Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/621.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:45:28+00:00

Document:
Section 2012 of the New York Education Law provides that in certain school districts residents who are otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections may vote in the school district elections only if they own or lease taxable realty in the district or are parents or custodians of children enrolled in the local public schools. Appellant, a bachelor who neither owns nor leases taxable real property, challenged the constitutionality of the section. A three-judge district court ruled 2012 constitutional. Held: Section 2012 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 625-633.
(a) Where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Pp. 625-630.
(b) Assuming, arguendo, that New York legitimately might limit the franchise in these school district elections to those "primarily interested in school affairs," the 2012 classifications do not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision to justify denying the franchise to appellant and members of his class, since the classifications include many persons at best only remotely interested in school affairs and exclude others directly interested. Pp. 630-633.
282 F. Supp. 70, reversed and remanded.
Osmond K. Fraenkel argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf and Murray A. Miller.
John P. Jehu argued the cause and filed briefs for appellees. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, [395 U.S. 621, 622] Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for appellee the Attorney General of New York.
In this case we are called on to determine whether 2012 of the New York Education Law is constitutional. The legislation provides that in certain New York school districts residents who are otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections may vote in the school district election only if they (1) own (or lease) taxable real property within the district, or (2) are parents (or have custody of) children enrolled in the local public schools. Appellant, a bachelor who neither owns nor leases taxable real property, filed suit in federal court claiming that 2012 denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With one judge dissenting, a three-judge District Court dismissed appellant's complaint. Finding that 2012 does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we reverse.
Although the New York State Department of Education has substantial responsibility for education in the State, the local school districts maintain significant control over the administration of local school district affairs. 3 Generally, the board of education has the basic responsibility for local school operation, including prescribing the courses of study, determining the textbooks [395 U.S. 621, 624] to be used, and even altering and equipping a former schoolhouse for use as a public library. N. Y. Educ. Law 1709 (1953). Additionally, in districts selecting members of the board of education at annual meetings, the local voters also pass directly on other district matters. For example, they must approve the school budget submitted by the school board. N. Y. Educ. Law 2021, 2022 (1953). 4 Moreover, once the budget is approved, the governing body of the villages within the school district must raise the money which has been declared "necessary for teachers' salaries and the ordinary contingent expenses [of the schools]." N. Y. Educ. Law 1717 (1953). 5 The voters also may "authorize such acts and vote such taxes as they shall deem expedient . . . for . . . equipping for library use any former schoolhouse . . . [and] for the purchase of land and buildings for agricultural, athletic, playground or social center purposes . . . ." N. Y. Educ. Law 416 (1953).
Appellant is a 31-year-old college-educated stock-broker who lives in his parents' home in the Union Free School District No. 15, a district to which 2012 applies. He is a citizen of the United States and has voted in federal and state elections since 1959. However, since [395 U.S. 621, 625] he has no children and neither owns nor leases taxable real property, appellant's attempts to register for and vote in the local school district elections have been unsuccessful. After the school district rejected his 1965 application, appellant instituted the present class action challenging the constitutionality of the voter eligibility requirements.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied appellant's request (made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281) that a three-judge district court be convened, and granted appellees' motion to dismiss appellant's complaint. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 259 F. Supp. 164 (D.C. E. D. N. Y. 1966). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, ruling appellant's complaint warranted convening a three-judge court. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 379 F.2d 491 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1967). On remand, the three-judge court ruled that 2012 is constitutional and dismissed appellant's complaint. 282 F. Supp. 70. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1253, appellant filed a direct appeal with this Court; we noted probable jurisdiction. 393 U.S. 818 (1968).
At the outset, it is important to note what is not at issue in this case. The requirements of 2012 that school district voters must (1) be citizens of the United States, (2) be bona fide residents of the school district, and (3) be at least 21 years of age are not challenged. Appellant agrees that the States have the power to impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. Cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904). The sole issue in this case is whether the additional requirements of 2012 - requirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise [395 U.S. 621, 626] qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections - violate the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws.
"In determining whether or not a state law violates the Equal Protection Clause, we must consider the facts and circumstances behind the law, the interests which the State claims to be protecting, and the interests of those who are disadvantaged by the classification." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968). And, in this case, we must give the statute a close and exacting examination. "[S]ince the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). See Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 31; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). This careful examination is necessary because statutes distributing the franchise constitute the foundation of our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government.
