Equal Protection and Voting, Dunn v. Blumstein

[A18]

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)

Tennessee closes its registration books 30 days before an election, but requires residence in the State for one year and in the county for three months as prerequisites for registration to vote. Appellee challenged the constitutionality of the durational residence requirements, and a three-judge District Court held them unconstitutional on the grounds that they impermissibly interfered with the right to vote and created a "suspect" classification penalizing some Tennessee residents because of recent interstate movement. Tennessee asserts that the requirements are needed to insure the purity of the ballot box and to have knowledgeable voters.

Held: The durational residence requirements are violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they are not necessary to further a compelling state interest. ... A period of 30 days appears to be ample to complete whatever administrative tasks are needed to prevent fraud and insure the purity of the ballot box.

[Emsworth]

Horrible decision. The equal protection clause, as I have suggested on other threads, does not apply to voting rights.

Even if we assume that the equal protection clause covers voting rights, and even if we apply the compelling interest standard, the decision is unsound. Surely, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate is well-informed. The Tennessee legislature may have believed that someone who has been in the state for a short period of time would not be sufficiently acquainted with the issues to cast an informed vote.

[A18]

Surely, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate is well-informed.

Wrong. It is not 'surely' so, because a "compelling interest" is completely subjective.