Opinion ID: 173060
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equal Protection and Applicable Review

Text: We now turn to the excluded voters' equal protection challenge to the Utah school district detachment statute. The right to vote is fundamental under the Constitution. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). The voters here argue the statute's detachment method burdens their voting rights and excludes them from having a voice in the composition of a basic unit of government: the local school district. Compelling reasons, they argue, do not justify those burdens given the voters' substantial interest in the composition and boundaries of the Jordan School District. While we agree the Utah statute implicates the right to vote, our review of established Supreme Court precedent persuades us that the Utah detachment statute must be judgedas the district court concludedby whether its limitation rationally furthers legitimate state policies. Applying the rational basis standard, we conclude the detachment statute furthers reasonable government interests and comports with the requirements of equal protection.
We start with a line of cases beginning over one hundred years ago. In these cases, we see that the Supreme Court has consistently favored the political judgments of state legislatures in structuring political subdivisions within states and defining the electoral community making up those entities. More importantly, the Court has consistently upheld laws that give different constituencies different voices in elections, especially those involving the annexation or adjustment of political boundaries. The Supreme Court first considered challenges to state laws defining qualified voters in local annexation elections in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). The election at issue in Hunter would have combined the City of Pittsburgh with a smaller neighboring community. State law required that the combined population of both jurisdictions determine the annexation question. The voters of the smaller citywho overwhelmingly opposed annexation objected to the statute, arguing that it effectively diluted their votes because of their relatively small population when compared to Pittsburgh. See id. at 177, 28 S.Ct. 40. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the challenge, holding that states are vested with largely unrestricted power to determine the boundaries and manner of formation of their political subdivisions and how they vote. See id. at 178-79, 28 S.Ct. 40. The Hunter Court affirmed that the state is supreme in constructing municipalities' boundaries. It may expand or contract the territorial area [of a city], unite the whole or a part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation. All this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest. In all these respects the state is supreme, and its legislative body ... may do as it will, unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States. ... The power is in the state, and those who legislate for the state are alone responsible for any unjust or oppressive exercise of it. Id. (emphasis added). Subject to certain important limitations discussed below, Hunter remains good law. See, e.g., Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 47, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (citing Hunter and affirming that ultimate control of every state-created entity resides with the State ... [and p]olitical subdivisions exist solely at the whim and behest of their State (internal quotation marks omitted)). Since Hunter, however, the Supreme Court has placed two key limitations on the expansive articulation of state power over political subdivisions. First, neither states nor their political subdivisions may draw boundaries that discriminate on an invidious basis, such as race or sex. See, e.g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 341, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960) (rejecting an Alabama boundary statute that removed all save four or five of [a city's] 400 black voters). Second, equal protection prohibits states from restricting or diluting votes in violation of the one person, one vote principle announced in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), and extended to local governments in Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968). In a series of cases following Reynolds and Avery, the Court addressed and reconciled the competing demands of local control of political subdivisions on the one hand, and voter equality on the other. [5] But the core holding of Hunter has retained its vitality. As long as the state treats voters within the same electoral district or governmental unit equally, the right to vote is not compromised. In addition, the state has the right to draw different boundaries for voting purposesand we generally defer to these delineationsas long as the separate units further reasonable government objectives. Several conclusions flow from these cases. When a state law discriminates among eligible voters within the same electoral district, strict scrutiny review applies, and compelling government interests must justify restrictions of the franchise. For example, strict scrutiny is appropriate where states differentiate among voters in a particular district on the basis of personal characteristics such as wealth, property ownership, or taxpayer status. See Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289, 95 S.Ct. 1637, 44 L.Ed.2d 172 (1975) (examining law restricting the vote on a city bond issue to residents who have taxable personal property); City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 90 S.Ct. 1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 523 (1970) (considering law restricting vote in a general obligation bond election to real property taxpayers); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969) (per curiam) (analyzing law restricting vote in a municipal revenue bond election to taxpaying residents); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969) (addressing law restricting voting in a school district election to those owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school district). Strict scrutiny is also appropriate where a state disqualifies residents living in a federal zone even though they were residents of the state and within state boundaries. See Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419, 421, 90 S.Ct. 1752, 26 L.Ed.2d 370 (1970) (voters live within the geographical boundaries of the State of Maryland, and they are treated as state residents). [6] Importantly, none of these cases held strict scrutiny should apply to voting restrictions based on voters' residency outside the relevant electoral district. Indeed, the cases suggest just the opposite. The seminal case of Kramer v. Union Free School District, for example, while striking down a New York statute that limited voting in school board elections to parents or property owners, expressly noted that New York retained the power to impose reasonable ... residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. 