*1 Mich ANN WILKINS v. ARBOR CITY CLERK Residence—Wealth—Prop- 1. Elections —Constitutional Law — erty Ownership —Travel. Questions persons concerning wealth, property asked of owner- ship, travel, and if used as criteria to establish residence for voting purposes constitutionally impermissible. — — — — Statutes Constitu- Students Residence 2. Elections —Law Due Process. tional be deemed to providing, part, in that no elector shall Statute a student at institu- gained or a residence while have lost students, learning, applies to violates insofar as it tion of Michigan Con- United States Due Process Clauses overly students, applies it is broad stitutions; as it grants constitutionally prohibited local clerks discretion to 14; 1, 17; MCLA Const, Am art Michigan (US Const § [b]). § Right 3. Constitutional to Vote —Elections. Law — right precious, if not most The to vote one of the most precious, rights. of all our constitutional Right 4. Law — to Vote —Elections. Constitutional registration purpose Plaintiffs who were refused for the of vot- ing need an not demonstrate absolute denial of the require compelling vote order to the state to show a interest only upon placed need has but show that burden been precious right Equal Pro- order to avail themselves of the (US Const, tection Clause Am References for Points in Headnotes 2d, 26 Am Jur Elections 106. 1] 6-9, [2, 11-13, 2d, 26 Am Jur Elections 71. 15-18] 2d, 26 Am Jur 225. Elections 3-5] 10] §§ Jur, 50 Am 16 Statutes 74. 2d, Am Jur 144-151, Constitutional Law 154. 14] §§ City Clerk Ann Abbob Right Elections—Equal Pro- Law — Vote — Constitutional tection. against restraints guards subtle Clause Equal Protection Const, Am outright (US denial vote, as well *2 Presumptions—Right to Vote —Students. 6. Elections — a right because to vote placed is a burden The fact that presumption that he is not a rebuttable must overcome student learning contained of of the institute in locale a resident shall be deemed elector part, in that no providing, in a statute any in- a while student lost residence gained or a have to students, is sufficient to learning, applied to of stitution (MCLA compelling a interest demonstrate require the state to 168.11[d]). § Residence—Students—Voting Fraud. 7. Elections — to in no elector shall be deemed providing, part, Statute any institu- a while a student at gained or lost residence have students, applies is not learning, as it to of insofar tion voting fraud, necessary prevention of view insure the statutory purity safeguards insure the complete of set 168.495, (MCLA [b], 168.493, process 168.11 of the election §§ 168.523). 168.513, 168.515, 168.505, 168.508, 168.510, 168.499, Voters —Students. Jury Qualifications—Registered — right register and vote also denies them Denying students jury Anglo-Saxon tradition of trial honored the time registered jury from lists of peers as lists are chosen their seq.). (MCLA et voters § Students—Right In- to Vote —Residence—State 9. Elections — terest. vote, right statute, denied the under the Students cannot be part, have providing, that no elector shall be deemed to any institution gained or lost a residence while student at promoting an in- learning, interest because the state’s electorate; every reason to formed and concerned there they might informed on issues believe be even better current (MCLA 168.11[b]). than other citizens 10. Statutes —Courts. may surrounding cognizance and Courts take of facts events legislation. passage purpose and Right 11. Elections — Law. to Vote —Students—Constitutional constitutionally longer permissible It is no to exclude way they may fear of the from the franchise because Mich for to vote the candidate vote; means the to vote ideology. regardless of one’s choice — — — — Statutes Constitu- Residence Students 12. Elections — — Equal Taxation. Protection Law tional shall be deemed to part, that no elector providing, Statute while a student at institu- gained lost a residence have students, is learning, applies to unconstitutional as it tion of Equal Protection Clauses of United violation of the as a as to students who are taxed Constitutions States 14; (US Const, Am art being represented Const without 2; [b]). 1, MCLA 168.11 Students—Registration. 13. Elections — registrants as all must be treated the same other Students special questions, forms, identification, etc., may voting and no required of them.
Concurring Opinion T. E. Brennan JJ. Williams, *3 14. Statutes —Construction—Constitutional Law. constitutionally pre- valid construction statute is of it can be construed so as to avoid constitutional in- ferred if validity. 15. Elections —Residence—Students—Statutes. providing, part, Statute that no elector shall be deemed to gained have or lost a residence awhile student at institute learning simply that a means student is not to be deemed of to have lost automatically by being his residence reason of student; proviso gives option the student an and his in- controlling (MCLA tention in the matter is 168.11[^).
Opinion Concurring with T. E. Brennan, J.
Williams, J.
See Headnotes 14 and 15.
