*1 DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC. v. MISSOURI. Argued No. 317. January 10, 1952. Decided March 1952. Henry C. M. Lamkin argued the for cause appellant. With him' on the brief were William- H. Armstrong and Louis J. Fortner. H. Thomas Cobbs was also of counsel.
John R. Baty, Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, for appellee. With him on the brief was J. E. Taylor, Attorney General. M. Arthur O’Keefe, Assistant Attor- ney General, was also of counsel.
J. Woll, Albert Herbert S. Thatcher and James A. Glenn filed a brief for the- American Federation of Labor, as curiae, amicus supporting app dlee-. Douglas
Mr. delivered the opinion of the Justice Court.
Missouri has a statute, Mo. Stat., Rev. 1949, 129.060, § first enacted in 1897, which was designed to end the co- ercion of employees by employers in the exercise of the franchise. It provides that an employee may him- absent between the four hours employment
self from penalty, without closing opening *2 things wages deducts other among who any employer of a misdemeanor.1 guilty that absence for business doing corporation ais Missouri Appellant general for elec- day was 5, 1946, Louis. November St. A. M. to from 6 being open Missouri, polls the tions was appellant, of employee Grotemeyer, M. 7 P. One M. M. 4:30 P. each A. worked from 8 on a shift that was His rate of for lunch. thirty minutes day, with hours from the sched- He four requested $1.60 an hour. That re- 5, 1946. to vote on November day uled work all other em- Grotemeyer and refused; was but quest 3 P. M. that to leave at his shift were allowed ployees on be- hours vote gave them four consecutive day, which fore the closed. M. in order to vote at 3 P.
Grotemeyer left his work day. paid He was not not return to work that did P. M. 3 P. M. and 4:30 for the hour and a half between penalizing fined for Grote- Appellant guilty was found judgment was of the statute. The meyer violation 299, Supreme Court, Missouri 362 Mo. affirmed shall, “Any any in this state person entitled to vote at election any day election, himself from on the of such be entitled to absent engaged employed, employment he is then or services or in which opening closing period for of the times of four hours between polls; not, absenting himself, and such voter shall because of so any however, employer may penalty; provided, be liable may specify during employee the hours absent himself such Any person any corporation as aforesaid. or who shall refuse to employee privilege hereby conferred, discharge or or shall threaten discharge any employee absenting for for himself from his work purpose any election, employee of or said shall cause to suffer any penalty wages or deduction of of of because the exercise such privilege, shall, directly indirectly, or provisions who or violate the section, guilty misdemeanor, be shall deemed of a and on any exceeding conviction thereof be fined in sum not five hundred dollars.” 886, objection W. 2d over the that the statute violated Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses
Fourteenth Amendment and the Contract Clause of Art. I, § 10.
The liberty
argument
pressed on us
contract
is rem
York,
iniscent of the philosophy of Lochner v. New
S. 45,
which invalidated a New York law prescribing
maximum hours for work in bakeries;
Kansas,
Coppage
U. S. which struck down a Kansas statute outlaw
ing “yellow dog” contracts; Adkins
Children’s
Hos
pital,
The
semblance of substance
the constitutional
objection
employer
law is that the
must
Missouri’s
wages
period
employee performs
for a
which the
no
many
regulation
services. Of
forms of
reduce the
course
enterprise; yet
gives
net return of the
rise to no con-
Queenside
Saxl,
infirmity.
stitutional
See
Hills Co.
Maloney, supra.
80;
Auto. Assn. v.
California
regulations
necessarily impose
Most
of business
financial
no
enterprise
compensation
burdens
for which
on
of our
paid.
part
Those are
the costs
civilization.
conjured
Extreme cases are
where an
is re-
up
employer
for a
no
quired
pay wages
period
that has
relation to
legitimate
end. Those cases can await decision as
they
present
law
no
when
arise. The
has
such
infirmity.
Jt
designed
any penalty
to eliminate
exercising
suffrage
prac-
and to remove a
tical obstacle to
out the
getting
public
vote. The
welfare
concept.
moral,
is broad
inclusive
social, eco-
contrary
Supreme
Decisions
of the Missouri
Court
Appeals
Kentucky
case have been rendered
the Court of
*4
Commonwealth,
Ky. 632,
Illinois
R. Co. v.
305
204 W. 2d
S.
Central
973,
Supreme
People Chicago,
Court of Illinois
v.
in
M. &
486,
Co.,
Zelney Murphy,
P.
St.
R.
