*1 HOLT CIVIC CLUB v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA et al.
et al. No. Argued 77-515. October 1978 Decided November *2 in which opinion Court, BuRGER, the of the J., delivered Rehnquist, joined. JJ., Stevens, and Powell, J.,C. Blackmun, and Stewart, J., post, filed a p. 75. concurring opinion, Brennan, J., filed a Stevens, post, JJ., joined, dissenting opinion, Marshall, and in which White p. 79. him on With cause for argued appellants. the
Edward Still McDonald, Christopher Laughlin Bradley, briefs were Neil the Ennis. Bruce Coates, and for brief filed the cause and argued Finnell Wagner
J. appellees. of the Court. Rehnquist opinion delivered the
Mr. Justice community unincorporated rural, small, largely Holt is a the fifth Tuscaloosa, outskirts on the northeastern located community is within the Because city in Alabama. largest circumscribing Tuscaloosa’s jurisdiction police the three-mile city’s “police the subject to residents are its corporate limits, (1975).1 11-40-10 § Ala. Code sanitary regulations.” [and] criminal subject to the are also Holt residents city’s and 12-14-1 (1975),2 Ala. § Code city’s court, provides: 11-40-10 text of The full § shall 6,000 more inhabitants having or cities jurisdiction in police “The limits, corporate and territory three miles within adjoining all cover juris- towns, police such 6,000 and in inhabitants having than less in cities territory mile and adjoining within a also to extend shall diction city or town. of such corporate limits half of regulations sanitary enforcing or city or town of a “Ordinances force thereof have shall penalties for violations fines and prescribing and police jurisdiction and in or town the limits of the effect in and belonging any rights-of-way property or on thereof town.” prosecutions for jurisdiction of all have municipal court shall “The Code Ala. power businesses, trades, professions, to license from may collect (1975).3 Tuscaloosa, however, § 11-51-91 only of the license police jurisdiction one-half businesses in the within cor- businesses conducted chargeable fee to similar limits. Ibid. porate unincorporated association and an civic appellants, brought this statewide class Holt,
seven individual residents District Court for the Northern action the United States constitutionality of these Alabama,'4 challenging District of They city’s statutes. claimed extraterritorial Alabama police powers residents, exercise of over Holt without a footing equal concomitant extension of the franchise on an limits, within the resi residing corporate with those denies *3 jurisdic- municipality the breach of the ordinances of the within its (b) (1975). Code 12-14^1 tion.” Ala. § 3 pertinent part provides: 11-51-91 § “Any city may the of fix and collect or town within state Alabama any business, police juris- profession trade or done within the licenses for thereof; pro- corporate diction of but the limits such or town outside vided, that the amount of such licenses shaE not be more than one half charged business, the amount and collected as a license for like trade or town, profession corporate done limits fees and within the of such penalties excluded . . . .” duty Although (1975) imposes here, not at issue Ala. Code 11-52-8 a § adopt plan municipal planning
on the commission “to make and a master any physical development municipality, including the out- for the of areas which, judgment, in the bear to side its boundaries commission’s relation planning municipality.” 11-52-30 and of such Under Ala. Code §§ (1975), here, municipal planning 11-52-31 also not contested commis- required adopt regulations governing to the subdivision of land sion is jurisdiction, lying land five within its which includes all within miles corporate municipality’s corporate and not within the limits located any municipality. limits of other 4 prior recompilation This suit was instituted to the 1975 of the Alabama stylistic changes, minor 11-40-10 and 11-51-91 are Code. Other than § § Code, 37, (1958) predecessors, 9 and re identical to their Ala. Tit. §§ 12-14-1 spectively. Section abolished the recorder’s courts created under replaced predecessor, Code, (1958), Tit. Ala. them with §585 jurisdiction. having courts extraterritorial similar Due police jurisdiction secured rights dents of the the Fourteenth Equal Protection Clauses of Process appellants’ request Amendment. District Court denied The three-judge pursuant § to 28 U. S. C. to convene a court to state (1970 ed.) complaint and dismissed the for failure upon granted. Characterizing claim which relief could be held Court enabling Acts, Alabama statutes as the District application lack statewide nec requisite that statutes appeal On essary three-judge Court. convene District ordered the conven Appeals the Court of for the Fifth Circuit police jurisdiction ing three-judge court, finding of a that ” “ Holt concern.’ policy statute embodies ‘a statewide Tuscaloosa, (1975), quoting Civic Club v. 2d 525 F. 89, 94 Spielman Dodge, Motor Sales Co. v. 295 U. S. A three-judge appellants’ District but convened, Court was Noting constitutional claims no on the merits. fared better regu- appellants sought that a declaration extraterritorial se per lation is unconstitutional rather than an extension police jurisdiction the District Court residents, franchise simply “[e]qual protection held has not been extended 2a. The App. cover such contention.” to Juris. Statement without comment. rejected appellants’ process court due claim Accordingly, appellees’ granted. motion was to dismiss on the appellants’
Unsure whether constitutional attack requirements Alabama statutes satisfied the 28 U. S. C. *4 (1970 a ed.) convening three-judge court, 2281 district § for jurisdictional until the postponed we consideration of the issue (1978). on the merits. 914 We hearing case 435 U. S. con- properly now conclude that court was three-judge appellants’ properly vened and that constitutional claims were rejected.
