DUNN, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. BLUMSTEIN
No. 70-13
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 16, 1971—Decided March 21, 1972
405 U.S. 330
Robert H. Roberts, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were David M. Pack, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General.
James F. Blumstein, pro se, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Charles Morgan, Jr., and Norman Siegel.
Henry P. Sailer and William A. Dobrovir filed a brief for Common Cause as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Various Tennessee public officials (hereinafter Tennessee) appeal from a decision by a three-judge federal court holding that Tennessee‘s durational residence requirements for voting violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue arises in a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by appellee James Blumstein. Blumstein moved to Tennessee on June 12, 1970, to begin employment as an assistant professor of law at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. With an eye toward voting in the upcoming August and November elections, he attempted to register to vote on July 1, 1970. The county registrar refused to register him, on the ground that Tennessee law authorizes the registration of only those persons who, at the time of the next election, will have been residents of the State for a year and residents of the county for three months.
After exhausting state administrative remedies, Blumstein brought this action challenging these residence re-
requirements were unconstitutional (1) because they impermissibly interfered with the right to vote and (2) because they created a “suspect” classification penalizing some Tennessee residents because of recent interstate movement.2 337 F. Supp. 323 (MD Tenn. 1970). We noted probable jurisdiction, 401 U. S. 934 (1971). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision below.3
The subject of this lawsuit is the durational residence requirement. Appellee does not challenge Tennessee‘s power to restrict the vote to bona fide Tennessee residents. Nor has Tennessee ever disputed that appellee was a bona fide resident of the State and county when he attempted to register.4 But Tennessee insists that, in addition to being a resident, a would-be voter must have been a resident for a year in the State and three months in the county. It is this additional durational residence requirement that appellee challenges.
Durational residence laws penalize those persons who have traveled from one place to another to establish a new residence during the qualifying period. Such laws divide residents into two classes, old residents and new residents, and discriminate against the latter to the extent
To decide whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause, we look, in essence, to three things: the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification. Cf. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968). In considering laws challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, this Court has evolved more than one test, depending upon the interest affected or the classification involved.6
First, then, we must determine what standard of review is appropriate. In the present case, whether we look to the benefit withheld by the classification (the opportunity to vote) or the basis for the classification (recent interstate travel) we conclude that the State must show a substantial and compelling reason for imposing durational residence requirements.
Durational residence requirements completely bar from voting all residents not meeting the fixed durational standards. By denying some citizens the right to vote, such laws deprive them of “a fundamental political right, . . . preservative of all rights.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964). There is no need to repeat now the labors undertaken in earlier cases to analyze this right to vote and to explain in detail the judicial role in reviewing state statutes that selectively distribute the franchise. In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction. See, e. g., Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419, 421-422, 426 (1970); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621, 626-628 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 706 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 667 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 93-94 (1965); Reynolds v. Sims, supra. This “equal right to vote,” Evans v. Cornman, supra, at 426, is not absolute; the States have the power to impose voter qualifications, and to regulate access to the franchise in other ways. See, e. g., Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 91; Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 144 (opinion of DOUGLAS, J.), 241 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.), 294 (opinion of STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined). But, as a general matter, “before that right [to vote] can be restricted, the purpose of the restriction and the assertedly overriding interests served by it must meet close constitutional scrutiny.” Evans v. Cornman, supra, at 422; see Bullock v. Carter, ante, p. 134, at 143.
This exacting test is appropriate for another reason, never considered in Drueding: Tennessee‘s durational residence laws classify bona fide residents on the basis of recent travel, penalizing those persons, and only those persons, who have gone from one jurisdiction to another during the qualifying period. Thus, the durational residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.