Thus, state apportionment statutes, which may dilute the effectiveness of some citizens' votes, receive close scrutiny from this Court. Reynolds v. Sims, supra. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968). No less rigid an examination is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to citizens who are otherwise qualified by residence and age. 6 Statutes granting the franchise to [395 U.S. 621, 627] residents on a selective basis always pose the danger of denying some citizens any effective voice in the governmental affairs which substantially affect their lives. 7 Therefore, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. See Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 96.
Nor is the need for close judicial examination affected because the district meetings and the school board do not have "general" legislative powers. Our exacting examination is not necessitated by the subject of the election; rather, it is required because some resident citizens are permitted to participate and some are not. For example, a city charter might well provide that the elected city council appoint a mayor who would have broad administrative powers. Assuming the council were elected consistent with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause, the delegation of power to the mayor would not call for this Court's exacting review. On the other hand, if the city charter made the office of mayor subject to an [395 U.S. 621, 630] election in which only some resident citizens were entitled to vote, there would be presented a situation calling for our close review.
We turn therefore to question whether the exclusion is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. First, appellees 13 argue that the State has a legitimate interest in limiting the franchise in school district elections [395 U.S. 621, 631] to "members of the community of interest" - those "primarily interested in such elections." Second, appellees urge that the State may reasonably and permissibly conclude that "property taxpayers" (including lessees of taxable property who share the tax burden through rent payments) and parents of the children enrolled in the district's schools are those "primarily interested" in school affairs.
We do not understand appellees to argue that the State is attempting to limit the franchise to those "subjectively concerned" about school matters. Rather, they appear to argue that the State's legitimate interest is in restricting a voice in school matters to those "directly affected" by such decisions. The State apparently reasons that since the schools are financed in part by local property taxes, persons whose out-of-pocket expenses are "directly" affected by property tax changes should be allowed to vote. Similarly, parents of children in school are thought to have a "direct" stake in school affairs and are given a vote.
We need express no opinion as to whether the State in some circumstances might limit the exercise of the franchise to those "primarily interested" or "primarily affected." Of course, we therefore do not reach the issue of whether these particular elections are of the type in which the franchise may be so limited. For, assuming, arguendo, that New York legitimately might limit the franchise in these school district elections to those "primarily interested in school affairs," close scrutiny of the 2012 classifications demonstrates that they do not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision to justify denying appellant the franchise.
Nor do appellees offer any justification for the exclusion of seemingly interested and informed residents - other than to argue that the 2012 classifications include those "whom the State could understandably deem to be the most intimately interested in actions taken by the school board," and urge that "the task of . . . balancing the interest of the community in the maintenance of orderly school district elections against the interest of any individual in voting in such elections should clearly remain with the Legislature." 16 But the issue is not whether the legislative judgments are rational. A more exacting standard obtains. The issue is whether the 2012 requirements do in fact sufficiently further a compelling state interest to justify denying the franchise to appellant and members of his class. The requirements of 2012 are not sufficiently tailored to limiting the franchise to those "primarily interested" in school affairs to justify the denial of the franchise to appellant and members of his class.
"A person shall be entitled to vote at any school meeting for the election of school district officers, and upon all other matters which may be brought before such meeting, who is: 1. A citizen of the United States.
"c. Not being the parent, has permanently residing with him a child of school age who shall have attended the district school for a period of at least eight weeks during the year preceding such meeting.
[ Footnote 1 ] In some districts the election takes place on the Wednesday following the district meeting. N. Y. Educ. Law 2013 (Supp. 1968).
[ Footnote 2 ] The statute also requires that a voter be a citizen of the United States and at least 21 years of age. Appellant meets these requirements and does not challenge the citizenship, age, or residency requirements of 2012. See infra, at 625. The statute is set out in the Appendix, infra.
[ Footnote 3 ] "But while the administration of schools and the formulation of general policies have been centralized in the State Education Department . . . the immediate control and operation of the schools in New York have to a large extent been vested in the localities. The thousands of districts . . . possess a high degree of authority in education. They decide matters of local taxation for school purposes, elect trustees and other school officials, purchase buildings and sites, employ teachers and . . . maintain discipline . . . ." Graves, Development of the Education Law in New York, 16 Consolidated Laws of New York (Education Law) xxiii (McKinney 1953). See R. Pyle, Some Aspects of Education in New York 9-13 (1967).