Concurring Opinion
Adams, J. Students—Right 16. Elections — to Vote. treating There is no rational basis differently students for from other citizens in their exercise of fundamental vote. City Clerk Ann Arbor Wilkins of Residence—Voting—Students. Elections — 17. distinguishing voting purposes, is no rational basis there For for locality given nine months at a who reside students between for locality year who reside in the same and non-students of year. nine months for of — — — Equal Protection Dis- Law Constitutional 18. Elections — — to Vote. Students crimination Qualifications qualifications to vote which Requiring additional different affect income, employ- by occupation, groups unequally, whether special ment, equal protection is a treatment denial against arbitrary is an and invidious discrimination and United States Con- them violation both (US 14; 1963, 1, Const, stitutions Am Const art from Division Mc Appeal Appeals, Court J., Larnard, JJ., P. and Danhof and affirm Gregor, Washtenaw, B. Sub Jr., James J. ing Breakey, (No. 29 mitted June 1971. June Term August Docket No. Decided 52,953.) Mich App reversed. Complaint mandamus Sally Bentley, John P. Ann Arbor against others Clerk, to vote compel registration plaintiffs in the of Ann Writ as to some city granted Arbor. and denied as to plaintiffs ap- others. Plaintiffs pealed to the Affirmed. Plain- Appeals. tiffs Beversed and for further appeal. remanded proceedings.
Douvan, Harrington Carpenter, for plaintiffs. *4 Lax, Jerold and Edward B. Gold- City Attorney, man, Attorney, Assistant defendant. J. of Michigan Eight University
Swainson, were, upon timely therefor, application purpose refused for the registration voting, by Mich Opinion op the Court By petition for writ of clerk. defendant the register right they and vote seek to mandamus, the plaintiff, B. Shalita, was Carol in Ann Arbor. One dropped prior The cause was tried on to trial. pleadings the amended 12, 1968, 11 and on June and pretrial statement. the opinion was rendered of the trial court on The judgment August 23, was entered on 1968, and September By defendant, consent the permitted reg- plaintiffs were Schultz and Jones judgment By Arbor. ister and in Ann vote plaintiffs Eichenbaum Hollenshead were court, and right register and in Ann awarded the vote Jendryka Plaintiffs and D’Haem Wilkins, Arbor. register Ann in were denied and vote the Arbor. plaintiffs parties stipulated Wilkins,
The
that the
Jendryka
D’Haem
of the United
are citizens
applied for
and that at
had
States
the time
years
age
registration
voter
over
were
and had
in
for more
resided
the State of
than six months. Each of
maintained an
them
apartment
habitually slept
in Ann Arbor
had
personal
kept
commonly
there. Each of them
his
apartment
regular place
effects
his
and his
lodging
agreed
was in
Arbor.
that the
It is
plaintiffs-appellants
trial court denied the
register
provi-
and vote in Ann Arbor
under
168.11(b) (Stat
of MCLA
Ann 1971
sions
Cum
[b]).
Appeals
§ 6.1011
affirmed
(b)
grounds
that said
aids
subsection
guards
preserving
purity
of elections and
against
by minimiz-
abuses of the elective franchise
ing
possibility
person voting
twice
App
granted
same
election. Mich
427. We
appeal.
leave to
“(a)
as used in
‘residence’,
act,
The term
this
voting purposes
registration and
shall be construed
place
person habitually
at which a
to mean that
sleeps, keeps
personal
her
his or
effects and has a
place
lodging.
regular
person
of
Should a
have
residence,
more
or should a
a
than
wife have
resi-
separate
place
from that of the husband,
dence
at which such
person
greater part
resides the
of the
her
time shall be his or
official residence for the
purposes of
act. This
this
section shall not be con-
existing judicial interpretation
strued
affect
of
(Emphasis added.)
the term residence.
“(b)
gained
No elector shall be deemed to have
or
by
being employed
lost
residence
reason
his
the service of the United States or of this state, nor
engaged
navigation
waters,
while
in the
high
this state or of the United States or of the
seas,
any
learning,
nor while a student at
institution of
kept
asylum
nor while
at
almshouse or other
public expense,
any public
nor while confined in
prison. Honorably discharged
members
armed forces of the United States or of this state
facility
and who reside in the veterans’
established
by
may acquire
this state
a residence where the
facility
(Emphasis
added.)
located.
“(c) No member of the armed forces of the United
States shall be deemed a
resident
state
consequence
being
any military
stationed in
place
naval
within the state.”
part
(b),
dealing
of subsection
with students,
has been defined
our Court to mean that a
student must
presumption
overcome
rebuttable
that he is not a resident in the locale of the institu-
learning.