“[F]reedom to trаvel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 758 (1966). See Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J.); Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44 (1868); Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869); Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631, 634 (1969); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 237 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.), 285-286 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined). And it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the “freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union,” id., at 285. Obviously, durational residence laws single out the class of bona fide state and county residents who have recently exercised this constitutionally protected right, and penalize such travelers directly. We considered such a durational residence requirement in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, where the pertinent statutes imposed a one-year waiting period for interstate migrants as a condition to receiving welfare benefits. Although in Shapiro we specifically did not decide whether durational residence requirements could be used to determine voting eligibility,
Tennessee attempts to distinguish Shapiro by urging that “the vice of the welfare statute in Shapiro . . . was its objective to deter interstate travel.” Brief for Appellants 13. In Tennessee‘s view, the compelling-state-interest test is appropriate only where there is “some evidence to indicate a deterrence of or infringement on the right to travel . . . .” Ibid. Thus, Tennessee seeks to avoid the clear command of Shapiro by arguing that durational residence requirements for voting neither seek to nor actually do deter such travel. In essence, Tennessee argues that the right to travel is not abridged here in any constitutionally relevant sense.
This view represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.8 It is irrelevant whether disenfranchisement or denial of welfare is the more potent deterrent to travel. Shapiro did not rest upon a finding that denial of welfare actually deterred travel. Nor have other “right to travel”
Of course, it is true that the two individual interests affected by Tennessee‘s durational residence requirements are affected in different ways. Travel is permitted, but only at a price; voting is prohibited. The right to travel is merely penalized, while the right to vote is absolutely denied. But these differenсes are irrelevant for present purposes. Shapiro implicitly realized what this Court has made explicit elsewhere:
“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . ‘Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied’ . . . .” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 540 (1965).11
See also Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967), and cases cited therein; Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511, 515 (1967). The right to travel is an “unconditional personal right,” a right whose exercise may not be conditioned. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 643 (STEWART, J., concurring) (emphasis added); Oregon v. Mitchell, supra, at 292 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting,
C
In sum, durational residence laws must be measured by a strict equal protection test: they are unconstitutional unless the State can demonstrate that such laws are ”necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.” Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 634 (first emphasis added); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S., at 627. Thus phrased, the constitutional question may sound like a mathematical formula. But legal “tests” do not have the precisiоn of mathe-
It is not sufficient for the State to show that durational residence requirements further a very substantial state interest. In pursuing that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with “precision,” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 265 (1967), and must be “tailored” to serve their legitimate objectives. Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 631. And if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose “less drastic means.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960).
II
We turn, then, to the question of whether the State has shown that durational residence requirements are needed to further a sufficiently substantial state interest. We emphasize again the difference between bona fide residence requirements and durational residence requirements. We have in the past noted аpprovingly that the States have the power to require that voters be bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision. E. g., Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S., at 422; Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra, at 625; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S., at 91; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).14 An appropriately defined and uniformly applied require-
It is worth noting at the outset that Congress has, in a somewhat different context, addressed the question whether durational residence laws further compelling state interests. In § 202 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, added by the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Congress outlawed state durational residence requirements for presidential and vice-presidential elections, and prohibited the States from closing registration more than 30 days before such elections.
“(1) INSURE PURITY OF BALLOT BOX—Protection against fraud through colonization and inability to identify persons offering to vote, and
“(2) KNOWLEDGEABLE VOTER—Afford some surety that the voter has, in fact, become a member of the community and that as such, he has a common interest in all matters pertaining to its government and is, therefore, more likely to exercise his right more intelligently.” Brief for Appellants 15, citing 18 Am. Jur., Elections, § 56, p. 217.
We consider each in turn.
A
Preservation of the “purity of the ballot box” is a formidable-sounding state interest. The impurities feared, variously called “dual voting” and “colonization,” all involve voting by nonresidents, either singly or in groups. The main concern is that nonresidents will temporarily invade the State or county, falsely swear that they are residents to become eligible tо vote, and, by voting, allow a candidate to win by fraud. Surely the prevention of such fraud is a legitimate and compelling government goal. But it is impossible to view durational residence requirements as necessary to achieve that state interest.