[ Footnote 4 ] In districts which do not have annual meetings, the budget is not submitted to district voters. Thus, in city districts where the board of education is elected by all the voters, the board has the power to set the budget and assess taxes to meet expenditures. In large city districts, where the board is appointed, the board must submit requests to the city government, much as would any other city department. R. Pyle, Some Aspects of Education in New York 11 (1967).
[ Footnote 5 ] The legislation provides that the money shall be raised through a "tax, to be levied upon all the real property in [the] village . . . ." And, the "corporate authorities shall have no power to withhold the sums so declared to be necessary . . . ." N. Y. Educ. Law 1717 (1953).
[ Footnote 6 ] This case presents an issue different from the one we faced in McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969). The present appeal involves an absolute denial of the franchise. In McDonald, on the other hand, we were reviewing a statute which made casting a ballot easier for some who were [395 U.S. 621, 627] unable to come to the polls. As we noted, there was no evidence that the statute absolutely prohibited anyone from exercising the franchise; at issue was not a claimed right to vote but a claimed right to an absentee ballot. Id., at 807-808.
[ Footnote 7 ] Of course, the effectiveness of any citizen's voice in governmental affairs can be determined only in relationship to the power of other citizens' votes. For example, if school board members are appointed by the mayor, the district residents may effect a change in the board's membership or policies through their votes for the mayor. Cf. N. Y. Educ. Law 2553, subds. 2, 4 (1953), as amended (Supp. 1968). Each resident's formal influence is perhaps indirect, but it is equal to that of other residents. However, when the school board positions are filled by election and some otherwise qualified city electors are precluded from voting, the excluded residents, when compared to the franchised residents, no longer have an effective voice in school affairs. This is precisely the situation with regard to the size of the school budget in districts where 2012 applies. See n. 4, supra.
[ Footnote 8 ] See, e. g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 -428 (1961); Allied Stores v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 527 (1959); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556 (1947).
[ Footnote 9 ] Of course, we have long held that if the basis of classification is inherently suspect, such as race, the statute must be subjected to an exacting scrutiny, regardless of the subject matter of the legislation. See, e. g., McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192 (1964); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 420 (1948); Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 640 (1948).
[ Footnote 10 ] Thus, statutes structuring local government units receive no less exacting an examination merely because the state legislature is fairly elected. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 481 , n. 6 (1968).
[ Footnote 11 ] Similarly, no less a showing of a compelling justification for disenfranchising residents is required merely because the questions scheduled for the election need not have been submitted to the voters.
[ Footnote 12 ] In Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education, 387 U.S. 105 (1967), each local school board sent one delegate to a biennial meeting at which the members of the county board of education were selected. We noted that "the choice of members of the county school board did not involve an election." Id., at 111. However, we also pointed out that the members of the local school boards, who in effect made the county board appointments, were elected, but that "no constitutional complaint [was] raised respecting that election." Ibid.
[ Footnote 13 ] The Union Free School District No. 15 and each member of its board of education were named as defendants. The Attorney General of New York intervened as an appellee.
[ Footnote 14 ] Of course, if the exclusions are necessary to promote the articulated state interest, we must then determine whether the interest promoted by limiting the franchise constitutes a compelling state interest. We do not reach that issue in this case.
[ Footnote 15 ] For example, appellant resides with his parents in the school district, pays state and federal taxes and is interested in and affected by school board decisions; however, he has no vote. On the other hand, an uninterested unemployed young man who pays no state or federal taxes, but who rents an apartment in the district, can participate in the election.
[ Footnote 16 ] We were informed at oral argument, however, that a very small proportion of the eligible voters attend the meetings.
"The State have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised, Pope v. Williams, [395 U.S. 621, 635] 193 U.S. 621, 633 ; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328, 335 , absent of course the discrimination which the Constitution condemns." 360 U.S., at 50 -51.
Believing that the appellant in this case is not the victim of any "discrimination which the Constitution condemns," I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Three classes of persons are qualified under New York law to vote in these school elections: (1) parents or guardians of children attending public schools within the District; (2) persons who own taxable real property within the District, and their spouses; and (3) persons who lease taxable real property within the District, and their spouses. 2 The appellant, a bachelor who lives with [395 U.S. 621, 636] his parents and who neither owns nor leases any real property within the District, falls within none of those classes, and consequently is disqualified from voting despite the fact that he meets the general age and residence requirements imposed by state law. The question presented is whether, by virtue of that disqualification, the appellant is denied the equal protection of the laws.
