishes an important limit on the idea that political interest alone creates voting eligibility: residency and membership in the political community can matter.

What earlier case does the book compare with Holt Civic Club?

Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15.

What restriction was challenged in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15?

New York limited voting in certain school-district elections to particular categories of residents, excluding some residents who had an interest in school-board decisions.

What was the outcome in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15?

The Supreme Court struck down the restriction.

Why was the restriction in Kramer constitutionally problematic?

It excluded actual residents from voting even though many of those excluded had legitimate interests in school-board decisions.

What level of scrutiny did the Court use in Kramer?

Close or strict scrutiny because the law selectively denied some residents access to the vote.

What principle does Kramer establish about restricting voting among residents?

Once a government gives residents the right to vote in an election, selectively excluding certain residents requires a strong constitutional justification.

Why did the dissenters in Kramer disagree with the majority?

Justices Stewart, Black, and Harlan believed close scrutiny was unwarranted and thought Kramer and others remained able to participate in elections for the state legislature that created the school district.

What is the apparent tension between Kramer and Holt Civic Club?

Kramer protected residents who were excluded despite having an interest in governmental decisions, while Holt permitted the exclusion of nonresidents even though they were substantially affected by city decisions.

How can Kramer and Holt Civic Club be reconciled?

A possible bright-line rule is that actual residents are generally entitled to vote while nonresidents generally are not.

What does "bright-line rule" mean in the Kramer/Holt discussion?

A relatively clear rule based on residency status: residents normally receive voting rights in their jurisdiction, while nonresidents normally do not.

What alternative explanation can reconcile Kramer and Holt Civic Club?

Voting can be understood as part of full membership in a political community. The Kramer plaintiffs were members of the community, whereas people outside Tuscaloosa's city limits were not full members of the city political community.

Why did the police-jurisdiction residents arguably have a stronger interest in Tuscaloosa affairs than some people protected in Kramer?

They were directly subject to some city laws, courts, and taxes even though they could not vote in city elections.

Why were they nevertheless excluded under Holt Civic Club?

The Court treated residence within the city's political boundaries as more important than merely having an interest in city decisions.

What broader concept helps explain residency-based voting rules?

Political community membership.

What is political community membership in the voting context?

The idea that voting is not simply based on whether a government affects someone; it is a form of participation generally reserved for people considered members of that governmental community.

What is the key difference between Kramer and Holt Civic Club?

Kramer involved residents excluded from an election within their political community; Holt involved people outside the city's boundaries seeking participation in the city's political decisions.

If an exam asks why Kramer won but the Holt Civic Club plaintiffs lost, what is the strongest distinction?

Kramer involved the selective exclusion of residents, while Holt involved exclusion of nonresidents from the political community.

Does paying taxes to a government automatically give a person the constitutional right to vote in that government's elections?

No. Holt Civic Club demonstrates that being subject to taxes or governmental authority does not by itself establish voting eligibility.

What constitutional amendment explicitly prohibits race-based restrictions on voting?

The Fifteenth Amendment.

What does the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit?

Denial or abridgment of the right to vote by the United States or a state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Are explicit race-based restrictions on voting constitutionally permissible?

No. They are explicitly prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment.

What question arises when ancestry is used instead of an explicit racial classification?

Whether ancestry is functioning as a proxy for race and therefore constitutes prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

What Supreme Court case addressed ancestry as a proxy for race in voting eligibility?

Rice v. Cayetano.

What governmental entity was involved in Rice v. Cayetano?

Hawaii's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA.

What was the Office of Hawaiian Affairs responsible for?

Administering programs for Hawaiians.

Who was permitted to vote for OHA trustees under Hawaii's system?

Only people meeting the statutory definition of "Hawaiian."

How did Hawaii define "Hawaiian" for purposes of OHA voting?

The definition was based on descent from indigenous Hawaiians living on the islands in 1778 when Europeans first arrived.

What constitutional issue did Rice v. Cayetano present?

Whether limiting an election based on Hawaiian ancestry violated the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against race-based voting restrictions.

How did the Supreme Court characterize the ancestry requirement in Rice v. Cayetano?

The Court treated ancestry as a proxy for race.

What was the outcome of Rice v. Cayetano?

The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's restriction on voting for OHA trustees.

What constitutional amendment controlled Rice v. Cayetano?

The Fifteenth Amendment.

What principle did the Court emphasize in Rice v. Cayetano?

The right to vote in a particular public election cannot be allocated on the basis of race.