tion of
(1893),
Wolcott v. Holcomb
People
Mich
(1912),
361;
v. Osborn
violates United States Constitution1 conten- plaintiffs’ first turnWe Constitution.2 *6 clause. due process tions under I. right vote, by to labeled with the deal here
We almost a century Court Supreme States the United because right, pre political “as a fundamental ago (1886), Hopkins Wo v. all Yick rights.” servative of L Ed The 1064, 220). 30 Ct (6 370 356, 118 US law inter any that closely scrutinized Courts have they insure that rights fundamental feres with unfettered or local officials unduly vague give not voter registration, In cases involving discretion.3 has struck down Court Supreme the United States to local which unfettered discretion laws gave state unani for a Black stated As Mr. Justice officials. (1965), Louisiana United States v. mous : 709) 2d 13 Ed 145, 153 817, 380 S Ct (85 US shall be denied 2, person, “No 1963, 1, provides: art Const laws; any person denied the nor shall be protection of the equal against rights enjoyment political be discriminated of his civil or or religion, race, color or national of in the exercise thereof because implement by appropriate origin. legislature shall this section legislation.” 17, person compelled 1, provides: art shall be Const “No against himself, nor any deprived case be a witness be criminal life, liberty property, process of of all fair and or without due of law. The individuals, firms, voluntary corporations and associations just legislative treatment the course of and executive investigations hearings infringed.” and shall not Const, persons Am “All provides: US born or naturalized States, subject in izens jurisdiction thereof, the United to the are cit United States and of the No State wherein reside. any or abridge privileges State shall make enforce shall law which States; or deprive any immunities citizens of the United nor shall State life, person liberty, property, process without due law; deny any person of tection of jurisdiction nor equal within pro its laws.” e.g., See, Kunz New (1951), York L95 Ed 1971] Ann Arbor Opinion op the Couet in a people country “The cherished like cannot ours to vote be obliterated the use by laws like which leave the fate citizen this, voting whim or of an impulse to the individual passing registrar.” In a recent article concerning student voting, Restrictions Student P. Rice, W. Bullard J. An Voting: Anachronism, Unconstitutional 4 Jour nal of Reform Law the authors point out by face of the same analogy, many problems as found when with others faced voter by qualification tests: the voter
“Although qualification tests involved were used blacks, to disfranchise thus into bringing play the fifteenth as well as the fourteenth amend ment, the inherent vagueness interpretation test and the criteria used imprecise registrars *7 presented prospective black voters with dilemma analogous to that faced Al today by students. though students demonstrate must attach greater ment to the locale than other university must most the registrants, quantum of required attachment quite unclear.”5 point authors out that while the law defining residence for
voting other citizens under MCLA (Stat Ann Cum 168.11(a) 1971 Supp 6.1011[a]), is clear and the effect unequivocal, law, of the applied to students, (b) under varies subsection from city city and from local clerk local clerk.
“Therefore, in as well as in other Michigan, states, the standards which students in order meet must in vote locality which their is located college are extremely In vague. Michigan, guidelines are so as to vague standards; be tantamount to no thus each registration clerk determines himself 4 See, also, Schnell v. (1949), Davis 336 US 933 Ct affirming 1093), 93 Ed 81 F 872. 5 Rice, supra, Bullard p & at 221. 385 670 Mich op against presumption will overcome
which factors city.”6 registrability in his student amply supports this case asser- The record attorney city Ann Arbor conceded tion. The argument while this Court before oral questionnaire before allow- an elaborate Arbor uses city ing register,7 of Detroit clerk students to colleges (where Wayne University and several State questions special located) not ask are does registrants. student questions plaintiffs were asked trial,
At the
they
concerning
their
accounts;
bank
where
obtained
property,
support;
they owned or leased
whether
spent
However,
their
where
vacations.8
property
questions concerning
owner-
wealth,9
these
ship,10
if
criteria to establish
travel,11
used as
constitutionally
purposes
voting
residence for
impermissible.
are
168.11(b)
Ann 1971
We hold that MCLA
[b]),
applies
Supp §
it
Cum
insofar as
of the
Process Clause
students, does violate the Due
Con-
Fourteenth Amendment of
United States
provision stitution. We further hold that said
supra,
p
Rice,
220.
&
Bullard
city
clerks
questionnaires
used
comparison
some
For a
Beform,
of Law
4 Journal
Appendix,
registration,
see
student
pp 239-243.
Beform,
pp
Law
4
In
Journal
Virginia
Harper
Elections
Board
poll
down a
tax
169),
Court struck
L Ed 2d
(86 CtS
concerning bank ac-
based on wealth. Questions
aas
classification
wealth.
similarly
etc.,
based
classifications
counts, support,
*8
(1969),
District
395 US
Free
See, also,
v. Union
School
Kramer
Cipriano
(1969) 395
583);
v. Houma
1886,
L Ed 2d
(89 Ct
S
states
647).
cases held that
23 L
These
(89
1897,
Ct
Ed 2d
S
US
nonproperty owners.
deny
right
vote
to
to
cannot
Thompson
(89
Ct
Shapiro
(1969),
II. Traditionally, upheld have been statutes as con- equal protection stitutional under if clause following met the test:
“ protection equal ‘1. The clause the Fourteenth power Amendment does not take from the State the classify adoption police in laws, but admits scope the exercise of wide discretion regard, only and avoids is what done it when any purely without arbitrary. reasonable basis and therefore is having
2. A classification
some reason
against
merely
able basis does not offend
that clause
nicety
because it is
made
not
with mathematical
practice
inequality.