395 U.S. at 625, 89 S.Ct. 1886. And in Hill, the Court observed that classifications on the basis of residency are exempt from strict scrutiny. See 421 U.S. at 297, 95 S.Ct. 1637. Thus, even non-residents with a substantial interest in the governance of a districtsay, commuting workers or second-home ownersmay be restricted from elections in a district. While these holdings shed light on the appropriate equal protection framework, none squarely addresses the constitutionality of a statute restricting the franchise in a school district detachment election like the one presented here. Two cases from the late 1970s, however, support the conclusion that the voting limitations in Utah's school detachment statute are subject to rational basis review. These cases hold that states have considerable leeway in discriminating against voters residing in different governmental units or electoral districts even when the outcome of a particular election affects them. The first case, Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action at the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 97 S.Ct. 1047, 51 L.Ed.2d 313 (1977), concerned a New York voting law that allowed voters from different parts of a county to have a greater voice in strengthening county government. Under the law, county voters could increase the power of the county government by adopting a new charter, but only if separate majorities of voters living in the cities and voters living in unincorporated areas outside the cities approved the measure. See id. at 260., 97 S.Ct. 1047 After a majority of those who lived outside the cities (but a minority of the overall voters in the county) rejected a new county charter, city voters challenged the ability of rural voters effectively to veto the charter changes on equal protection grounds. See id. at 262-63, 97 S.Ct. 1047. Reviewing the constitutionality of the New York law, the Supreme Court first recognized that the single-shot nature of the referendum procedure was due substantial deference. Id. at 266, 97 S.Ct. 1047. The procedure was not designed to restrict the ability of voters to select their government representatives. Rather, it was established to provide a one-shot election to determine the structure of local government. The equal protection principles applicable in gauging the fairness of an election involving the choice of legislative representatives, the Court noted, are of limited relevance ... in analyzing the propriety of recognizing distinctive voter interests in a `single-shot' referendum. Id. Instead, in determining whether equal protection principles permit discrimination between voters in different governmental or electoral units when it comes to referenda, Lockport focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in the relevant interests of the groups that the state electoral classification has created; and, if so, (2) whether any resulting enhancement of minority voting strength nonetheless amounts to invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 268, 97 S.Ct. 1047. In finding that New York's law accommodated the distinctive interests of the cities and unincorporated parts of a countyas opposed to their interests as a homogeneous unitthe Court recognized both the wide discretion the States have in forming and allocating governmental tasks to local subdivisions, and the discrete interests that such local governmental units may have qua units. Id. at 269, 97 S.Ct. 1047. Given the differing interests of city and non-city voters in adopting a new county charter, the absence of invidious discrimination, and the presumption of constitutionality entitled to every duly enacted state law, the Supreme Court held equal protection did not invalidate the voting law. See id. at 271-73, 97 S.Ct. 1047. The Lockport Court did not expressly state it was applying rational basis review. But the wide discretion it applied in analyzing the statute is consistent with no other standard. In a second case, the Supreme Court again emphasized the leeway states have in treating voters residing in separate governmental units or electoral districts differently. Examining an Alabama statute that excluded residents outside a city from participating in local elections, the Court held a voting scheme constitutional even when the city exercised certain police and other powers over the excluded residents. In Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 99 S.Ct. 383, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), the plaintiffs were residents of the Town of Holt, a small unincorporated community on the outskirts of incorporated Tuscaloosa. See id. at 61, 99 S.Ct. 383. Even though the residents lived outside Tuscaloosa's boundaries and were ineligible to vote in Tuscaloosa's elections, Alabama state law subjected them to Tuscaloosa's police and sanitary regulations, the criminal jurisdiction of Tuscaloosa's courts, and Tuscaloosa's power to license businesses, trades, and professions. See id. at 61-63, 99 S.Ct. 383. The plaintiffs claimed Tuscaloosa's exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-voting residents like them violated the one person, one vote mandate of the Equal Protection Clause. See id. at 62-63, 99 S.Ct. 383. Holt distinguished the earlier voting limitation cases such as Kramer, Evans, Hill, Cipriano, and City of Phoenix. The Court noted these earlier cases struck down laws denying the franchise to residents within the boundaries of the particular entity exercising police power. See id. at 68, 99 S.Ct. 383. While the Supreme Court acknowledged that discriminating among voters within such a governmental unit may merit strict scrutiny, it also recognized that the same unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders. Id. at 68-69, 99 S.Ct. 383. [N]o one would suggest, the Holt Court observed, that nonresidents likely to be affected by this sort of municipal action have a constitutional right to participate in the political processes bringing it about. Id. at 69, 99 S.Ct. 383. Nonresidents do not have a right to participate even where internal municipal actions can have equally dramatic extraterritorial effects. Id. at 70, 99 S.Ct. 383. In explaining its holding, the Court explained that the line heretofore marked by [our] voting qualifications decisions coincides with the geographical boundary of the governmental unit at issue. Id. at 70, 99 S.Ct. 383. Because Holt's residents were not within the boundary of the governmental unit at issue (Tuscaloosa), the case did not fall within the constrictions of the Supreme Court's previous voting rights cases. See id. With this understanding of the scope of the right to vote, the question before the Court became whether the Alabama statute satisfied rational basis review, i.e., whether it had a rational relationship to [a] legitimate state purpose. Id. at 70, 99 S.Ct. 383. In light of the extraordinarily wide latitude [that States have] in creating various types of political subdivisions and conferring authority upon them, the Alabama law was reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests and thus did not violate equal protection. Id. at 71, 99 S.Ct. 383. While instructive, none of the Supreme Court cases directly addresses the residency and boundary concerns this case presents. Almost all of the cases from lower courts applying these principles, however, support our conclusion that Utah can limit the franchise only to those voters within the detaching district.
