Document: 394 U.S. 802 89 S.Ct. 1404 22 L.Ed.2d 739 Sam L. McDONALD et al., Appellants,v.BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS CHICAGO. No. 68. Argued Nov. 19, 1968. Decided April 28, 1969. Stanley A. Bass, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. T. Kusper, Jr., appellees. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellants and class they represent are unsentenced inmates awaiting trial in Cook County jail who, though qualified electors, cannot readily appear at polls either because charged with nonbailable offenses or have been unable to post bail imposed by courts Illinois.1 They obtain absentee ballots, constitute one a number classes whom no provision voting has yet made Illinois Legislature. The constitutionality Illinois' failure include them those who entitled vote is primary issue this direct appeal from three-judge court. 2 specific provisions attack d here, Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 46, §§ 19—1 19—3, balloting available four persons: (1) absent county their residence any reason whatever; (2) 'physically incapacitated,' so long as present an affidavit that effect licensed physician; (3) whose observance religious holiday precludes attendance polls; (4) serving poll watchers precincts other than own on election day.2 availability ballot extended its coverage various amendments over last 50 years. Prior 1917, had voting, requiring personal polls, year legislature would be business duties. In 1944 was all reason. remaining but physical incapacity, holidays, duties were added 1955, 1961, 1967, respectively. 3 On March 29, appellants timely3 application ballots 4 inability day. applications accompanied warden attesting inability. These refused appellee Board Election Commissioners ground not incapacitated' within meaning 19—2 Code. same day filed complaint, alleging unconstitutionally excluded provisions. requested court convened rule violative equal protection insofar required denial judicially incapacitated while making it time medically incapacitated; sought injunction restrain 'from refusing grant (appellants') timely ballots.' District Court granted appellants' request temporary relief 30, before convened, ordered electors jail.4 Both parties then motions summary judgment, asserting honor subject members criminal liability under law.5 December 11, Court, 277 F.Supp. 14 judgment Board, holding extending privileges physically medical reasons appearing constituted proper reasonable legislative classification protection. case brought here appeal, 390 1038, 88 1645, 20 300 (1968), we affirm. 5 argue violate Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment two reasons. First, contend since distinction between 'judicially' bears relationship legitimate state objective, classifications arbitrary therefore violation Secondly, pretrial detainees imprisoned States counties State can citizens reason, clearly deny simply happen incarcerated resident counties. Underlying contentions assertion rights involved, there narrower scope operation presumption ordinarily legislation challenged See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 356, 370, 6 1064, 1071, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). Before confronting challenge provisions, must determine initially how stringent standard use evaluating thereunder whether distinctions justified compelling interest; assert dealing generally alleged infringement basic, fundamental right. See, e.g., Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506 (1964); Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 16 169 (1966). Thus, 'States held broad powers conditions which right suffrage may exercised,' Lassiter Northampton 360 45, 50, 79 985, 989, 1072 (1959), once franchise, do discriminatory manner. Carrington Rash, 380 89, 85 775, 13 675 (1965). More importantly, however, overriding importance rights, 'which might invade closely scrutinized carefully confined' where asserted Clause; supra, 670, 1083. And careful examination our part especially warranted lines drawn basis wealth race, factors independently render highly suspect thereby demand more exacting judicial scrutiny. Douglas California, 372 353, 83 814, 9 811 (1963); McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 192, 283, 288, 222 (1964). 