I (1970 required Before its ed.) §2281 28 U. S. C. repeal,5 a any that district court be convened in in three-judge case 5 Aug. Pub. 94-381, 1, 12,1976, L. 90 1119. Stat. § 64 injunction sought was permanent or preliminary a
which any or execution of State enforcement, operation restrain “the in any of officer of such State by restraining the action statute . .” de- statute . . Our or execution such the enforcement of a require convening interpreted have 2281 to § cisions challenged statute or “where the three-judge district court aby legislature, or authorized state regulation, albeit created policy.” or effectuates a statewide application has statewide Project, 404 Regents New Education U. S. Board Left Flowers, 97 Moody v. 387 U. S. on 541, Relying 542 original single-judge appellees and (1967), contend, jurisdiction statutes held, police that Alabama's District Court impact. lack statewide Moody convened three-judge improperly court was
A application, “limited challenged state statutes had because litiga in the only county a involved particular concerning constitu Id., appellants’ . .” In contrast, tion . . at 104. statute that creates upon tional focuses a attack state Alabama cities exercise extra system statewide under which provides mandatory terms, In the statute powers. territorial sanitary have force municipal police and ordinances “shall police and city effect in the limits of the or town and jurisdiction any rights-of-way on or property and thereof 6 police to the or town.” Alabama’s belonging Clearly, 6 added). (1975) Supreme (emphasis 11-40-10 The Alabama Ala. Code § City Leeds mandatory recognized the 11-40-10. Court has nature of § Moody, rejected v. Town 496, (1975), 294 Ala. 2d 242 the court So. had, by discontinuing police fire contention Leeds relinquished police jurisdiction, protection in its “waived and its Id., 2d, the area.” 319 So. at 246. “Since over away governmental power specifically municipality cannot barter dele gated legislature, it to it ... it follows that also cannot waive Trailway Mobile, OH Co. relinquish Ibid. See also power.” such (1960) 218, 224, (“[Section] 2d Title 37 Ala. So. 9 of [now 11-40-10], describing municipal police juris the territorial extent of the § thereof, 11-51-91], diction and the incidents 733 of Title 37 [now § § *5 jurisdiction application. See, g., statutes have statewide e. Sailors v. Board Education, 387 U.
That the named defendants are local officials is irrelevant where, here, as those pursuant officials are to a “functioning policy statewide a performing Moody state function.” Flowers, supra, 102; Spielman Dodge, Motor Sales Co. v. supra, at 94-95. three-judge The District convening Court was proper.
II Appellants’ complaint requested amended the District Court to declare the Alabama statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin their they enforcement insofar as authorize the extra- territorial of municipal powers. exercise Seizing on the Dis- “ trict Court’s observation [appellants] do exten- not seek sion of the franchise to themselves,” appellants suggest that complaint their was they dismissed sought wrong because remedy.
The
predicament
unconstitutional
appellants
in which
assertedly found
only
themselves could be
remedied
two
ways: (1)
city’s
power
extraterritorial
negated by
could be
invalidating the State’s authorizing
or (2)
right
statutes
to vote in municipal elections could be extended
residents
police jurisdiction.
agree
We
with appellants
federal court should not dismiss a meritorious constitutional
claim
complaint
because the
remedy
seeks one
rather
than
plainly
another
appropriate one. Under the Federal Rules of
Civil
“every
Procedure
final judgment
grant
shall
relief
amended,
as
authorizing and regulating
fixing
collecting
of licenses
police jurisdiction
within the
towns,
general laws, and,
cities and
as
such, they
part
every
are considered
municipal charter”); Coursey City
Andalusia,
App. 247,
(1931) (“Under
Ala.
247-248,
A Appellants equal focus their protection 11-§ attack on 40-10, the fixing statute municipal police juris- the limits of diction and giving extraterritorial effect to municipal police and sanitary ordinances. Citing Kramer Union Free Dist., School 395 U. and cases in (1969), following its appellants wake, argue that the section creates classification infringing on their right participate in municipal elections. The State’s denial the franchise resi- appellants dents, urge, can only justified stand if by a com- pelling state interest.
At issue in Kramer was New York qualification voter statute that limited in the vote school district elections to qualified otherwise district (1) residents who either owned or leased taxable real property within located the district, (2) were married to persons owning leasing or qualifying (3) property, parents were or guardians of children enrolled in a local district school specified for a time during the year. preceding Without deciding whether or not may a State in some circumstances limit the franchise to pri- residents marily in interested or primarily affected the activities of a governmental
given unit, the Court held was statute sufficiently not tailored to meet that state interest since its classifications many excluded bona fide residents of the school district who had distinct and in school direct interests board decisions and included many residents interests whose school were, affairs remote best, and indirect.
