Document: 414 U.S. 524 94 S.Ct. 740 38 L.Ed.2d 702 Edward F. O'BRIEN et al., Appellants,v.Albert SKINNER, Sheriff, Monroe County, al. No. 72—1058. Argued Nov. 6, 1973. Decided Jan. 16, 1974. Syllabus Appellants, who are incarcerated in jail as convicted misdemeanants or pretrial detainees unable to make bail but under no voting disability state law, and requested were denied the right register vote mobile registration, absentee voting, other procedures, brought this action challenging constitutionality of New York election laws. The contested statutes allow qualified persons by measures if precluded from personally doing so because illness, physical disability, their duties, occupation, business, permit (but not registration) voters vacationing away residence on day confined a veterans' hospital. trial intermediate appellate courts initially viewed appellants' confinement held that they entitled ballot. Court Appeals reversed determination, concluding imposed incarceration did come within terms statute. Held: challenged provisions thus construed, which raise question disenfranchisement criminal conduct means county where residents, violate Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment, arbitrarily discriminate between categories voters. Pp. 528—531. 31 N.Y.2d 317, 338 N.Y.S.2d 890, 291 N.E.2d 134, remanded. William D. Eggers, Rochester, N.Y., for appellants. Michael K. Consedine, appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 This is an appeal judgment taken 72 at time original action, detained confinement. Some simply awaiting trial, others pursuant misdemeanor convictions; none subject any laws York. 2 York,1 divided vote, failure State provide appellants with registering was violation denial federal consitutional right. 3 Before November 1972 general elections York, applied authorities including Board Elections, establish registration unit compliance procedure had been employed some jails State. request then be either transported polling places appropriate restrictions or, alternative, permitted York's which, essentially, allowed appear illness 'duties, occupation business.' also voter his he veterans'- hospital vacation.2 request, taking position obligation person inmates qualify statutes. 4 Supreme County considered claims presented treated them proceeding nature mandamus. conclusion reached court legislature provided institution (other than mental institution). concluded should construed apply inmate otherwise disenfranchised since constituted 'physical disability' sense physically disabled leaving go polls statute therefore such However, noted there showing claiming these rights timely filed all necessary forms could yet accomplished ballot 1972. Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department review gave similar construction laws, stating: 5 'We believe petitioners, being confined, do casting ballots.' 40 A.D.2d 942, 337 700 (1972). 6 On Appeals, however, holdings reversed, 7 'The does protect insure against those circumstances render impracticable. fact imposes many disabilities, private, public, only one. Under circumstances, view Legislature's extend similarly disadvantaged, it hardly seems plausible petitioners' has them. It enough handicaps, then, functions attendant impracticalities contingencies, legal design.' 320—321, 893—894, 136—137. 8 Judge Fuld dissented, §§ 117—a 153 Election Law read manner announced Division. Burke, joining Fuld, agreed, stating additionally law precluding exercising violated equal protection guarantees Amendment. 9 important note outset here conviction conduct. As we earlier, except reason able physically—in very literal sense—to advance mail. silent concerning facilities penal institutions, balloting. If resident eligible reside, paradoxically, may secure mail, presumably 'unavoidably absent residence.' N.Y. § 117(1)(b) (1964).3 10 Thus, statutes, two citizens trial—or even decision whether charged sitting side same cell, receive different treatment rights. have noted, citizen cannot can cellmate whose adjoining county. Although neither bar one cannot. 11 occasion examine McDonald v. Comm'rs, 394 802, 89 1404, 22 739 (1969). There 'medically incapacitated' outside residence. Unlike present case, 'there (was) nothing record show (were) absolutely prohibited . .,' id., 808 n. 7, S.Ct., 1408, possibility might furnish alternative voting. Id., 808, 1408. Essentially Court's disposition rested proof. 12 More recently Goosby Osser, 409 512, 93 854, 35 36 (1973), again problem that, unlike absolute specific provision 'persons institution' clear, therefore, here, like petitioners Goosby, bring themselves precise structure holding foreshadowed. 13 its highest court, way misdemeanants, wholly arbitrary. extends privileges 'illness disability,' required counties normal days In addition, get bureau hospitals, home business' vacation. Indeed, mail Yet, completely operate restriction 'so severe itself constitute unconstitutionally onerous burden exercise franchise.' Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 760, 1245, 1251, (1973). Appellants similarily situated are, impeding vote; use although legally vote. 14 given well reasonable interpretation our function construe contrary We choice, hold deny guaranteed 15 Reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 16 ordered. 17 MARSHALL, whom DOUGLAS BRENNAN join, concurring. 18 While I join Court, my analysis issues requires elaboration. 