Preventing fraud, the asserted evil that justifies state lawmaking, means keeping nonresidents from voting. But, by definition, a durational residence law bars newly arrived residents from the franchise along with nonresidents. The State argues that such sweeping laws are necessary to prevent fraud because they are needed to identify bona fide residents. This contention is particu-
Durational residence laws may once have been necessary to prevent a fraudulent evasion of state voter standards, but today in Tennessee, as in most other States,16 this purpose is served by a system of voter registration.
Moreover, to the extent that the State makes an enforcement effort after the oath is sworn, it is not clear what role the durational residence requirement could play in protecting against fraud. The State closes the registration books 30 days before an election to give officials an opportunity to prepare for the election. Before the books close, anyone may register who claims that he will meet the durational residence requirement at the time of the next election. Although Tennessee argues that this 30-day period between registration and election does not give the State enough time to verify this claim of bona fide residence, we do not see the relevance of that position to this case. As long as the State permits registration up to 30 days before an election, a lengthy durational residence requirement does not increase the amount of time the State has in which to carry out an investigation into the sworn claim by the would-be voter that he is in fact a resident.
Even if durational residence requirements imposed, in practice, a pre-election waiting period that gave voting officials three months or a year in which to confirm the bona fides of residence, Tennessee would not have demonstrated that these waiting periods were necessary. At the outset, the State is faced with the fact that it must defend two sеparate waiting periods of different lengths. It is impossible to see how both could be “necessary” to fulfill the pertinent state objective. If the State itself has determined that a three-month period is enough time in which to confirm bona fide residence in the State and county, obviously a one-year period cannot also be justified as “necessary” to achieve the same purpose.17
“reflects the judgment of the Tennessee Legislature that thirty days is an adequate period in which Tennessee‘s election officials can effect whatever measures may be necessary, in each particular case confronting them, to insure purity of the ballot and prevent dual registration and dual voting.” 337 F. Supp., at 330.
It has been argued that durational residence requirements are permissible because a person who has satisfied the waiting-period requirements is conclusively presumed to be a bona fide resident. In other words, durational residence requirements are justified because they create an administratively useful conclusive presumption that recent arrivals are not residents and are therefore prop-
In Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89 (1965), this Court considered and rejected a similar kind of argument in support of a similar kind of conclusive presumption. There, the State argued that it was difficult to tell whether persons moving to Texas while in the military service were in fact bona fide residents. Thus, the State said, the administrative convenience of avoiding difficult factual determinations justified a blanket exclusion of all servicemen stationed in Texas. The presumption created there was conclusive—“incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character.” Id., at 96, citing Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U. S. 312, 324 (1932). The
Carrington sufficiently disposes of this defense of durational residence requirements. The State’s legitimate purpose is to determine whether certain persons in the community are bona fide residents. A durational residence requirement creates a classification that may, in a crude way, exclude nonresidents from that group. But it also excludes many residents. Given the State’s legitimate purpose and the individual interests that are affected, the classification is all too imprecise. See supra, at 343. In general, it is not very difficult for Tennessee to determine on an individualized basis whether one recently arrived in the community is in fact a resident, although of course there will always be difficult cases. Tennessee has defined a test for bona fide residence, and appears prepared to apply it on an individualized basis in various legal contexts.22 That test
B
The argument that durational residence requirements further the goal of having “knowledgeable voters” appears to involve three separate claims. The first is that such requirements “afford some surety that the voter has, in fact, become a member of the community.” But here the State appears to confuse a bona fide residence requirement with a durational residence requirement. As already noted, a State does have an interest in limiting the franchise to bona fide members of the community. But this does not justify or explain the exclusion from the franchise of persons, not because their bona fide residence is questioned, but because they are recent rather than longtime residents.