On the same day, Cipriano City Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), upheld the Court an equal protection challenge to *7 a Louisiana law providing only "property taxpayers” could vote elections approve called to the issuance of revenue by municipal utility bonds system. Operation of the utility system virtually every affected city, resident of the just not property owners, way and the bonds were in no financed property tax revenue. Thus, since the benefits and burdens of the bond indiscriminately issue fell property on owner nonproperty and alike, owner the challenged classifica- impermissibly tion excluded otherwise qualified residents who substantially were directly affected in the interested put matter to a referendum. The rationale of Cipriano was subsequently upon called to invalidate Arizona an law restrict- ing property the franchise taxpayers in elections approve of general issuance Phoenix obligation bonds. Kolodsiejski, 204 (1970). U. S.
Appellants place Cornman, also heavy reliance on Evans v. S. 419 U. Evans the Permanent Board of of Registry Montgomery County, Md., persons ruled that living grounds on the of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal enclave located within geographical boundaries State, did not residency require- meet the Maryland ment Constitution. NIH resi- Accordingly, right dents were in Maryland denied to vote elections. rejected Court persons This the notion that on living NIH grounds were not Maryland: residents of
“Appellees clearly
within
geographical
live
boundaries
they
the State of
Maryland,
are treated as state
residents in the census
determining congressional
and in
apportionment.
They
Maryland
only
not residents of
if
grounds
the NIH
part Maryland
ceased to be a
when the enclave was created.
'fiction of
However, a state within a
specifically rejected
state’ was
by this
Court in Howard v.
Louisville,
Commissioners
344 U. S.
(1953), and it cannot be resurrected here to
deny appellees
Id.,
right
to vote.”
at 421-422.
Thus, because inhabitants of the NIH enclave were residents
Maryland
"just
and were
as interested in and connected
with electoral
they
prior
decisions as
were
to 1953 when the
area came
under federal
and as
neighbors
their
id.,
who live off the enclave,”
at 426,
deny
the State could not
equal
them the
right to
in Maryland
vote
elections.
From these and our other voting qualifications cases a com
mon characteristic emerges: The challenged statute in each
case denied the franchise to
physically
individuals who were
resident within the geographic
governmental
boundaries of the
entity
g.,
Stone,
e.
Hill
See,
concerned.
69 g., borders. See, Blumstein, e. Dunn v. 405 343- S.U. 344 (1972); Comman, Evans v. supra, Kramer 422; at v. Union Free Dist., School Rash, 395 625; Carrington U. v. S., 89, 91 (1965); U. S. Pope Williams, 193 U. S. (1904). Bona fide residence alone, however, does not auto- matically confer right to vote on all for at least matters, in the context of special interest elections the con- may State stitutionally disfranchise residents who lack required special interest subject matter of the election. See Land Salyer Co. v. Dist., Tulare Storage Lake Basin Water S. 719 (1973); U. Associated Enterprises, Inc. Toltec Watershed Improvement Dist., 410 U. S.
Appellants’ argument extraterritorial extension municipal powers requires concomitant extraterritorial exten- sion of the proves franchise too much. The line imaginary defining city’s corporate limits cannot corral the influence of municipal city’s actions. A decisions inescapably in- affect dividuals living immediately outside its borders. The grant- ing of permits building for high rise apartments, industrial plants, and the like city’s on fringe unavoidably contrib- problems utes of traffic congestion, school districting, and law enforcement immediately city. outside the A change rate city’s in the sales or ad valorem signifi- tax could well have a impact cant on property retailers and bordering values areas city. The condemnation of real property city’s on the edge for construction of municipal garbage dump or waste plant treatment would implications have obvious for neigh- boring nonresidents. Indeed, indirect extraterritorial effects of many purely internal actions con- could ceivably have a impact heavier on surrounding environs than regulation the direct contemplated by police juris- Alabama’s *9 diction statutes. Yet no one would suggest that nonresidents likely to by be affected this of municipal sort action have a right constitutional participate to in political processes bringing it about. And unless one adopts the idea that presumably which is embodied sovereignty, Austinian notion of authority police jurisdic- extent in the of a over a to some municipal powers limited the direct effects of tion, distinguishes though police jurisdiction residents from indirect over internal purely effects of equally dramatic extraterritorial requires say little one municipal it makes sense actions, franchise while the other does not. extension appel- country’s popular sovereignty, this tradition Given in not Tuscaloosa elections is right claimed to vote lants’ logical appeal. mindful, however, without We are some Co. in Hudson Water Justice Holmes’ observation Mr. McCarter, (1908): 209 U. S. their absolute to rights
“All tend to declare themselve neigh- by in limited logical extreme. Yet all fact are other than those principles policy borhood of which are which particular right founded, on which the certain own when a strong enough become to hold their con- boundary . . The at which the point is reached. . by any flicting interests balance cannot be determined or general points line, but advance, formula this helping it, to establish are fixed decisions that or that concrete case falls on the nearer farther side.” voting qualifica- this Court’s The line heretofore marked geographical boundary of tions decisions coincides with the appellants’ governmental unit at and we hold issue, on homes, their falls the farther case, like side.