Although at times variously phrased, the traditional test of a statute's validity under the Equal Protection Clause is a familiar one: a legislative classification is invalid only "if it rest[s] on grounds wholly irrelevant to achievement of the regulation's objectives." Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556 . 3 It was under just such a test that the literacy requirement involved in Lassiter was upheld. The premise of our decision in that case was that a State may constitutionally impose upon its citizens voting requirements reasonably "designed to promote intelligent use of the ballot." 360 U.S., at 51 . A similar premise underlies the proposition, consistently endorsed by this Court, 4 that a State may exclude nonresidents from participation in its elections. Such residence requirements, designed to help ensure that voters have a substantial stake in the outcome of elections and an opportunity to become familiar with the candidates and issues voted upon, are entirely permissible [395 U.S. 621, 637] exercises of state authority. Indeed, the appellant explicitly concedes, as he must, the validity of voting requirements relating to residence, literacy, and age. Yet he argues - and the Court accepts the argument - that the voting qualifications involved here somehow have a different constitutional status. I am unable to see the distinction.
Thus judged, the statutory classification involved here seems to me clearly to be valid. New York has made the judgment that local educational policy is best left to those persons who have certain direct and definable interests in that policy: those who are either immediately involved as parents of school children or who, as owners or lessees of taxable property, are burdened with the local cost of funding school district operations. 6 True, persons outside those classes may be genuinely interested in the conduct of a school district's business - just as commuters from New Jersey may be genuinely interested in the outcome of a New York City election. But unless this Court is to claim a monopoly of wisdom regarding the sound operation of school systems in the 50 States, I see no way to justify the conclusion that the legislative classification involved here is not rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose. "There is no group more interested in the operation and management of the public schools than the taxpayers who support them and the parents whose children attend them." Doremus v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 429, 435 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting).
I am at a loss to understand how such reasoning is at all relevant to the present case. The voting qualifications at issue have been promulgated, not by Union Free School District No. 15, but by the New York State Legislature, and the appellant is of course fully able to participate in the election of representatives in that body. There is simply no claim whatever here that the state government is not "structured so as to represent fairly all the people," including the appellant.
Nor is there any other justification for imposing the Court's "exacting" equal protection test. This case does not involve racial classifications, which in light of the genesis of the Fourteenth Amendment have traditionally been viewed as inherently "suspect." 7 And this statute is not one that impinges upon a constitutionally protected right, and that consequently can be justified only by a "compelling" state interest. 8 For "the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage [395 U.S. 621, 640] upon any one . . . ." Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 178.
Today's decision can only be viewed as irreconcilable with the established principle that "[t]he States have . . . broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . ." Since I think that principle is entirely sound, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment and opinion.
[ Footnote 1 ] The District Court's statement to this effect has been explicitly reiterated and emphasized by the appellees, and the proposition is apparently conceded by the appellant. See N. Y. Educ. Law 416, 1717, 2021; N. Y. Real Prop. Tax Law 1302, 1306, 1308.
[ Footnote 2 ] New York's general age and residence requirements must also be met.
"The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it."
[ Footnote 4 ] Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 ; Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 51 ; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 93 -94, 96; see Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 .
[ Footnote 5 ] Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S., at 52 .
[ Footnote 6 ] Presumably the rationale for including lessees and their spouses in the electoral process is that the cost of property taxes is in many instances passed on from owner to lessee.
[ Footnote 7 ] Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 ; McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192 .
[ Footnote 8 ] Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 ; cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 .
[ Footnote 9 ] Special-purpose governmental authorities such as water, lighting, and sewer districts exist in various sections of the country, and participation in such districts is undoubtedly limited in many instances to those who partake of the agency's services and are assessed for its expenses. The constitutional validity of such a policy is, it seems to me, unquestionable. And while it is true, as the appellant argues, that a school system has a more pervasive influence in the community than do most other such special-purpose authorities, I cannot agree that that difference in degree presents anything approaching a distinction of constitutional dimension.
[ Footnote 10 ] Compare Lucas v. Forty-fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 , with Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 . Since Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 , and Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , dealt with requirements for voting in general elections, those decisions do not control the result here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.