445 F. App'x 599
3d Cir.2011Background
- Lewis challenged New Jersey's four-year residency requirement for State Senator as applied to him after submitting a candidate petition.
- Layton and Costa contested Lewis's eligibility, and the NJ ALJ found lack of proof that Lewis failed the four-year residency before election.
- Secretary of State rejected the ALJ and barred Lewis from the ballot; Appellate Division affirmed.
- Lewis sued in federal court alleging equal protection and Civil Rights Act violations; district court granted summary judgment against him on as-applied challenge.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, holding the four-year residency applied to Lewis did not violate equal protection under rational basis review.
- The court concluded Lewis failed to show disparate treatment or a fundamental-rights violation given his California domicile and voting history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As-applied equal protection challenge viability | Lewis argues four-year residency violates equal protection as applied. | Defendants contend no unconstitutional application; rational basis suffices. | Affirmed: no as-applied equal protection violation. |
| Unequal application given domicile facts | Lewis asserts uneven treatment due to his domicile and voting history. | Court found no unique treatment; similar to others in other respects. | Affirmed: no equal protection disparity shown as applied. |
| Impact on fundamental rights | Residency requirement burdens right to run and travel. | Burden permissible under rational basis; no fundamental-rights trigger proven. | Affirmed: no strict scrutiny; no proven fundamental-rights violation in as-applied context. |
| Relitigation of state-court findings | Lewis urged reconsideration of state court factual determinations. | Court should not relitigate state-law findings. | Affirmed: no revisitation of state-court findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (durational residency implicates equal protection; need realistic scrutiny)
- Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (election-law burdens analyzed under realistic scrutiny)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) (some burden on voting may be permissible without strict scrutiny)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) (equal protection requires rational basis review absent suspect class or fundamental right)
- United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3d Cir., 2010) (as-applied equal protection analysis for government action)
- Keystone Redevelopment Partners v. Decker, 631 F.3d 89 (3d Cir., 2011) (explanation of equal protection standards in classifications)