B stripped voting rights equal protec- Thus of its attire, presented by appellants tion issue becomes whether giving Alabama statutes extraterritorial force certain powers ordinances and bear some rational relation- ship legitimate purpose. Independent state Antonio San Rodriguez, 1 (1973). School Dist. U. “The Four- prohibit merely teenth Amendment does not legislation be-
71 cause it is special, or limited in its application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of the state.” Fort Light Smith Co. v. Paving Dist., 274 U. S. 387, (1927). 391 the Equal Rather, Protection Clause is offended only if the statute’s classification “rests on grounds wholly irrelevant the achievement of the objective.” State’s McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, (1961); Kotch v. Board River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S.
Government, observed Mr. Justice Johnson, “is the science
of experiment,” Anderson Dunn,
v.
participation in municipal
they
elections since
reside outside of Tuscaloosa’s
corporate limits. This “denial of the franchise,”
appellants
as
put
it,
does not have anything like the far-reaching consequences of the denial
gov-
powers is a
exercise
extraterritorial
The
unique origin
nor
recent
technique neither
ernmental
*11
Extraterritorial
R. Maddox,
of
See
Alabama.
the State
(1955).
in
United States
Municipalities
Powers of
municipal
their
subdivisions
authorize
country 35 States
this
limits.
beyond
corporate
their
powers
governmental
to exercise
of Extra-
Constitutionality
of the Exercise
The
Comment,
L.
Rev.
by
U. Chi.
Municipalities,
Powers
territorial
municipal powers
Although the extraterritorial
(1977).
grant their
vary
several States
granted
widely,
these States
bordering areas
powers
intrusive
over
more extensive or
cities
statutes.8
granted under the Alabama
than those
(1970).
Cornman,
There the
in Evans v.
“have plaees, territory corporate limits . . . and in and over all within the municipality, one except corporate limits of another within within any belonging public ground park corporate limits or of mile of corporate pro- limits, purpose for of municipality outside the community, safety, morals, general and welfare of the moting health, relating enforcing and resolutions thereto.” S. D. its ordinances and Comp. Laws Ann. 9-29-1 § statutory municipal powers grant of extraterritorial Dakota’s North similarly broad: body provided law, governing a munici-
“Except as otherwise a jurisdiction: pality shall have municipal limits for places
“2. In
and over all
within one-half mile of
regulations
purpose
enforcing
quarantine
and
health and
ordinances
peace,
police regulations
adopted
promote the
and
ordinances
In support of their .equal protection claim,
sug-
appellants
gest a number of “constitutionally preferable” governmental
alternatives to
system
Alabama's
police jurisdic-
tions. For example, exclusive management
jurisdiction by county officials, appellants maintain, would be
“practical.”
more
From political
appel-
standpoint,
science
lants’ suggestions may be sound, but this
does not
Court
sit
to determine whether Alabama
chosen
has
the soundest or
order, safety,
general
municipality.”
welfare of the
N. D. Cent. Code
(2) (1968).
§40-06-01
many
Cities in
statutorily
States are
authorized to zone extraterritorially,
see,
g.,
e.
Ariz. Rev. -Stat.
(c)
Ann. 9-240-B-21
(1977);
Comp.
§
Mich.
Laws
(1970);
125.36
N.
§
D. Cent. Code
(1976),
power
11-35-02
not
§
afforded
municipalities.
Alabama
City
See Roberson
Montgomery,
*12
421,
285 Ala.
The Alabama could municipal have decided that corporations should have some measure of control over activi- just beyond ties carried on “city their limit” signs, par- ticularly today’s police jurisdiction since may be tomorrow’s annexation to the proper. Nor need city’s interests only have been the concern legislature when it enacted police jurisdiction statutes. Urbanization any area brings with it a number of individuals who for long both quiet country of suburban or and for living oppor- the career tunities city’s offered working environment. Unin- corporated communities like dot Holt the rim of major most population centers and Alabama elsewhere, legis- state legitimate latures have a interest in this seeing that substantial segment population does not go without basic services such as police, fire, protection. health Estab- *13 experienced lished cities are delivery in the services, of such and the incremental cost of extending city’s the responsibility in these areas to surrounding may environs substantially be less than expense of establishing wholly new service organizations in each community.