306 Ill.
425 community is well-being of the nomic, physical - another. The well-being, it; political part one fix burden the financial adequate which is police of the judgment other. The for the adequate one the em- cost voting time out for should legislature It is indeed one. nothing may be debatable ployee But if our recent to be such. opposition conceded re- issues as anything, they mean leave debatable cases to legislative and social affairs spects business, economic, if re- only down this law we decision. could strike We Lochner, Coppage, turned to the philosophy Adkins cases. so as to free
The classification voters deal with employers attempt the domination of group exposed. an evil to which the one has been legislative judg- for that is a matter for need classification (American ment Federation Labor v. American Sash Co., 538), 335 S. and does not amount to a denial of equal protection under the laws.
Affirmed. concurs the result. Frankfurter Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting. Mr. Justice very not vital case, The constitutional issue if one. Two present application, surely its is debatable resort, only state courts of last ones to consider simi Only lar held it unre legislation, have unconstitutional.1 viewed decisions of intermediate courts2 can be cited support holding. of the Court’s
1
Ky. 632,
v.
Commonwealth,
204 S. W.
Illinois
Central R. Co.
973; People Chicago,
486,
2d
v.
Ill.
Co.,
138 N. E.
M. & St. P. R.
492,
155. Cf.
Ill.
Appellant for each per $1.60 at hour hourly on an basis contract, absence, demanded a four-hour leave hour worked. He and to campaigning to do pay, day with full on election that his residence was get stipulated out the It is vote. took actually and that it polling place 200 feet from the closed the Appellant him about minutes to vote. five earlier day’s for all one and one-half hours work hours usual, gave statutory than them the four something polls before the For failure to less closed.. than did Grotemeyer for this hour and a half which $3 provide not work and for which his contract did not he paid, employer should be is convicted of crime under the statute set forth in opinion. the Court’s
To mini- analogy sustain statute resort to the wage mum seems unconvincing laws so farfetched and as strength. demonstrate its weakness rather than its Be- may require payment cause a State of a wage minimum for hoürs that are may worked it does not follow that it compel payment for time that is not worked. To over- look a point distinction so fundamental is to confuse the in issue. Court, by speaking though ap- the statute as
plies only to industry, big, sinister and further obscures .principle real involved. The plainly requires farmers, small service enterprises, professional offices, with help, housewives domestic and all other employers, not only to allow their employees vote, time to but to pay them for time to do so. It does not, however, require the employee to any part use of such time for purpose. Such legislation stands a class itself and should not be uncritically commended regulation “prac- as mere business-labor, tices field.” Obtaining a full and free expression qualified from all voters at is so fundamental rep- successful government resentative that a State concerns rightly it- of every self with the removal obstruction to the opportunity freely. go to vote Courts should far to *6 from ob- legislation designed sustain to relieve would stand in the ligations private employers to which way duty of their as citizens.
But there must limit to shift the be some to whole to who voting burden someone else voter to him. happens relationship stand some economic to Getting out the of employers; vote is not the business I indeed, have when em- regarded political as a abuse ployers concerned employees’ themselves with their vot- It ing. is either the own or the State’s voter’s business I question business. do not that incentive this statute will help offers swell to the'vote; require .employees paid be time-and-a-half would swell it still more, double-time would do even better. But does the success of an justify enticement to vote putting its cost on some other citizen?
The discriminatory flagrant. character of this It is obvious that not everybody paid will be for voting and the “rational basis” on which the State has ordered paid some be while others are not eludes If me. there is a need for a subsidy get out the vote, no reason ápparent to me itwhy go should to one who lives feet from his polling place but not to a self-employed farmer who may to lay have down his work and let his equipment idle for several hours while he travels several miles over bad fall roads to do duty his as a If citizen. he has hired man, he must also lose his hand’s time and pay. Perhaps plan some will be forthcoming farmer requiring his iñortgagee to pro- rebate some portion of the interest on the farm if mortgage he will vote; It would principle. not differ in way But no occurs to byme which the doctor can charge patient some of. the lawyer some client for call he could not receive while he was voting.
I suppose a State itself has considerable latitude to offer inducements to voters who do not value their franchise enough to vote on their own time, if even they seem to me corrupting or discriminating ones. Perhaps my difficulty with today’s decision is that I rise above old- cannot fashioned valuation of American citizenship which makes a state-imposed pay-for-voting system appear to be a con- fession of failure of popular representative government.
It undoubtedly is right of every union negotiating with an employer bargain for voting time without loss of pay. It is of any individual equally employee to make that part of his hire. I have no reason doubt that a large number of voters already have voluntary arrangements which make their absence for voting with- *7 out cost. But a constitutional philosophy which sanc- tions intervention by State to fix terms of pay without work may be available tomorrow give constitutional sanction to state-imposed terms of employment less benevolent.