because
it results
some
When the classification
in such
law is called in
question,
reasonably
if
state of facts
can be
conceived that would sustain it, the existence that state of facts at the time the law was enacted
must be assumed. 4. One who assails the classifi
carry
cation in such a law must
the burden of show
ing
upon any
that it does not rest
reasonable basis,
*9
Mich op
”
Lahr
Naudzius
v.
arbitrary.’
essentially
but
is
216, 222,
253 Mich
(1931),
used
two
has been
test
different
However, a
clas
if the asserted
First,
of cases.
types
separate
dis
or other
of race
basis
was on the
sification
to meet “the
has
state
classification,
favored
* * *."
of justification
burden
heavy
very
(87
Virginia (1967),
1,
388 US
Loving v.
11):
2d
1010),
(p
18 L Ed
Clause
Protection
Equal
very least
“At
classification, especially suspect
that racial
demands
rigid
to the ‘most
subjected
be
statutes,
in criminal
States,
“But in State to moving a con- exercising were appellees trict Columbia which serves stitutional classification right, of that unless shown penalize right, the exercise govern- compelling promote be necessary interest, mental added.) Shapiro (Emphasis is unconstitutional.” Thompson Ct 22 Ed 2d It can stated without exaggeration if not the vote one of the most precious, rights. most all our precious, constitutional Supreme United has concerning States stated the right to vote: Arbor v. Ann Opinion op the Court precious country in a free
“No is more than having voice in the election of those who that of good which, citizens, we make the laws under live. Other if the must
rights, illusory even the basic, most right is undermined. Our to vote Constitution people way of in room for classification a leaves no unnecessarily abridges right.” Wesberry that v. Sanders (1964), (84 376 US 1, 17, 526, Ct 481). 11 L Ed 2d right freely “The to vote for the of candidate one’s society, of the a choice is any essence of democratic right on strike of restrictions that at the heart representative government. right And the of suf- frage the can be denied debasement a or dilution weight just effectively of a vote citizen’s as as by wholly prohibiting the free the exercise of fran- Reynolds supra, p Sims, chise.” Supreme applied
The United States
Court has
the
compelling
involving
interest
in recent
test
cases
the
right to vote. Chief Justice Warren in Kramer v.
(1969),
Union Free
District
School
III. point, directly Although there is no case Supreme with the has dealt Court United States groups various to vote to denial of years. past people few occasions on several Carrington Rash 380 US 675), provision 13 L Ed 2d involved prevented servicemen which Texas Constitution long voting re as in state elections from struck down the mained the service. Court Equal Protection Clause. as a denial of the law supra, District, Union Free In Kramer v. School Equal Supreme under invalidated *11 provided York New law13which Protection Clause a property people only leased that who owned or parents in vote certain with children in schools could district school elections. (89 Cipriano (1969), Ct
In v. Houma US only 647), 23 L Ed Louisiana law which 2d property taxpayers vote on revenue bonds allowed to by municipal utility system was declared issued unconstitutional. permit Arizona law
Likewise, an ting property taxpayers only elec real to at an vote obligation general for tion various the issuance of bonds municipal improvements was overturned (90 (1970). Kolodziejski in Phoenix 399 US 523). 1990, 26 Ed 2d S Ct In Evans v. Cornman 370), 26 L Ed 2d Court held that residents is a Fed- Health,
of the National which Institutes Maryland, al- eral enclave in the must be State of Maryland’s lowed to vote elections. Law, New York (Supp Education § Arbor Opinion op the Court
Defendant contends all of these cases are dis- they tinguishable because involved an absolute denial right § 168.11(b) vote, whereas Supp [b]), Ann 1971 Cum 6.1011 it affects merely presumption students, involves a rebuttable against gaining residence. demonstrably
This, however, is not fact true. Despite by Supreme the treatment the United States Carrington involving Court of as a case the denial right only of the absolute to vote, it involved denial to vote in Texas.14 All allow states by servicemen to vote absentee ballot. In contrast, because of the various civilian absentee voters’ laws, many register students would be unable and vote anywhere. provision Several states make no many extremely absentee ballots,15 others have complicated provisions discourage which instead of encourage voting. exception with the Moreover, supra, Cornman, Evans v. the other cases heretofore presumptions. cited also involved rebuttable presumptions they voters could overcome the if property owned or had children in Kramer, or if they paid Cipriano property Kolodziej taxes in overcoming presumption ski. Their task in was no more many difficult than that faced provisions 168.11(b) (Stat under the of MCLA [b]). Ann 1971 Cum If those voters special were denied the vote elections, every still could president vote for officefrom local officials. Some students, however, cannot. *12 provisions Because of the interaction of the of 168.11(b) Ann 1971 Cum [b]) provisions § 6.1011 and the of various state absentee-voter laws, the elective franchise is with held from students. The ideal one man-one vote 14 supra, Rice, p 232, Bullard & fn 97. Voting Smith, C. Election Laws (1960), pp 89-99. & Mich op no of one man but harsh reality into the
dissolves vote. plaintiffs that these not mandatory it