Nor was it unreasonable for the Legislature Alabama require police jurisdiction residents to contribute through license fees to expense provided services by them city. statutory The limitation on license fees to half the amount exacted within assures that will not residents be victimized government. “Viable local governments may many need innovations, numerous combinations of old and great new devices, flexibil- ity in municipal arrangements to changing meet urban condi- tions.” Sailors v. Board Education, S., at 110-111. U. This observation in Sailors was doubtless as true the turn of this century, when urban areas throughout the country were temporally to the closer effects of the industrial revolu- tion. Alabama’s police jurisdiction statute, enacted in 1907, was a rational legislative response problems to the faced the State’s burgeoning cities. Alabama is apparently content with the results of its experiment, nothing Equal Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amendment requires that try it new. something
C Appellants also argue that “governance the fran- without chise is a violation of process fundamental the due clause.” for Appellants Brief Support 28. for proposition this alleged to come from Texas, United States v. 252 F. Supp. (WD Tex.) (three-judge District Court), summarily aff’d, 384 U. which (1966), held conditioning the franchise of qualified otherwise payment voters on poll aof tax denied due process many Texas Appellants’ argument voters. pro- from ceeds earlier assumption, shown to be erroneous, supra, at 66-70, they right have a vote Tuscaloosa elections. Their conclusion falls premise. with their
Ill we sum, police jurisdiction conclude that Alabama’s statutes violate neither Equal Protection Clause nor the Process Due Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Accord- ingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed. Mr. Justice concurring. Stevens, today The Court that the holds Alabama statutes providing for the exercise of powers by extraterritorial certain limited *14 municipalities are not I unconstitutional. join While opinion I Court, write separately emphasize that this holding does not make all exercises of extraterritorial author- ity by a municipality immune from Equal attack under the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Alabama Legislature, which is elected all of the citizens of the State including the individual appellants, has prescribed a statewide program pursuant to which residents of police jurisdictions subject to limited regulation by, and receive certain from, services adjacent cities. In return, those residents who are in engaged business are charged license fees equal to one-half those charged my businesses. In view, there is nothing necessarily unconstitutional about such system. a Certainly there is in nothing the Federal Consti- prevent tution to a suburb from contracting with nearby a provide municipal services for its residents, even though those residents have no voice in the election of city’s officials or in the formulation of city’s rules. That essentially what Alabama has accomplished here, through the representatives elected of all its citizens in the legislature.1 state Of course, structuring system, neither a contracting suburb nor an enacting legislature can consent to a waiver of rights constitutional of its constituents in the election process. For “when the delegates State lawmaking power to local government provides for the election local officials from specified districts by statute, ordinance, or local charter, it must insure those qualified to vote have the right to an equally effective voice the election process.” Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. 480. recognize
1 1 there is a difference between a suburb’s decision to nearby city contract with a and a decision legislature requir state ing all suburbs to so. do some situations that might justify difference holding particular that a delegation extraterritorial power is unconsti not, tutional. It does however, justify the view that all delegations such are invalid. *15 But the appellants fact that these subject are to certain of regulations municipality the does not itself establish that they are “qualified vote.” Unlike the of residents National Institutes of Health enclave at issue in Evans v. Cornman, 419, appellants 398 U. S. are not without any voice in the election of govern the officials who their affairs. They do vote for the and county, state, federal officials who exer- primary cise control over their day-to-day lives. And even as to their government interaction with the ap- the city, are pellants completely not without a voice: through their state representatives, they participate directly process in the has which created governmental their relationship with the city. question The then is by whether virtue that relation- ship created by law, state of Holt residents and all other jurisdictions in the State entitled to a are voice “equally effective” with the residents of municipalities themselves the election of the responsible officials for gov- the municipalities. erning
In my they judgment, are not. A State or is free under the Constitution require “all applicants that for the actually vote fulfill requirements of bona fide residence.” Carrington Rash, 380 U. 96. While it is not free to residency draw which deny lines the franchise to individuals just who “are as interested in and connected with electoral decisions ... as are their neighbors” who are entitled to vote, Cornman, Evans v. supra, at Alabama statutes, least on their do face, not do powers so. The of extraterri- torial granted by the challenged statutes are limited. Tuscaloosa, for example, not tax does the residents Holt, nor does it control the zoning their property operation of their schools. Indeed, many of powers tradi- tionally exercised by municipalities provision of parks, —the hospitals, schools, and libraries and the construction and repair bridges highways entrusted here to county —are government, fully which is representative of Holt. Nor is any there claim residency lines have generally been drawn invidiously or that residents of police jurisdictions have been charged unreasonable costs for they the services receive. appellants have shown sum, no more than they all residents of police jurisdictions in Alabama subject some—but no means all—of the regulations and services afforded the cities to residents, their in return for which *16 they pay license fees half as great as paid by city those residents. Such a showing plainly is justify insufficient to a holding that the Alabama statutes are unconstitutional cannot applied anywhere be in the State.