7 Such approach necessary apparent race. nothing record indicate statutory scheme impact ability exercise vote. It thus stake claimed receive ballots. Despite claim contrary, statutes, designed make some groups easily get themselves franchise; nor, indeed, does Code operate whole, State's statutes specifically disenfranchise only convicted sentenced, similarly situated § 3—5 (1967). Faced constitutional question, lightly assume, support such assumption, fact precluded voting.6 We left traditional standards claims.7 Though wide leeway allowed enact appears affect people differently, validity adheres thereto, admit settled formula, basic guidelines firmly fixed. statute bear rational end will set aside if based totally unrelated pursuit goal. Legislatures presumed acted constitutionally even source materials normally resorted ascertaining grounds action otherwise silent, conceived justify them. McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 81 1101, 393 (1961); Kotch River Port Pilot Commissioners, 330 552, 67 910, 91 1093 (1947); Lindseley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 61, 31 337, 55 369 (1911). With much discretion, traditionally take reform 'one step time, addressing itself phase problem seems most acute mind,' Williamson Lee Optical Oklahoma, Inc., 348 483, 489, 75 461, 465, 99 563 (1955); need run risk losing entire remedial failed, through inadvertence otherwise, cover every evil conceivably attacked. Ozan Lumber Co. Union National Bank, 207 251, 28 52 195 (1907). 8 Since show incapacitated, detainee absolutely prohibited exercising quite Legislature treat differently handicapped, must, after all, affidavits physicians absolute personally order qualify ballot. could, course, easier concerned class. Its so, hardly arbitrary, particularly view many covered extremely difficult, practically impossible.8 Similarly, different treatment accorded without reflect determination booth, local officials too tempted try influence in-county inmates. temptation attendant risks prison discipline would, less urgent prisoners out outside Constitutional safeguards offended prisoners, result, find convenient 10 satisfied allegedly unconstitutional incompleteness sustained Ironically, willingness go further States9 attending provided arguing invidiously fashion method franchise. Indeed, disclose plan but, rather, very opposite—a consistent laudable policy adding, 50-year period, existence comes attention legislature. That gone still further, perhaps might, should void legislation, not, ave stated before, 'strike evils time.' Semler Dental Examiners, 294 608, 610, 570, 571, 1086 (1935). 11 Accordingly, affirmed. Affirmed. HARLAN STEWART concur result. At bringing suit, appellant McDonald being charge murder; his subsequent resulted hung jury, he pleaded reduced manslaughter, bailable offense. Appellant Byrd, discharged robbery complaint dismissed preliminary hearing, $5,000 bond. Section identifies persons apply provides manner made, including requirement physician 'Christian Science practitioner accompany incapacitated. 19—3 sets format accompanying affidavits. addition allegations these protection, also below ruling interpreting laws, misconstrued persons. Reading 19 together 19—2, concluded included construction here. setting concede just prior earlier suit equitable allow him February aldermanic Chicago. ordering furnish election, one-judge noted disfranchised sentenced (Ill.Rev.Stat., (1967)), jails could 'absent elector,' did intend exclude individuals appellant's circumstances among incapacitated.' 265 816 (D.C. 1967). 29A—1, 29A—5 (1967), provide penalties up five years' imprisonment, fine exceed $5,000, both, violating Although controlling cases, neither party contends permissive only, allowing specified statute. agree barren indication instance, possibly special polling booths facilities day, guarded transportation certain inmates, entertain reductions own. additional claims argument llege first that, wholly apart cast mail avoid impermissible consequence detention. voters forcibly restrained person; system, obviating necessity march armed guard—a procedure disruptive expensive. secondly extent afford posted bail, denied solely indigency, contrary State, see n. 6, reach contentions. A identifiable legislation: juries residence, mothers children baby sitter, ill relations county, servicemen stationed counties, doctors often called emergency work, businessmen away business. hand, person above groups, prisoner, presumably ill, observing holiday. Only three duties, others observance. Several Illinois, Wisconsin jury duty, Wis.Stat. 6.85 Alaska, Oregon inaccessibility Alaska Stat. 15.20.010 (1962), Cal.Elections 14620 (1961), Ore.Rev.Stat. 253.010(1)(a), 253.510 Maine absence 'sufficient' Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 21, 1251, 1306 Armed Forces, expressly impliedly. All disabled, six require rather precinct, condition. survey submitted argument.

Category: 1