Ex-cons say they have a right to vote under EP. Court says § 2 of 14th Amendment require that non-males or rebels/criminals be allowed doesn’t to vote. Just like But here, can say 15th Amend struck §2- Minor. Court doesn’t accept this argument. Tier 1 Lassiter v. Northampton Bd. Of Elections Says literacy tests are Const. Courts never struck these down- VRA later does. Not facially Unconstit- mention race. didn’t Protects Carrington First case where SC says right to vote is attached to something other than race or gender vote in TX, too transient. TX said military couldn’t SC- Voting is VERY important, must have a good reason for giving it to A and not B. Otherwise, violate EP Not a super strong holding- rational reason requirement. As π was planning to stay in TX, no good reason. Law also not narrowly tailored. SC invalidates facially Protects Harper VA has a poll tax. Textual arg in favor, says Const forbids fed poll tax, by being explicit, must mean state poll tax is ok SC- Wealth has no relationship to capacity to vote Read today as an absolute ban on anything that smacks of $$ or property. Following case- AZ limits bond vote to taxpayers- only those who would have to pay for it. SC- NO. May have a future stake. (1969) pg 44 [Warren} Protects Kramer Key case- be viewed narrowly can’t Limited purpose election- School board elections limited to property taxpayers and parents. May be rational, but still Unconstit. Voting is a fundamental right, thereby protected by strict scrutiny and EP. De facto creation of the substantive right to vote strict scrutiny that pushed society to try and Probably Kramer’s disenfranchise people via second tier methods. Protects Dunn v. Blumstein TN law that you have to live in state for so long before voting. SC says no, fails strict scrutiny. Not about race or pretext, but still, substantive right to vote involved. How much survives Tier 1 Crawford v. Marion County? DMV photo ID to vote SC upholds it. – 4 opinions, dominant case governing right to vote
Ex-cons say they have a right to vote under EP. Court says § 2 of 14th Amendment doesn’t require that non-males or rebels/criminals be allowed to vote. Just like Minor. But here, can say 15th Amend struck §2- Court doesn’t accept this argument. Lassiter v. Northampton Bd. Of Elections Tier 1 Says literacy tests are Const. Courts never struck these down- VRA later does. Not facially Unconstit- didn’t mention race. Carrington Protects First case where SC says right to vote is attached to something other than race or gender TX said military couldn’t vote in TX, too transient. SC- Voting is VERY important, must have a good reason for giving it to A and not B. Otherwise, violate EP Not a super strong holding- rational reason requirement. As π was planning to stay in TX, no good reason. Law also not narrowly tailored. SC invalidates facially Harper Protects VA has a poll tax. Textual arg in favor, says Const forbids fed poll tax, by being explicit, must mean state poll tax is ok SC- Wealth has no relationship to capacity to vote Read today as an absolute ban on anything that smacks of $$ or property. Following case- AZ limits bond vote to taxpayers- only those who would have to pay for it. SC- NO. May have a future stake. Kramer (1969) pg 44 [Warren} Protects Key case- can’t be viewed narrowly Limited purpose election- School board elections limited to property taxpayers and parents. May be rational, but still Unconstit. Voting is a fundamental right, thereby protected by strict scrutiny and EP. De facto creation of the substantive right to vote Probably Kramer’s strict scrutiny that pushed society to try and disenfranchise people via second tier methods. Dunn v. Blumstein Protects TN law that you have to live in state for so long before voting. SC says no, fails strict scrutiny. Not about race or pretext, but still, substantive right to vote involved. How much survives Crawford v. Marion County? Tier 1 DMV photo ID to vote – SC upholds it. 4 opinions, dominant case governing right to vote