The second branch of the “knowledgeable voters” justification is that durational residence requirements assure that the voter “has a common interest in all matters pertaining to [the community’s] government . . . .” By this, presumably, the State means that it may require a period of residence sufficiently lengthy to impress upon
“But if they are in fact residents, . . . they, as all other qualified residents, have a right to an equal opportunity for political representation. . . . ‘Fencing out’ from the franсhise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” 380 U. S., at 94.
See
Similarly here, Tennessee’s hopes for voters with a “common interest in all matters pertaining to [the community’s] government” is impermissible.27 To paraphrase what we said elsewhere, “All too often, lack of a [‘common interest’] might mean no more than a different interest.” Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419, 423 (1970). “[D]ifferences of opinion” may not be the basis for excluding any group or person from the franchise. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 705-706 (1969). “[T]he fact that newly arrived [Tennesseeans] may have a more national outlook than longtime residents, or even may retain a viewpoint characteristic of the region from which they have come, is a constitutionally impermissible reason for depriving them of their chance to influence the
Finally, the State urges that a longtime resident is “more likely to exercise his right [to vote] more intelligently.” To the extent that this is different from the previous argument, the State is apparently asserting an interest in limiting the franchise to voters who are knowledgeable about the issues. In this case, Tennessee argues that people who have been in the State less than a year and the county less than three months are likely to be unaware of the issues involved in the congressional, state, and local elections, and therefore can be barred from the franchise. We note that the criterion of “intelligent” voting is an elusive one, and susceptible of abuse. But without deciding as a general matter the extent to which a State can bar less knowledgeable or intelligent citizens from the franchise, cf. Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S., at 422; Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621, 632 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S., at 705,29 we conclude that durational residence requirements cannot be justified on this basis.
In Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra, we held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited New York State from limiting the vote in school-district elections to parents of school children and to property owners. The State claimed that since nonparents would be “less informed” about school affairs than parents, id., at 631, the State could properly exclude the class of nonparents in order to limit the franchise to the more “interested” group of residents. We rejected that position, concluding that a “close scrutiny of [the classification] demonstrates that [it does] not accomplish this purpose with suffiсient precision . . . .” Id., at 632. That scrutiny revealed that the classification excluding nonparents from the franchise kept many persons from voting who were as substantially interested as those allowed to vote; given this, the classification was insufficiently “tailored” to achieve the articulated state goal. Ibid. See also Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, at 706.
Similarly, the durational residence requirements in this case founder because of their crudeness as a device for
It is pertinent to note that Tennessee has never made an attempt to further its alleged interest in an informed electorate in a universally applicable way. Knowledge
It may well be true that new residents as a group know less about state and local issues than older residents; and it is surely true that durational residence requirements will exclude some people from voting who are totally un-
III
Concluding that Tennessee has not offered an adequate justification for its durational residence laws, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
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
2. The compelling-state-interest test, as applied to a State’s denial of the votе, 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-
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.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting.
The holding of the Court in Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904), is as valid today as it was at the turn of the century. It is no more a denial of equal protection for a State to require newcomers to be exposed to state and local problems for a reasonable period such as one year before voting, than it is to require children to wait 18 years before voting. Cf. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970). In both cases some informed and responsible persons are denied the vote, while others less informed and less responsible are permitted to vote. Some lines must be drawn. To challenge such lines by the “compelling state interest” standard is to condemn them all. So far as I am aware, no state law has ever satisfied this seem-
The existence of a constitutional “right to travel” does not persuade me to the contrary. If the imposition of a durational residency requirement for voting abridges the right to travel, surely the imposition of an age qualification penalizes the young for being young, a status I assume the Constitution also protects.
Notes
Involved here are provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, as well as portions of the Tennessee Code. Article IV, § 1, of the Tennessee Constitution, provides in pertinent part:
“Right to vote—Election precincts . . . —Every person of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the United States, and a resident of this State for twelve months, and of the county wherein such person may offer to vote for three months, next рreceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, members of the General Assembly and other civil officers for the county or district in which such person resides; and there shall be no other qualification attached to the right of suffrage.
