Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Procedural Due Process: the procedures the government must follow when it takes away a
persons life, liberty or property. (Notice && right be heard)
Questions to ask for Analysis
1. Whos doing the depriving? (Looking for a state actor here)
a. 10th Amendment: No state shall deprive a citizen of their life, liberty, or property
without due process of law
2. Is there a Deprivation? (Is a liberty (substantive right) or property interest (NOT defined
by the Constitution; look to some independent source [K, statutory entitlement, etc] for
this) being taken away?) Social Security (disability---considered property interest)
3. How much process is due? (Finesse Testsometimes you need a little, sometimes you
need a lot; the greater the interest, the greater the process; depends upon the liberty or
property interest is at stake) This is the balancing test applied.
Substantive Due Process: whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a
persons life, liberty or property. Just taking about dry water.
Liberty: freedom right
Two due process clauses:
- 5th amendment (applies against the federal government)
- 14th amendment (against states)
14th amendment adopted in 1868
Rational Basis: reasonably related and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory (capricious,
erratic) reasonable minds differ
Amendment 14 section 1
1. Citizenship born or naturalized
2. P & I of national citizens
a. Federal Government
b. National Character
c. Constitution
d. Laws
3. Due Process Clause (doesnt use the word citizens, applies to persons which includes
aliens) life, liberty, or property
4. Equal Protection
Lawrence v. Texas fundamentally protected liberty interest to engage in consensual sexual
relationship
Barron v. Baltimore
1
S.Ct. decided the first 10 amendments were expressed in general terms and therefore
would only apply to the federal government
o States have their own constitutions
o Constitution can only limit states when expressly stated
o Never overruled
Slaughterhouse cases
First time the S.Ct. interpreted the Bill of Rights and determined that it only protects the
rights we have by being a citizen of the U.S., not a citizen of states
o Bill of rights are common law and therefore do not owe their existence to the
constitution
o Privileges and Immunities National Citizenship Test: those that owe their
existence to the federal government, its national character, its constitution or its
laws
o Never overruled
Selective incorporation: incorporated nearly every right of the Bill of Rights and up to the 14th
amendment:
- Not incorporated:
o 3rd amendment solider quartered in a home
o 5th amendment right to a grand jury indictment
o 7th amendment right to a jury in a civil trial
o 8th amendment excessive fines
LOCHNER ERA
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Louisiana attempts to stop out of state companies from enjoying contracts with Louisiana
residents.
o S.Ct. determined unconstitutional because Liberty of Contract
o Decision based on the freedom to contract
It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with ones LIBERTY to contract under the
due process clause.
The word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment interpreted to include
economic liberties
Lochner v. New York (Judicial Deference to Legislative Choices in this Era)
NY attempted to limit the number of hours that bakers could work. NY claims police
powers for health and safety reasons
o S.Ct. determined unconstitutional because of Liberty to Contract
th
Both 5 and 14th Amendments Due Process Clause assume Liberty to K.
No legitimate Police power, unconstitutional as to Liberty of K.
Legitimate police power would allow for interference with ones freedom to K. (Ct
decision)
Coppage v. Kansas
Kansas says it is illegal to require employees to agree not to join a union as a condition of
employment
o S.Ct. determined this is not allowed because of the freedom to contract
It is outside the scope of state police power to prohibit employment contracts that bar
workers from joining a union.
Muller v. Oregon
Brandeis brief attempted to set the maximum hours that women could work. The State
justified as a valid police power.
o S.Ct. upholds the statute to protect woman
Valid police power to protect women from overworking
Adkins v. Childrens Hospital
This case deals with an Act by Congress that set a minimum wage for women and
children to balance an unequal bargaining power.
o Ct determines this is arbitrary because it has nothing to do with the type of work
or the persons skills
o Ct determines unconstitutional
o Case brought under the 5th amendment Due Process Clause
o OVERRULED by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.
Shoddy material used and a statute prohibits the use
o No evidence showing any health or safety hazard
o Statute is arbitrary and unreasonable
Violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because buyers should be free to
choose what kind of materials they want to purchase.
SECTION RECAP:
No exclusive definition for liberty in the 14th Amendment
Ideological interpretation of the substantive due process
The right you got was right to K
This substantive due process was going to change
The Ct changed w/ FDR and the New Deal
1937-Now
ECONOMIC SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
State of Washington set the minimum wage for women. The state claimed that protecting
women is in the publics interest.
o Case brought under the 14th amendment due process clause
o S.Ct. used rational basis to determine the minimum wage law is constitutional
o As long as reasonable minds differ it will be upheld
Must show that its arbitrary and capricious and basically we ALL agree
for it not to be rational
o This case overruled Adkins case
A state can set the minimum wage for women
Struck down Lochner
3 NEW themes:
1. States can act to further any purpose not forbidden by the Const. (10th Amend)
2. States not limited to using JUST police powers
3. States may use any way that is reasonable to achieve their ends
United States v. Carolene Products Co. 1938
Congress passed the Filled Milk Act which prohibited milk being sold and shipped
through interstate commerce that was compounded with any fat or oil other than milk
fact.
o Congress relies on their commerce power
o Footnote 4 is very importantsee page 627-628 of textbook
Paves the way for higher judicial scrutiny
o Ct uses rational basis to uphold the legislation (any basis to uphold the legislation
and it will be upheld)
o Economic Liberties are not fundamental; receive Rational Basis Review
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc.
