Court Opinion

ID: 9424777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:12:44.922504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:52.303779
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the result.
Professor Blumstein obviously could hardly wait to register to vote in his new home State of Tennessee. He arrived in Nashville on June 12, 1970. He moved into his apartment on June 19. He presented himself to the registrar on July 1. He instituted his lawsuit on July 17. Thus, his litigation was begun 35 days after his arrival on Tennessee soil, and less than 30 days after he moved into his apartment. But a primary was coming up on August 6. Usually, such zeal to exercise *361the franchise is commendable. The professor, however, encountered — and, I assume, knowingly so — the barrier of the Tennessee durational residence requirement and, because he did, he instituted his test suit.
I have little quarrel with much of the content of the Court’s long opinion. I concur in the result, with these few added comments, because I do not wish to be described on a later day as having taken a position broader than I think necessary for the disposition of this case.
1. In Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904), Mr. Justice Peckham, in speaking for a unanimous Court that included the first Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Holmes, said:
“The simple matter to be herein determined is whether, with reference to the exercise of the privilege of voting in Maryland, the legislature of that State had the legal right to provide that a person coming into the State to reside should make the declaration of intent a year before he should have the right to be registered as a voter of the State.
“. . . The right of a State to legislate upon the subject of the elective franchise as to it may seem good, subject to the conditions already stated, being, as we believe, unassailable, we think it plain that the statute in question violates no right protected by the Federal Constitution.
“The reasons which may have impelled the state legislature to enact the statute in question were matters entirely for its consideration, and this court has no concern with them.” 193 U. S., at 632, 633-634.
I cannot so blithely explain Pope v. Williams away, as , does the Court, ante, at 337 n. 7, by asserting that if that *362opinion is “[c]arefully read,” one sees that the case was concerned simply with a requirement that the new arrival declare his intention. The requirement was that he make the declaration a year before he registered to vote; time as well as intent was involved. For me, therefore, the Court today really overrules the holding in Pope v. Williams and does not restrict itself, as footnote 7 says, to rejecting what it says are mere dicta.
2. The compelling-state-interest test, as applied to a State’s denial of the vote, seems to have come into full flower with Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621, 627 (1969). The only supporting authority cited is in the “See” context to Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 96 (1965). But as I read Carrington, the standard there employed was that the voting requirements be reasonable. Indeed, in that opinion Mr. Justice Stewart observed, at 91, that the State has “unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot.” A like approach was taken in McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394 U. S. 802, 809 (1969), where the Court referred to the necessity of “some rational relationship to a legitimate state end” and to a statute’s being set aside “only if based on reasons totally unrelated to the pursuit of that goal.” I mention this only to emphasize that Kramer appears to have elevated the standard. And this was only three years ago. Whether Carrington and McDonald are now frowned upon, at least in part, the Court does not say. Cf. Bullock v. Carter, ante, p. 134.
3. Clearly, for me, the State does have a profound interest in the purity of the ballot box and in an informed electorate and is entitled to take appropriate steps to assure those ends. Except where federal inter*363vention properly prescribes otherwise, see Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970), I see no constitutional imperative that voting requirements be the same in each State, or even that a State’s time requirement relate to the 30-day measure imposed by Congress by 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-1 (d) for presidential elections. I assume that the Court by its decision today does not depart from either of these propositions. I cannot be sure of this, however, for much of the opinion seems to be couched in absolute terms.
4. The Tennessee plan, based both in statute and in the State’s constitution, is not ideal. I am content that the one-year and three-month requirements be struck down for want of something more closely related to the State’s interest. It is, of course, a matter of line drawing, as the Court concedes, ante, at 348. But if 30 days pass constitutional muster, what of 35 or 45 or 75? The resolution of these longer measures, less than those today struck down, the Court leaves, I suspect, to the future.