“The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws requiring voters to vote in the election precincts in which they may reside, and laws to secure the freedom of elections and the purity of the ballot box.”
Section 2-201, Tenn. Code Ann. (Supp. 1970) provides:
“Qualifications of voters.—Every person of the age of twenty-one (21) years, being a citizen of the United States and a resident of this state for twelve (12) months, and of the county wherein he may offer his vote for three (3) months next preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for members of the general assembly and other civil officers for the county or district in which he may reside.”
Section 2-304, Tenn. Code Ann. (Supp. 1970) provides:
“Persons entitled to permanently register—Required time for registration to be in effect prior to election.—All persons qualified to vote under existing laws at the date of application for registration, including those who will arrive at the legal voting age by the date of the next succeeding primary or general election established by statute following the date of their application to register (those who become of legal voting age before the date of a general election shall be entitled to register and vote in a legal primary election selecting nominees for such general election), who will have lived in the state for twelve (12) months and in the county for which they applied for registration for three (3) months by the date of the next succeeding election shall be entitled to permanently register as voters under the provisions of this chapter provided,
however, that registration or re-registration shall not be permitted within thirty (30) days of any primary or general election provided for by statute. If a registered voter in any county shall have changed his residence to another county, or to another ward, precinct, or district within the same county, or changed his name by marriage or otherwise, within ninety (90) days prior to the date of an election, he shall be entitled to vote in his former ward, precinct or district of registration.”On July 30, the District Court refused to grant a preliminary injunction permitting Blumstein and members of the class he represented to vote in the August 6 election; the court noted that to do so would be “so obviously disruptive as to constitute an example of judicial improvidence.” The District Court also denied a motion that Blumstein be allowed to cast a sealed provisional ballot for the election.
At the time the opinion below was filed, the next election was to be held in November 1970, at which time Blumstein would have met the three-month part of Tennessee‘s durational residency requirements. The District Court properly rejected the State‘s position that the alleged invalidity of the three-month requirement had been rendered moot, and the State does not pursue any mootness argument here. Although appellee now can vote, the problem to voters posed by the Tennessee residence requirements is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). In this case, unlike Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969), the laws in question remain on the books, and Blumstein has standing to challenge them as a member of the class of people affected by the presently written statute.
For example, in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868), the tax imposed on persons leaving the State by commercial carrier was only $1, certainly a minimal deterrent to travel. But in declaring the tax unconstitutional, the Court reasoned that “if the State сan tax a railroad passenger one dollar, it can tax him one thousand dollars,” id., at 46. In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871), the tax on nonresident traders was more substantial, but the Court focused on its discriminatory aspects, without anywhere considering the law‘s effect, if any, on trade or tradesmen‘s choice of residence. Cf. Chalker v. Birmingham & N. W. R. Co., 249 U. S. 522, 527 (1919); but see Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270 (1900). In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S. 60, 79-80 (1920), the Court held that New York could not deny nonresidents certain small personal exemptions from the state income tax allowed residents. The amounts were certainly insufficient to influence any employee‘s choice of residence. Compare Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948), with Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U. S. 415 (1952).
“The fact that the voting privilege has been extended to 18 year old persons . . . increases, rather than diminishes, the need for durational residency requirements. It is so generally known, as to be judicially accepted, that there are many political subdivisions in this state, and other states, wherein there are colleges, universities and military installations with sufficient student body or military personnel over eighteen years of age, as would completely dominate elections in the district, county or municipality so located. This would offer the maximum of opportunity for fraud through colonization, and permit domination by those not knowledgeable or having a common interest in matters of government, as opposed to the interest and the knowledge of permanent members of the community. Upon completion of their schooling, or service tour, they move on, leaving the community bound to a course of political expediency not of its choice and, in fact, one over which its more permanent citizens, who will continue to be affected, had no control.” Brief for Appellants 15-16.