19 fully agree Appeals' reliance (1969), misplaced. rejected claim crux rational-basis test proper standard evaluating prisoners' claims. relied heavily evidence made impossible 20 '(T)he barren indication not, instance, possibly special booths day, guarded transportation certain inmates, entertain motions temporary reductions own.' 21 characterized saying '(i)t stake claimed 807, Because relatively trivial inconvenience encountered when available, properly contention strict scrutiny statutory classifications required. clear fundamental premises based absent. See 518—522, 858—861, 'reject(ed) out hand' would without using ballots.1 posture, longer contended case involves 'merely ballots' 'not vote,' 'have direct impact (appellants') relying McDonald, argued, 320, 893, 136; statements, context fly face reality. Nor ballots deprive more deprives 'similarly' find 'impracticable' see N.Y.S.2d, N.E.2d, 136—137; both preventing going denying ballots. Denial effectively franchise 23 settled 'if grants denies others, 'the must determine exclusions promote compelling interest." Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 337, 92 995, 1000, 274 (1972), quoting Kramer Union Free School District 15, 395 621, 627, 1886, 1889, 583 (1969); Cipriano City Houma, 701, 704, 1897, 1899, 647 Phoenix Kolodziejski, 399 204, 205, 209, 90 1990, 1992, 1994, 26 523 (1970). here. 24 provides numerous polls. permits by, inter alia, business takes Absentee available vacation day. Significantly, conceded residing mail.2 25 light extensive participation electoral process through exclusion withstand analysis. basis suggested discrimination recognized 'that booth, local officials too tempted try influence in-county inmates.' U.S., 810, 1409. Though integrity box surely legitimate concern, frankly something bit disturbing about approach problem. hard conceive how justify ground afford official opportunity abuse authority. truly little confidence officers, adopt stringent prevent misconduct, penalize depriving less burdensome attempts votes alternatives example. difficulty asserted interest insufficient statutes' compelling-state-interest test. think State's Clause. 27 BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 28 Once again, confronted claim, fashionable late, positive provisions, (1973); Kusper Pontikes, 51, 303, 260; particular relief, unconstitutional deprivation And once strikes down 29 unnecessarily unwisely elevating projecting constitutional pronouncement into area distant obscure corners area—that, me, domain reserved own housekeeping, dissent. 30 emphasis, observations MARSHALL concurring opinion, effect muchamended challenge cut unevenly. Surely, now model draftsman's art. absentee-voting privilege appears hospital, N.Y.Election 117 (1964), seemingly, due statute's silence (unless 'because 117—a), just nonambulatory, municipal denominational institution. 117, voter, absent' 'absent' vacation, attending wedding visiting seriously ill relative next concededly occupant resides another These irritating less-than-thoughtful sub silentio distinctions, temptation eliminate striking strong appealing. am convinced, ready interfere. developed successive remedial amendments, each designed correct then-apparent gap. State, after all, matter requirement, need 32 'a traditionally take reform 'one step time, addressing phase most acute legislative mind,' Williamson Lee Optical Oklahoma, Inc., 348 483, 489, 75 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955); run risk losing entire scheme failed, inadvertence otherwise, cover every evil conceivably attacked. .' 809, 1409, 33 Jefferson Hackney, 406 535, 546, 1724, 1731, 285 34 Furthermore, fallout minor collateral great, let alone constitutional, import. bound dividing line somewhere, intended unintended (as suspect was). operates what feels reaction will critical. Whether else again. Line drawing necessary, 348, 1005, drawing, someone left differently. feel, unequal largely incidental further. affected, sure, affected misfortune serving sentences critical doing, supra, found meet enrollment deadline. plight elicits course, detainee guilty offense charged. Yet upon him, unfortunate, produces situation funeral loved inequalities, inequalities life, regard unconstitutional. refrain continued tampering interference details deserving cure, legislature, ought curative agent. 134 At sought, a, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. (Supp.1971—1972) provided, pertinent part: '1. A district personal city permanent effect, institution, require him residence, said city, days, registered section. file application accordance section law.' Effective January 1, 1973, 153—a repealed, replaced (Supp.1972—1973), contains substantially identical provisions. (1964) provides, who, occurrence election, place chapter ..' be— 'a. unavoidably 'b. elsewhere 'c. 'may chapter.' oral argument, counsel appellees interpreted portions Laws absence County. stated: reject hand commit respondents policy transporting public places; assign responsibility providing conditions (or) threaten hazards embraced schema.' 319, 892, 135 Presumably includes flat rejection McDonald. emphasizes, disenfranchise charges. Constitution disenfranchisement. Article II, '(e) shall vote' Art. 3, excludes 'convicted bribery infamous crime.' confront substantial problems seek exclude classes franchise.

Category: 1