State law prohibited any person from fitting or duplicating lenses unless a licensed
ophthalmologist.
o The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the 14th
amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial
conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a
particular school of thought.
o People should resort to the polls, not to the courts
o Ct. determines the law is OK and if people want change then they should vote for
change
o Ct used rational basis
State Action!!!
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
Gore sued over his BMW being repainted before being sold for full price. Settlement of
$4mil punitive damages involving only $4,000 actual damages. The punitive was reduced
to $2mil. Issue is whether the punitive damages are grossly excessive.
o Ct. used this test to determine punitive award is grossly excessive:
The degree of reprehensibility (HOW BAD WAS IT?)
The disparity between the harm or potential harm and the punitive damage
award (RATIO)
The difference between the remedy and the civil penalties authorized or
imposed in comparable cases (AWARD COMPARED TO CIVIL
PENALTIES)
o Ratio of 500 to 1 raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow
o Transcends the constitutional limit
A person can sue for punitive damages, but they must be limited to the damages suffered.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
Award of $145 Mil punitive and $1 Mil compensatory damages
o S.Ct. used BMW guideposts to reach a decision
o 145 to 1 ratio
o Single digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process (1 to 9 max)
o Punishment must be reasonable and proportionate
o Grossly excessive under the due process clause
Philip Morris U.S.A. v. Williams
Williams died after smoking for most of his life; his widow sued. The jury awarded $79.5
Mil in punitive damages designed to punish the company for its actions against smokers
who were not part of the suit.
o S.Ct. determined you cant punish for others, only the plaintiff in the case
o Such an award would amount to a taking without due process
o Single digit award is constitutional, double maybe
The Contracts Clause:
- History: preventing states from passing laws that could end obligations after
Revolutionary war
5
In 1962 NY & NJ prohibited toll revenues to subsidize the rail service for the purpose of
ensuring the tolls covered the bondholders. Once the energy crisis hit, both NY & NJ
repealed the laws to allow the tolls to support the rail service.
o Ct. determined that the Contracts Clause prohibits the repeal of the 1962 covenant
o If a State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the
money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contracts Clause
would provide no protection at all.
o When the govt interferes with govt K, high standard (strict scrutiny)
o Bondholders had expectations of the bonds and what was expected of their K
o Difference: unlike the previous cases , no PUBLIC interest at stake, only
beneficiary is state, where bondholders are jeopardized.
The Takings Clause (5th Amendment):
- Limitation on the federal government
- 1st right incorporated from the Bill of Rights
- Private property, taken, for public use, and has paid just compensation
Purpose is to provide assurance that the govt will not take property from some to give to others
Spreading Loss to avoid individuals having to bear the cost of particular public good, which
should be for everyone to bear.
Has a taking occurred? Requirements
1) Two types:
Physical Taking: occurs when the government confiscates or physically occupies property.
Regulatory Taking: occurs when the governments regulation leaves no reasonably
economically viable use of the property.
2) For a Public Use or Purpose
Analysis:
Private property
Taken (physical, occupying, regulation)
Public use (Public Purpose Requirement)
Just compensation (Reasonable Value for the property)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
NY law provided that landlords had to allow cable television operators to install cable on
their property. NY believed cable to be important and it gave tenants a choice.
o Ct. determined that the cable running on the building is a taking because of the
permanent physical attachment and the government authorized it by creating a
law requiring landlords to allow the attachment.
o Regardless of the extent of the occupation, just compensation must be paid
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
PA statute prevented the mining of coal under a property in such a way as to remove the
supports and cause a subsidence of the surface of their house. State claims act is designed
to protect the safety and the surface of the property.
7
o Ct. determines the general rule is that just because there is a regulation does not
amount to a taking, however if it goes too far it will be recognized as a taking &
the govt must pay just compensation.
o Consider the extent of the taking
Miller v. Schoene
NOT a taking
Cedar Rust Act- allows the killing of cedar trees in order to protect the apple trees.
Apple orchards were important to the economy
Public Interest involved in the trees and Economy
o Ct. determines this is the only practicable method to control the disease, the
choice is unavoidable and therefore not a taking this does not go too far.
Ad Hoc Test: 1) economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; 2) the extent to which the
regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the
government action.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
NY established historic landmark law that is designed to preserve historical landmarks.
Case involved Grand Central Station, owners of Grand Central wanted to build on top of
the building, but the historic landmark would not allow. The court applied the Ad Hoc
Test.
o Ct. determined that economic value is not effected, not a complete prohibition
and no physical invasion.
o Any regulation that amounts to anywhere between no effect and total effect is
subject to the following factors:
(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant
(2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with expectations
(3) the character of the governmental action.
o Not a taking
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Lucas bought beachfront property with the intention of building on it. Two years after
purchase S.C. enacted the Beachfront Management act that barred Lucas from building
on the land.
o Ct. determined the act left Lucas with no economically viable use, therefore it
was a taking that resulted in compensation.
o Taking = total deprivation of the economic use of the property.