Other courts addressing annexation and secession statutes have also deferred to state laws restricting the franchise in local boundary elections. Two local election boundary decisions are particularly helpful: Moorman v. Wood, 504 F.Supp. 467 (E.D.Ky.1980), and City of New York v. State, 158 A.D.2d 169, 557 N.Y.S.2d 914, 916 (N.Y.App.Div.), aff'd, 76 N.Y.2d 479, 561 N.Y.S.2d 154, 562 N.E.2d 118 (1990). These decisions both upheld state restrictions on voting rights when a portion of an existing political entity sought to detach and either join another jurisdiction or form a new one. Moorman involved several neighborhoods seeking simultaneous detachment from a large city and annexation into two adjoining, smaller cities. See 504 F.Supp. at 468. A Kentucky law permitting referenda to accomplish these actions limited voter participation to residents of the detaching neighborhoods. See id. Residents of the larger city argued this law violated equal protection because it does not permit all of the voters of [the larger city] to vote on what amounts to the de-annexation of part of their city, a matter in which they claim a substantial interest. Id. The larger city voters argued that, among other impacts, detaching the neighborhoods would substantially impact the larger city's tax base. See id. After reviewing Hunter, Lockport, Holt, and other Supreme Court voting rights decisions, see id. at 471-73, the Moorman court held that: so long as the residents of the affected areas are treated alike within those areas, statutory provisions for a wide variety of voting schemes will be upheld against an equal protection attack, and the vote of one area may be give[n] more weight than that of the other, or the franchise may even be granted to one area and denied to another if a rational basis exists for so providing. Id. at 473 (emphasis added) (citing Hunter, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151). The court relied on Hunter for the proposition that these difficult policy problems of local government are matters for the individual states to resolve, and the federal courts should stay out of them if principles of due process and equal protection are observed, as construed in the light of federalism. Id. at 477. The second secession case, City of New York, involved a New York statute that created a procedure allowing residents of Staten Island to decide whether the borough should detach from the rest of New York City. The procedure involved two referenda in which the residents of Staten Island would vote on detachment, but did not give other voters in New York City an opportunity to vote on the matter. See 557 N.Y.S.2d at 915. The City challenged the state procedures on equal protection grounds, but the state court declined to apply strict scrutiny. Instead, the court held that Hunter, Lockport, Holt, and the Supreme Court's other voting rights decisions provided that the State can legitimately adopt a geographic classification based upon the boundaries of a proposed new political subdivision to be created if approved by the electorate of the smaller, but significant, separating community. Id. at 917. The special interests of Staten Island residents justified limiting the vote to them. See id. New York's highest appellate court subsequently affirmed the holding, finding the state's decision to restrict voting to residents of Staten Island was a reasonable classification based on the distinct interest of that subdivision of the State. 561 N.Y.S.2d 154, 562 N.E.2d at 121. Moorman and City of New York considered the precise issue the Utah detachment statute raiseswhether, in a voter referendum on a proposed detachment from an existing state political entity, a state may restrict voting to persons residing in the proposed area of detachment and found rational basis review to be appropriate. [7] In addition to these cases, numerous other authorities addressing analogous legal issues support our conclusion that the deferential standard of scrutiny is required. See, e.g., St. Louis County v. City of Town and Country, 590 F.Supp. 731 (E.D.Mo.1984) (upholding an annexation statute providing for a vote of the residents of the annexing city and a separate vote of the residents of the area to be annexed, but allowing the residents of the county outside the area to be annexed to vote); Hayward v. Edwards, 456 F.Supp. 1151 (D.S.C.1977), aff'd sub nom Hayward v. Clay, 573 F.2d 187 (4th Cir.1978) (upholding portion of annexation statute that allowed separate votes of annexing and annexed areas; striking portion of statute which allowed property owners to veto annexation); Murphy v. Kansas City, 347 F.Supp. 837 (W.D.Mo.1970) (upholding annexation statute that allowed residents of annexing city to vote, but permitting residents of area to be annexed to vote); Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 3 Cal.4th 903, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 245, 838 P.2d 1198 (1992) (holding that restricting voter participation in a municipal incorporation referendum to county residents of area proposed to be incorporated did not violate the Equal Protection Clause); Givorns v. City of Valley, 598 So.2d 1338 (Ala.1992) (upholding under the rational basis test a statute limiting the franchise to qualified voters living within the boundaries of the area to be annexed); In re Petition for Detachment of Land from Morrison Comm. Hosp. Dist., 318 Ill.App.3d 922, 251 Ill.Dec. 796, 741 N.E.2d 683 (2000) (holding that limiting voter participation in hospital district detachment referendum to residents of area proposed to be detached did not violate the state's due process clause). [8]