Moreover, is vote in right to denial an absolute demonstrate a inter- show compelling state to the require order burden has that a show only need est. Plaintiffs to avail in order right precious on this placed been As Jus- Clause. Protection Equal the themselves Wilson (1939), in Lane v Frankfurter stated tice 1281): 83 Ed (59 872, S Ct US nullifies sophis- Amendment [Fifteenth] “The of discrim- modes simple-minded well as ticated as requirements procedural onerous ination. It hits the franchise exercise of effectively handicap which although right the abstract colored race race.” as to vote remain unrestricted may Equal guards Protection Clause likewise on the well right vote, subtle restraints against Supreme denial. The United States as outright in recent cases has been concerned Court voting have been about the more devious burdens that this most basic of all constitutional imposed In Williams Rhodes rights. 21 L Ed 2d 24), stated: ‘invidious’
“But have also times that many we held cannot be enacted without violation of distinctions * * * In Equal Protection Clause. present burdens on two dif- place situation the state laws ferent, kinds of although rights overlapping, —the for individuals to associate advancement beliefs, political voters, and the right qualified of their political persuasion, to cast their regardless * * * votes So, effectively. also, if heavily vote burdened be cast vote may only one two at a time when other parties parties clamoring for on the ballot. In place whether has determining power State to place *13 1971] Ann Arbor v. Opinion op the Court . minority groups unequal where on burdens
such rights decisions of stake, kind are at the this of this compelling ‘only consistently a that have held Court regulation subject of a within state interest regulate jus- power constitutional can the State’s tify limiting ” (Em- , First Amendment freedoms.’ phasis added.) placed a burden
Thus, fact that is presumption to vote because of the rebuttal con- 168.11(b) (Stat tained in MCLA 1971 Cum Supp [b]), applied § 6.1011 as students, suf- require ficient to state to demonstrate com- pelling interest.
IV. There are several interests that the state has type. Appeals asserted in cases of this The Court of § 168.11(b) held that Ann 1971 Cum [b]) preserving purity 6.1011 aids in by insuring elections that students will not vote App twice. 24 Mich 422, However, Court Appeals analyze problem did not under the compelling may interest test. While it true that provisions (b), applied of subsection to stu dents, purpose, does to some minor extent aid in this justify constitutionality. that is not sufficient to its Supreme As the United States stated Unit ed Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Association US L S Ct 19 Ed 2d 426): repeatedly “We have therefore held laws actually
which affect the exercise of these vital rights merely cannot be sustained because were purpose dealing enacted for the with some evil legislative within competence, the State’s or even provide because helpful the laws do in fact means dealing with such an evil. Schneider State, Mich op . (1939); 155] Cantwell [60 146, 84 Ed Ct S 84 L [60 Ed Ct Connecticut, 310 US (1940).” ALR 1213, 128 *14 Carrington Supreme the held that in The jus- voting not prevention from could of transients legislature has tify our Moreover, law. the Texas provided sanc- insure the sanctions which numerous significant tity purity the of elections. Some and provisions §§ and 168.493, 168.495, include MCLA (Stat § Ann Rev 6.1493 and Stat 168.499 Ann 1956 provide 6.1499), Supp §§ which 6.1495, 1971 Cum qualification registrant’s en- is affidavit of that a registrant hy if sanctions the misdemeanor forced (Stat § honestly; MCLA 168.505 not answer does provides 6.1505) Supp § that Ann 1971 registration which Cum registrant if the officers shall ascertain township, already registered etc.; is in another 6.1508) § (Stat Supp § MCLA Ann 1971 Cum 168.508 registration which allows the clerk to transfer the receipt upon an information; elector of reliable (Stat Supp § MCLA 168.510 Ann 1971 Cum that 6.1510) provides § are notified which clerks persons monthly in 21 who have died over (Stat county; § 168.513 Ann 1956 Rev 6.1513) provides upon § information which that municipality has from the elector moved may, elapsed, clerk registration, after notice and cancel time (Stat § Ann
and MCLA 168.515 6.1515) § Rev which make a authorizes clerks to house to to check house canvass or “other means” every registration Finally, correctness cards. given being voter before an ballot must execute application showing signature and which his address compared registration is if the same to the card “and correspond person do not shall be vote of such challenged.” (Stat § 1971 Cum MCLA 168.523 Ann Supp 6.1523). § v. Ann Arbor Opinion op the Court in view of this complete set safe-
Therefore, of the election guards purity insure process, we hold that MCLA 168.11(b) § insofar as it [b]), Cum 6.1011 Supp applies § the prevention is not to insure students, necessary fraud. voting
The second state interest that of asserted pro- electorate. concerned interested This moting Kramer, same interest was asserted unsuccesfully Cipriano, Evans Kolodziejski. provisions of MCLA (Stat Ann Cum 168.11(b) [b]), regard to like students, in Kramer, New York sufficiently laws drawn are not to insure that in- only primarily voters who are terested are allowed to vote. Justice War- As Chief stated Kramer: ren
“In words, other must the classifications be tailored so that the exclusion of and mem- appellant bers of his class the necessary to achieve articulat- ed state goal. not the Section does meet exact- precision ing require standard of we statutes which distribute the selectively franchise. The clas- sification in permits § inclusion of many per- sons who have, at best, remote and indirect interest in school on affairs the and, other hand, exclude others who have distinct and direct interest in the school decisions.” meeting (P 632.)