This is all that the today. Court decides For this suit was brought under then-applicable three-judge-court jurisdic- tion as a challenge to the constitutionality of the Alabama statutes.2 Appellants did merely not challenge statutes applied as in jurisdiction. Tuscaloosa they Rather, sought represent all Alabama residents in living contiguous zones, and to have the statutes at issue here declared uncon- stitutional applications all their throughout It State. very was for this reason that the Court of Appeals for the Circuit, Fifth concluded that three-judge-court jurisdiction was proper this case. See Holt Civic Club Tuscaloosa, 525 F. 2d 653, And it is for this reason that our holding necessarily is a limited one. The statutory scheme created the Alabama Legislature is not unconstitutional its terms, may but it well be, opinion as the of the Court ante, recognizes, n. that 72-73, or scheme another much like it might operate sometimes deny franchise individuals who share the their interests of voting neighbors. No such question, however, presented by appeal this from the decision of the three-judge District Moody Court. See (1970 28 U. S. C. ed.), repealed by 94-381, 1, Aug. Pub. L. § § 1976, 90 Stat. 1119.
Flowers, 387 U. 97; Rorick v. Board Comm’rs, 307 U. S. 208.
Me. Justice Brenhan, with whom Me. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
Alabama creates by statute an area of “police jurisdiction” encompassing all adjoining territory within three miles of the corporate limits of cities with population 6,000 or more. Within this police jurisdiction Alabama provides law “ [ordinances . . . enforcing police or sanitary regulations and prescribing fines and penalties for violations thereof shall have force and effect Ala. Code § 11-40- 10 (1975).1 Alabama provides law in addition that a city “may fix collect for any licenses business, trade or profes- sion done within police jurisdiction such . . . provided, that the amount of such licenses shall not be more than one half the amount charged and collected aas license for like business, trade profession done within the corporate limits of such city . . . Ala. § Code 11-51-91 (1975).2 *17 At the time this lawsuit on commenced August 7, 1973, Alabama vested jurisdiction of prosecution of breaches of municipal ordinances occurring within a police jurisdiction in a recorder's court,3 the recorder being elected by a city’s board of commissioners. Ala. Code, Tit. 37, § 584 (1958).4
1 At the time this lawsuit commenced, this statute was codified at Ala. Code, Tit. 37, (1958). 9§ 2At the appellants time filed their complaint, this statute was found at Ala. Code, 37, Tit. (1958). §733 Minor changes in wording were effected during recodification. 3Alabama Code, 37, Tit. (1958) provided: § “It shall be duty of the recorder to keep an officein city, and hear and determine all cases for the breach of the by-laws ordinances and of city may be brought before him, and he shall report, malee least once a month, of fines, all penalties and by forfeitures imposed him, or any councilman in his stead. Such recorder is especially vested of residents and seven Club the Holt Civic
Appellants are
lies within the
community
Holt, which
unincorporated
Although
Ala.5
Tuscaloosa,
jurisdiction of
police
sanitary
and
to Tuscaloosa’s
subject
thus
appellants and to
municipal court,6
of its
jurisdiction
ordinances, to the
are not
appellants
licensing fees,
of its
requirements
or to
elections,
in Tuscaloosa’s
to vote
permitted
or recall
referenda
Tuscaloosa’s
to initiate
participate
on
disparity “infringes
this
Appellants claim that
elections.
equal
and
process
the due
(under
right
constitutional
their
Com
government.”
their
clauses) to a voice
protection
dismissed
below
three-judge District Court
11. The
plaint ¶
Without
claims.7
process
and due
equal protection
appellants’
judgment
I
reverse the
would
process issue,
the due
reaching
equal protec
appellants’
and hold
of the District Court
been sustained.
tion claim should have
granted
“franchise
once a
established that
course,
It
is,
incon
which are
may not be drawn
electorate,
lines
the Fourteenth
Equal Protection Clause
sistent with the
Elections, 383
Virginia
U. S.
Harper v.
Bd.
Amendment.”
franchise
distributing the
Because “statutes
663, 665
police jurisdiction thereof,
may
and within the
exercise in the
with and
may impose
quasi
matters, and
and
criminal
full
in criminal
of ordinances
penalties prescribed
for the violation
ordinance
justice of the
power of an ex-officio
by-laws
city, and
have the
of the
shall
except
. .
peace,
in civil matters.
.”
in Alabama
1973, recorder’s courts were abolished
On December
virtually
jurisdiction.
by municipal
having
identical
replaced
courts
(1975). Municipal judges
appointed
be
12—14r-l
“shall
Ala. Code
See
§
municipality
body
. . . .”
by the
governing
filled
and vacancies
Const.,
Arndt. No.
6.065.
Ala.
§
*18
5
police jurisdiction sur
65,773 residents,
contains
while
Tuscaloosa
17,000
16,000
residents. See
rounding
contains between
App. 17-19.
6
4, supra.
n.
See
7
days
within 45
granted appellants leave “to further amend
The court
City
Tuscaloosa which are
particular ordinances of the
specify
to
liberty
property.”
deprive plaintiffs of
claimed to
constitute
the foundation of our representative
society/7
Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 395 U.
626 (1969),
we have subjected such statutes to “exacting judicial scrutiny.77
Id., at 628.8 Indeed, “if a challenged statute grants
right
to vote to some citizens and denies the franchise to others, 'the
Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to
promote a compelling state interest.7 [Kramer v. Union Free
Dist.,
School
395 U. S.,] at 627 (emphasis added).77
v.
