NCJ Number
17826
Journal
Cornell Law Review Volume: 59 Issue: 6 Dated: (AUGUST 1974) Pages: 1139-1160
Date Published
1974
Length
22 pages
Annotation
IN THIS CASE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NEW YORK'S CONSTRUCTION OF ITS ABSENTEE VOTING STATUTES TO EXCLUDE UNCONVICTED DETAINEES AND IMPRISONED MISDEMEANANTS VIOLATED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION.
Abstract
OF THE SEVEN JUSTICES SUPPORTING THIS MAJORITY OPINION, ONLY THREE BASED THEIR DECISION ON NEW YORK'S UNJUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE. THE OTHER FOUR HELD ONLY THAT ALLOWING UNCONVICTED DETAINEES AND IMPRISONED MISDEMEANANTS WHO WERE CONFINED OUTSIDE THE COUNTY OF THEIR RESIDENCE TO VOTE, WHILE DENYING THE VOTE TO THOSE CONFINED WITHIN THE COUNTY OF THEIR RESIDENCE (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATUTE), WAS AN ARBITRARY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT, WITH THIS DECISION, THE BURGER COURT HAS RETREATED FROM THE SWEEPING EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS OF THE WARREN COURT PRECEDENTS IN THE VOTING RIGHTS FIELD AND HAS ABANDONED THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. HE POINTS TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST STANDARD FOR CLOSE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF STATE ELECTION LAWS LIMITING ACCESS TO VOTING BY A MORE FLEXIBLE BUT UNDEFINED STANDARD OF 'ARBITRARINESS.' THE UNDERLYING EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUES OF THIS AND ANY OTHER CASE CHALLENGING OR DEFENDING ELECTION LAWS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ARE ALSO IDENTIFIED AND DISCUSSED. THESE KEY ISSUES ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNING OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, IDENTIFICATION OF THE CLASS SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTION, IDENTIFICATION OF THE STATE ACTION SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND THE STATE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATORY ACTION.