Clearly, § (Stat Ann 1971 168.11(a) Cum [a]) (the §6.1011 general registration voter will statute) allow many disinterested persons, by any criteria, to vote, while MCLA 168.11(b), as applied to students, disenfranchises many interested and concerned citizens.
In Evans, supra, the Court discussed at length the interests and concerns of the National Institutes of Health (p 424): residents Mich Opinion op the Court deny are numerous there
“Appellants do not are affected ways NIH residents in which vital and representa- if elected Thus, by electoral decisions. sanctions laws or criminal new state enact tives presently effect, the changes in in those make grounds equally persons NIH changes apply to ** * appellees with as concerned are Further, Mary- taxing spending as other decisions and state permitted Congress has residents, land gasoline, levy income, their and collect States major of state sources use taxes—the sales, and §§104- 4 USC enclaves. See federal revenues—on unemployment com- and workmen’s laws 110. State persons apply pensation who live likewise laws 3305(d); 26 USC and work federal areas. See register required Appellees are 40 USC 90. their automobiles Maryland and obtain driver’s they plates permits state; and license from subject process jurisdiction of state to the and they can resort to those courts courts; themselves adoption proceedings; divorce and child Maryland public send their children schools.” Kolodziejski, supra,
In Phoenix
Court con
property
relationship
owners
sidered
(like
appel
property
rent
some of the
those who
lants),
p 210:
and stated
may
paid initially by prop-
“Property
be
taxes
significant part
erty
burden
of the ultimate
owners, but a
year’s
property
on rental
will
of each
tax
very likely
borne
the tenant rather than
parties
stipulated in
as the
also
since,
landlord
property
as a
landlord will
tax
case, treat
*16
normally
pass
expense
business
and
will be able
large part
all or
on
a
of
cost
to the tenants
higher
the form of
rent.”
Turning to the facts of this
we see
case,
that
just
many
as
connections with the
have
community
Supreme
by the
those found
Court
689
1971] Ann
Arbor
op
Na
Kolodziejski.
in Evans and
like the
Students,
Institutes
Health
are included
residents,
tional
of the
in the census determination
state’s congres
of course, are
apportionment.16
Students,
sional
and
subject
regulations.
to the state’s laws
Jury-
from
registered
are chosen
lists of
voters.17
lists
to register
students the
and
Thus,
by denying
time
denied
vote,
participation
are also
by
of trial
a jury
honored
tradition
Anglo-Saxon
tax,
state income
of their
Students
peers.18
pay
use
sales and
(if
gasoline,
income tax
city
any),
a rebate
one-
taxes.
law
provides
and cities
tax revenue to counties
the sales
eighth
of gaso
on a
basis19 and a rebate
capita
per
20%
combined population-highway
line tax revenue on a
who
without
the students
Clearly,
basis.20
mileage
for these
purposes,
are counted as residents
of these rebates.
would lose part
cities
counties
recogn
has
As the United States
Supreme
renters
ultimately paid by
taxes are
ized,21 property
In
Michi
addition,
of the appellants.
such as some
all
allowing
this fact
recognizes
gan explicitly
in lieu of
on rent
exemption
paid
renters
17%
receive
property
owners
exemption
chil
taxes.22 Students with
property
payment
school
public
and do enroll
them in the
dren can
a passing
have more than
and, therefore,
system,
LEd 2d
C.
and Bullard &
et
effect of
discussion
[10], 9.1097[13]).
22 MCLA 206.258(2)
21 399
16
17
seq.).
Shoup,
MCLA 205.75
398 US at
MCLA 600.1310
Glasser 680).
US at 210
property
Public
§
§§
Rice,
421
247.660,
United States
Finance,
problems
taxes
(90
supra,
(Stat
et
S Ct at
Ct at
seq.
385-390
Ann
property
p
(Stat
attempting
1971 Cum
(Stat
(1969).