Dunn
Blumstein,
Our decisions before today have held that bona fide resi dency requirements are an acceptable means of distinguishing qualified from unqualified voters. Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, at 343. The Court holds today, however, that the restriction of the franchise to those residing within the corporate limits of of Tuscaloosa is such a bona fide residency require ment. The Court rests this holding on the conclusion that “a government unit may legitimately restrict the right participate in political its processes to those who reside within its Ante, borders.77 at 68-69. The Court thus insulates the Alabama statutes challenged in this case from the strict judi cial scrutiny ordinarily applied to state laws distributing the franchise. In so doing, the Court cedes to geography talis- manic significance contrary to the theory and meaning our past voting-rights cases.
We have previously held that when statutes distributing the franchise depend upon residency requirements, state-law 8 “[Sjtatutes structuring government local units receive no less exacting an merely examination because the legislature state fairly elected. See Avery County, Midland U. S. (1968).” n. 6 Kramer Union Free School Dist., S., 395 U. at 628 n. 10. *19 82 residency controlling purposes
characterizations of
not
for
are
Cornman,
g.,
e.
Evans v.
the Fourteenth Amendment.
See,
Rash,
Carrington
(1965).
U. S. 419 (1970);
There question is no but that the residents of Tuscaloosa’s police jurisdiction governed by city.10 Under Ala-
9The apparently accepts Court proposition by this strongly implying, ante, at 73 n. that “a situation in outlying which a has annexed territory name, in all but and is exercising precisely governmental the same powers over surrounding unincorporated territory residents of it as does over residing corporate those within its “pass limits” would not constitu tional muster.” 10Appellants have included in unchallenged their brief an addendum listing the ordinances Tuscaloosa, (1962, Code of Tuscaloosa Supplemented 1975), application police jurisdiction: that have in its “Licenses:
4r-l ambulance
9-4, 9-18, 9-33 bottle dealers bama law, a municipality exercises “governing” and “law *20 making” power over police its jurisdiction. City Home wood v. Co., Oil 232 Ala. 634, Wofford 637, 169 So. 288, (1936). Residents of police Tuscaloosa’s jurisdiction are sub- junk 19-1 dealers general 20-5 business license ordinance 20-67 florists
20-102 hotels, motels, etc.
20-163 industry
“Buildings:
10-1 inspection service enforces codes 10-10 regulation of dams
10-21 Southern Standard Building Code adopted 10-25 building permits
13-3 National Electrical adopted Code 14-23 Fire Prevention Code adopted 14r-65 regulation of incinerators
14r-81 discharge of cinders Chapter 21A mobile parks home
25-1 Southern Standard Plumbing Code adopted
33-79 disposal of human wastes
33-114, 118 regulation of wells
“Public Health:
5-4 certain protected birds
5-4C, 42, 55 dogs running at large and bitches in prohibited heat 14-4 no smoking on buses 14^15 no gas self-service stations 15-2 regulation of sale of produce from trucks
15-4 food establishments public to use water supply 15-16 food, meat, milk inspectors 15-37 thru 40 regulates boardinghouses 15-52 milk code adopted mosquito 17-5 control Regulations:
“Traffic 22-2 yield stop & signs may be erected chief police 22-3 required mufflers 22-4 required brakes 22-5 inspection of vehicle police
22-6 operation of vehicle city’s as well as to by the city, exacted license fees ject to through can be enforced which sanitary regulations, police court. See city’s municipal in the effective penal sanctions 2d 372, 10 So. Lake, 243 Ala. Birmingham residents however, imply, The Court seems included enough to be governed not jurisdiction are they since community of Tuscaloosa, political within the zoning, domain, of eminent powers subject to Tuscaloosa’s not roadway prohibited hitchhiking in 22-9 roadway on permit to solicit funds 22-9.1 impounding 22-11 cars *21 bridges
22-14 load limit on required damage after accident police 22-15 stickers driving 22-25 while intoxicated driving
22-26 reckless driving without of owner 22-27 consent stop sign 22-33 yield sign
22-34 driving
22-38 across median yield emergency
22-40 vehicle private cutting property
22-42 across general speed
22-54 limit
22-72 thru 78 truck routes Ordinances:
“Criminal adopts
23-1 all state misdemeanors premises
23-7.1 no cars on wrecked
23-15 nuisances
23-17 obscene literature plants
23-20 destruction of swimming
23-37 in nude trespass
23-38 to boats shooting galleries police jurisdiction outside fire limits in the or 26-51 no
(downtown area) films
28-31 thru 39 obscene :
“Miscellaneous cigarette
20-120 tax thru public parks
24-31 and recreation
26-18 admission tax
Chapter regulates public streets
30-23 taxis must have meters.”
or ad valorem
Ante,
taxation.
at 73 n. 8.
position
this
But
is sharply contrary to our previous
holdings.
