Pyre v. Carnahan (W.D. Mo. 2006) Upheld similar MO practice because it – MO adequately distinguished between those capable and those incapable of voting. Durational Residency Arguments for Durational Residency Requirement Preventing voter fraud that might occur through voter “colonization.” Ensuring existence of a knowledgeable community of interest. Arguments Against Durational Residency Requirement May disincentive travel or infringe an right to travel (if individual’s such a right exists). If interest is in a community of interest, then this state’s purported seems to suggest a competency requirement, which is impermissible. State cannot infringe right to vote because new voters may have different priorities than longstanding voters. Newcomers are entitled to have a say in local affairs. 14th Amendment gives citizens right to become citizens of states by moving there. Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) Facts moved to TN but was not permitted to vote because he –Professor had not been in state for one year. Invalidated one-year durational residency requirement for voting eligibility as EPC violation. Strict Scrutiny Because case involved (1) right to vote and (2) right – to travel. Compelling Government Interests Preventing Fraud Valid – Community of Interest Rejected – Narrow Tailoring Fraud rationale failed because durational residency requirement was not needed. Lesson States cannot deny equal protection of law—here, with regard – to voting—based on duration of residency. Permissible Durational Residency Requirements E.g., requiring that voters – register by a certain date before an election. 30- or 60-day registration cutoffs are permissible, but must be reasonable. Carrington v. Rash (1965) Facts Concerned TX law denying voting rights to military personnel – that moved to TX in connection with service, regardless of duration of residency. Invalidated law. Heightened Standard of Review Voting is a fundamental right. TX singled out military personnel on basis of occupation. Distinguishing Holt Holt limited voting to city residents; Carrington – concerned denial of vote based on residents came to be in city. how Homeless Many states allow homeless to vote. 2/3 of states require a mailing address. General Rule Fixed address is unnecessary if individual provides sufficient – information about her usual location to allow assignment to a precinct. Nonresidents Brown v. Chattanooga Board of Commissioners (E.D. Tenn. 1989) Facts Concerned charter that allowed nonresidents to vote if they – owned enough property in the city. Provision expanded franchise. Rational-Basis Review
Pyre v. Carnahan (W.D. Mo. 2006) – Upheld similar MO practice because it MO adequately distinguished between those capable and those incapable of voting. Durational Residency Arguments for Durational Residency Requirement Preventing voter fraud that might occur through voter “colonization.” Ensuring existence of a knowledgeable community of interest. Arguments Against Durational Residency Requirement May disincentive travel or infringe an individual’s right to travel (if such a right exists). If state’s purported interest is in a community of interest, then this seems to suggest a competency requirement, which is impermissible. State cannot infringe right to vote because new voters may have different priorities than longstanding voters. Newcomers are entitled to have a say in local affairs. 14th Amendment gives citizens right to become citizens of states by moving there. Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) Facts –Professor moved to TN but was not permitted to vote because he had not been in state for one year. Invalidated one-year durational residency requirement for voting eligibility as EPC violation. Strict Scrutiny – Because case involved (1) right to vote and (2) right to travel. Compelling Government Interests Preventing Fraud – Valid Community of Interest – Rejected Narrow Tailoring Fraud rationale failed because durational residency requirement was not needed. Lesson – States cannot deny equal protection of law—here, with regard to voting—based on duration of residency. Permissible Durational Residency Requirements – E.g., requiring that voters register by a certain date before an election. 30- or 60-day registration cutoffs are permissible, but must be reasonable. Carrington v. Rash (1965) Facts – Concerned TX law denying voting rights to military personnel that moved to TX in connection with service, regardless of duration of residency. Invalidated law. Heightened Standard of Review Voting is a fundamental right. TX singled out military personnel on basis of occupation. Distinguishing Holt – Holt limited voting to city residents; Carrington concerned denial of vote based on how residents came to be in city. Homeless Many states allow homeless to vote. 2/3 of states require a mailing address. General Rule – Fixed address is unnecessary if individual provides sufficient information about her usual location to allow assignment to a precinct. Nonresidents Brown v. Chattanooga Board of Commissioners (E.D. Tenn. 1989) Facts – Concerned charter that allowed nonresidents to vote if they owned enough property in the city. Provision expanded franchise. Rational-Basis Review