26 L
Ann 1971 Cum
values,
Ann
Ed 2d at
Supp
Cum
1971 Cum
Ed 2d at
see
discern the
§
7.546).
Federal tax vary from These deductions itemized deductions. parents if a whose Hence, state to state.23 student University goes to Michi- New York, are from gan Ann he would take de- Arbor, and lives in Michigan York and not New taxes. duction on based recognized implicitly Thus, he purposes. The Federal for Federal tax resident government community provides health further population grants on the states based service (which students).24 includes merely shows some
This exhaustive list is not but interrelationships stu between of the numerous the State communities, and dents, their local groups Michigan. more other Moreover, there are pot required who are transient than students (b) provisions as are stu meet the subsection largest According census, to the dents. operative group and kindred were of transients second, and and foremen workers with craftsmen students) professionals (including third.25 be denied hold that cannot Thus, we provisions of MCLA to vote under [b]) (b) Supp § 6.1011 because Ann 1971 Cum promoting an informed state’s interest every be- There is reason concerned electorate. might informed current be even better lieve than other citizens. issues table. Tensions (Sept J. 1970 Federal USCA § Schmidhauser, a Mobile 246(a) (3) (A). income Society. Residency tax form; 61 Mich “The Student Requirements Rev Optional Vote,” 823, 830, Voting and The State New fn 10. Republic, sales tax Arbor op
V may They do not exist a vacuum. take Courts pas- surrounding cognizance *18 of facts and events sage purpose legislation. Traverse (1971), Attorney 384 Mich District General School v. Ah in Ho 405. Mr. Justice Field stated 390, As (USCC, 1879), 252, 12 Fed Cases Kow v. Nunan 255: eyes to matters of we cannot shut our
“Besides, public notoriety general cognizance. we When with take our we are not struck seats on the bench judges blindness and forbidden to know we see as men.” what as judicial extrajudicial may We thus take notice of recognizing material An other state interests. April article26 in The Wall 15, Street Journal of the 1971, discusses issue in this and similar raised purported country. cases A around the fear the states involved that the would have a significant political impact granted if were the quoted elective franchise. The article an Illinois Representative summing up feelings State “ many thusly: goodness ‘For we sakes, citizens actually controlling could have these transients mayors voting city in or elections, councils and ” out of office.’ This fear of student voters over polls whelming townspeople was at the under lying decision of in Wolcott v. Hol our Court (1893), However, comb Mich what acceptable constitutionally was in 1893 neces is not today. sarily acceptable constitutionally As the Harper Supreme United States Court stated Virginia (1966), Elections Board US (86 169): 2d 1079, 16 S Ct Ed 26 Otten, Collegians A. “Should Vote at Home at School?” Journal, Wall April 15, (p 1). Street Mich op Clause is not Protection Equal
“Likewise, era. particular of a theory political shackled unconstitutionally are lines determining In discriminatory, what confined to never been we have we than have more equality, any notions of historic of what catalogue due to a fixed process restricted limits of funda- to be the at a time deemed given was rights.” mental out that point segrega went on
The Court Plessy Ferguson tion upheld L41 Ed was overruled a 256), Likewise, the restrictions half later. century mid-nineteenth cen in the accepted the franchise Un today. be tolerated tury necessarily not 1835, only 21-year Constitution of der the The Constitu male could white citizens vote.27 old the restriction amendment, removed tion of 1850, by *19 an 1908 Consti of race28 and amendment the by sex removed.29 the based on were tution, restrictions inore recently statute,30 Congress by Recently, the amendment,31 the of constitutional adoption to 18 lowered in all been elections has voting age years.
de over a stated: century ago Toequeville history in the no more invariable rule “There is extend of The further electoral society: rights them: for extending the is the need ed, greater democracy concession of strength after each and its demands increase with its increases, strength.”32 fication of three-fourths of the States. US
approve 1973bb-4. 31 [28] 29 27 30 A. Const On Voting Const Const de June Toequeville, 1908, art 1835, 1850, amendment. Eights 30, 1971, art art 3, 2, 7, Act amendment 1. the State of Ohio became the 1. 1. Democracy The amendment America 1970, 42 Const, became law art (Knopf, USCA 5. upon 38th ed. 1973aa— State to rati- 1971] Arbor v. Opinion op the Court it no agree longer We constitutionally exclude students from the franchise permissible fear of the vote. way may because they “ out’ from the franchise a sector of ‘Fencing is con- population because of the vote way may stitutionally exercise impermissible. ‘[T]he so vital to the maintenance of democratic in- rights stitutions,’ (Schneider State 308 US [1937], 84 L S Ct Ed cannot 155]) [60 constitution- ally cal obliterated because aof fear of the politi-
views of particular group of bona fide resi- Carrington dents.” Rash, supra, at p Fears have been expressed in the when past new groups have been granted the franchise, these fears have proven to be largely unfounded. fear that students will vote radically different
from the bulk of the electorate is problematical point.33 However, as the United States Supreme Court stated Williams v. Rhodes L Ed 2d 24): “Competition in ideas and governmental policies is at the core of * * * our electoral process .” The right vote means the to vote for candidate one’s choice regardless of ideology. As Justice Jackson stated in another case concerning dis- sent:
“If there is
fixed
star
our constitutional
it is
constellation,
that no official,
high
can
petty,
prescribe
shall
what
be orthodox in politics, nation-
* * *
alism, religion, or other matters
opinion
.”