Kramer Union Free
Dist.,
School
The residents of Tuscaloosa’s police jurisdiction vastly more affected by Tuscaloosa’s decisionmaking processes than plaintiffs were the in either Kramer or Cipriano affected the decisionmaking processes from which they had been uncon- stitutionally excluded. Indeed, under Alabama law Tusca- loosa’s authority to create and enforce and sanitary *22 regulations represents an extensive reservoir of power “to an prevent, anticipation of danger to . come, . in . and so doing to curb and restrain the individual tendency.” Gil- Drug christ Co. v. Birmingham, 234 Ala. 204, 208, So. 609, 612 (1937). See Cooper v. Town Valley Head, 212 Ala. of 125, 126, 874, So. 875 (1924). A municipality, for exam- ple, may use police its powers to or even regulate, to ban, professions common and businesses. “In the exertion and application of police the power there is to be observed the sound distinction as to useful and harmless occupa- trades, tions businesses and as to occupations and businesses, trades recognized as hurtful public to public morals, safety, of productive injurious public apply- disorder or to good. may destroy.” ing it to the class last mentioned it be exerted to Chappell Birmingham, 365, 236 Ala. 181 So. why today explain being The Court does not subjected power authority to the to exercise such extensive bring does not suffice to the of Tuscaloosa’s residents city. within Nor political community provide any determining does the Court in fact standards for when subjected those legislation extraterritorial been “governed enough” will have trigger protections of Equal Protection Clause.
The criterion geographical residency upon relied Court is of no analysis. may assistance in this Just as a State not integrity political fracture the of a community restrict- ing property the franchise to may so it use taxpayers, not geographical restrictions on accomplish the franchise to same end. This is the teaching of v. Cornman. Evans contrary Evans held, Maryland the conclusion of the Court those Appeals, who lived on the grounds the Na- tional Institutes Health (NIH) enclave within Montgomery County were Maryland residents of for purposes of the franchise. Our decision rested on grounds that inhabitants of the enclave were “treated as state residents in census determining congressional apportionment,” S., 398 U. at 421, and that grounds just “residents of the NIH are as interested in and they connected with electoral decisions as prior were to 1953 when the juris- area came under federal diction and neighbors as are their who off the live enclave.” Id., at 426. Residents police jurisdiction of Tuscaloosa’s assuredly as “interested in and connected with” the electoral decisions as were the inhabitants of the NIH enclave Maryland. the electoral decisions of inhab- True, itants of the enclave lived “within the geographical bound- aries of the State of but Maryland,” appellants in this case similarly reside within geographical of Tus- boundaries *23 police caloosa’s jurisdiction. They live within perimeters the of city’s “legislative powers.” City Leeds Town Moody, 496, Ala. 501, 319 So. 2d
The criterion of geographical residency entirely is thus arbitrary when applied to this case. fails explain It to why, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, “govern- ment unit” which may exclude from the franchise those who reside outside of its geographical boundaries should be com- posed of the city of Tuscaloosa rather than city of the together with its police jurisdiction. irrationally It distin- guishes between two classes citizens, each with equal claim to residency (insofar as that can be by determined domicile or intention or other similar criteria), and each governed by of Tuscaloosa in place of their residency. Court
The argues, however, if the franchise were extended to residents of the police city’s jurisdiction, franchise must similarly be extended to all those indirectly city’s affected actions. is This- a simple non sequitur. crystal-clear There is a distinction between those who reside in police Tuscaloosa’s jurisdiction, who are therefore subject city’s police and sanitary ordinances, licensing fees, and the of its municipal who court, those reside in neither nor its jurisdiction, and who are thus merely affected the indirect impact city’s decisions. This distinction is recognized law, Alabama cf. Roberson v. City Montgomery, 285 Ala. 2d 69 So. (1970), and is consistent with, if not by, very mandated conception political of a community underlying constitutional recognition of bona fide residency requirements.
Appellants’ equal protection claim can simply be expressed: The State cannot extend the franchise some citizens who are governed by municipal government places their residency, and withhold the franchise from others similarly situated, unless this distinction necessary promote compelling state interest. No such interest has been articu- *24 in regulating interest in this case. Neither Tuscaloosa’s lated 'city signs,” limit’ just beyond carried “activities on [its] ante, providing nor Alabama’s interest its unincorporated surrounding to the communities services ibid., the extension of cities, any way are in inconsistent with police jurisdiction. of Tuscaloosa’s the franchise to residents may Although many presently authorize great States munici- lawmaking powers by a exercise of extraterritorial in this although the Alabama statutes involved pality,11 may be of neither of these as age, factors, case venerable Sims, Reynolds clear, made can serve (1964), 377 U. S. practices impermissible Equal under the justify otherwise the Fourteenth Amendment. Protection Clause of Therefore, challenged by appellants since the statutes dis- tinguish qualified otherwise voters without a among compelling I judgment would justification, reverse District and hold the statutes be in challenged Court violation Protection Equal Clause. 11 Comment, Constitutionality Extraterritorial See The of the Exercise of by Municipalities, Powers 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 151