*20
(Emphasis added.)
Virginia
West
Board
Educa-
tion v. Barnette
(1943), 319
1178,
In the future, students must be the same treated registrants. special questions, as all other No forms, may required identification, etc., be of students. Article 1, 1, of the Constitution of political power that, states “All is inherent people.” power people, in all This resides student and nonstudent, alike. judgment is reversed and the cause is re- proceedings
manded to the circuit court for further opinion. consistent with this T. M. T. J., C. G. Black Kavanagh, JJ., J. Kavanagh, Swainson, concurred with (concurring). agree T. E. J. I with the Brennan, by my result reached Brother but would Swainson, opinion statutory my base construction rather grounds. than constitutional The rule is that if a can construed so as statute invalidity, to avoid the constitution- constitutional ally preferred. valid construction is to be *21 Ann Arbor J. by T. E. Opinion Brennan, provision contained 5, which art Const 168.11(b) (Stat Ann 1971 Cum similar subject [b]), divided of Supp § was Holcomb in Wolcott v. opinions in this Court Mich by dissenting opinion Chief Justice Hooker, pro- that concluded Justice Long
concurred be simply was not to student that a meant vision automatically by residence lost his to have deemed being short, In a student. reason Hooker gave proviso an the student believed that Long controlling. being in matter option, intention his way: it this He said be section should of this construction “The true kept being language imports, i.e., that
just what its college, or em- alms-house, or attendance in an ployment States, or the of the United in the service high not work navigation does seas, the lakes or against change intention or residence Holcomb, su- Wolcott desire the individual.” pra, p 371. wise, reasonable, That construction of the act was majority just proper. It have been the should today. opinion in 1893. It should be given If a student residence “Hooker registra- option”, all of voter the senseless folderol college dispensed towns would be tion in some of our with. 80 years written in dissent almost words, Hooker’s repetition. need no but bear resonant gilding, ago, given only construction for the “The reasons undesirable contended are that these classes are they pay place asylum; no at the of the voters municipality, taxes, do no work for the benefit of the may The same and have no interest local affairs. many persons in all and was localities, said probably their as as true of these before admission Mich by Williams, J. from the those admitted is as true of after. It asylum, may locality vote under who a distance, who come from who section, those may been It never has not vote under this construction. requisite rights *22 to electoral that the citizen pay do work the benefit of taxes, for should municipal municipality, affairs; or evince interest depend upon or nor does the a wise even honest privilege exercise the ballot. Doubtless dispensd many whose there votes could be with profit respective municipalities their the State as the electoral franchise well, but is based upon principles. poor broader is no man so There or political low that he is not richer and for his manlier equality, protection and the ballot is essential to the rights Immediately all of race is equal so classes. a class or deprived its disfranchised, members are of an proposition chance their with fellows. This is important part of the foundation of our institu- tions that it should not eliminated or weakened by unnecessary of a construction constitution upon liberty political equality.” based civil supra, pp Wolcott Holcomb, v. 370, 371.
I concur in reversal. J., concurred E. with T. J. Williams, Brennan, (concurring J.). J. with E.T. Williams, Brennan, my I concur with Brother T. E. Brennan. However, agree my with Brother Swainson’s constitutional I analysis. (concurring). J. I concur in reversal.
Adams,
There
treating
is no rational basis for
dif-
students
ferently from other citizens in their exercise of the
Michigan
fundamental
to vote. The
statute
defining voting
provides
residence for all citizens
person
that: “Should a
have
than 1
more
residence,
* * *
place
person
at which such
resides the
Ann
Arbor
"Wilkins
Opinion by Adams, J.
part
greater
shall
the time
he his or her official
* * *
168.11(a) (Stat
.”
residence
[a]).
1971Cum
voting purposes,
For
is
there
no rational
basis
distinguishing between students who reside at a
given locality
year
for nine months of the
and non-
locality
students who reside in the same
for nine
year. Requiring
qualifica-
months of the
additional
groups
tions
unequally,
to vote which
different
affect
occupation,
employer,
whether
income,
is a
equal protection. Harper
Virginia
denial of
(1966),
Board
(86
Elections
and invidious discrimination them violation of art 1, 2, Constitution, and *23 Am 14, United States Constitution. Fox v. Em- ployment Security Commission 379Mich 579.