The Govt does have a right to take private property but the owner MUST be properly
compensated
Where there is no economically viable use, it is a taking
Hawaii enacted legislation to break the oligopoly of land ownership by creating the HHA
which enables the HHA to condemn and seize the properties.
o Ct. discusses public use; calling it well-nigh conclusive (meaning all but) gives
deference to the legislature.
o Any conceivable justification and it is permissible
o The act is constitutional because the landowners are compensated and it is for
public use.
Kelo v. City of New London
New London condemned private residences in order to use their property as part of a
planned economic development.
o Ct. determines economic revival is public use
o Any conceivable public use will be allowed
o Used Midkiff and Berman to hold that a taking is for public use so long as the
govt acts out of a reasonable belief that the taking will benefit the public.
The court gives unlimited discretion as far as the determination of eminent domain in finding
there is a public purpose.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington
Interest from client funds in a lawyers trust account automatically became the property
of the Legal Foundation of Washington because the State enacted a program for trust
accounts.
o Ct determines that the money is not payable to the client and therefore no taking
and no compensation is required.
o Just compensation is measured in terms of what the owner has lost, not what the
taker has gained
Equal Protection
14th amendment: No state shall no explicit statement for the federal government, but the S.Ct.
has interpreted the 5th amendment Due Process clause to apply EP to the federal government
Due Process clause measures the constitutionality of
Framework for EP Analysis:
General Issue: Can the govt ID an important objective for its discrimination?
Questions to ask: 1) What is the governments classification? 1a) Is it discriminatory on its face?
1b) Or is it neutral but has a discriminatory effect? (Discriminatory impact is not enough, must
show a discriminatory purpose)
Race, national origin and sometimes alienage= suspect classification= strict scrutiny
- Burden of proof is on the government
- Strict Scrutiny: 1) compelling/overriding governmental interest; 2) means chosen is
narrowly tailored/least restrictive or no other way
Gender, non-marital children= intermediate scrutiny
- Burden of proof is on the government
10
12
Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana act provided for separate railway cars for whites and colored races. Plessy, 7/8
white, 1/8 black took a vacant seat in the white section of the train, He was ordered to
13
vacate the car, and upon his refusal, he was ejected by a police officer and taken to jail.
Charged with violation of this act.
o Case is key as constitutionalizing separate but equal under the 14th amendment
o State chose to separate for safety reasons
o Found that this was within the states exercise of their police powers
o Dissent: Called for color blind constitution; predicted that this decision would
be as infamous as the Dred Scott case;
Brown v. Board of Education
Case deals with segregated schools. Five cases consolidated into this opinion
o Ct. determines separate but equal has no place in the education system.
o Used social sciences to make decision
o Unanimous Decision
Brown I 1954
This involves cases from three states, African Americans seeking public schools without
segregation. Separate but equal in school is unconstitutional under EP.
This case mandated the dismantling of segregated school system.
Shift from dual to unitary schools
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
14
o Ct. says its powers will go as far as need be to correct the wrong, they will and
can do whatever is necessary to end segregation. Eliminate all vestiges of
segregation.
o Remedial Tools (problem areas) to integrate:
1) racial quotas- starting point only, although not favored
2) single-race schools- NOT per se unconstitutional, but strong
presumption against
3) altering attendance zones- this is ok and non-discriminatory
4) busing transportation is ok
Proving de jure segregation: MUST show segregation w/in school district resulted from
deliberate decisions made by school board
Milliken v. Bradley
Detroit is racially segregated on its own. The African Americans live in the city and the
Whites live in the suburbs. Detroit wanted to bus kids from the suburbs to the city and
kids from the city to the suburbs in order to break up the segregation.
o Ct. determines that the city is de jure segregation but the suburbs are de facto.
o You cant force a remedy on a district that has never violated the constitution.
o Ct. says inter-district relief is appropriate, cannot mix de jure and de facto.
De jure can be corrected by court because there is a constitutional
violation.
De facto cannot be fixed or corrected by a court because there is no
constitutional violation.
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell
Case involves the finger plan, plan designed to end segregation.
o Dowell Two Prong Test: 1) good faith compliance by school board to meet
desegregation decree and 2) the vestiges of past discrimination had been
eliminated to the extent practicable.
Freeman v. Pitts
Federal desegregation orders will end when its complied with, even if other orders for
desegregation remain in place.
o Ct. held that once one aspect of desegregation is completed, the court will no
longer have the ability to control because it has been complied with. This applies
even if other aspects of desegregation are still being attempted.
Missouri v. Jenkins
Kansas City was ordered to desegregate. The court ruled the efforts made by Missouri for
desegregating were impermissible.
o The district court attempted to attract non-minority students from outside the
district to attend to decrease the segregation.
Ct. ruled this is impermissible because the students outside of the district
were not under the desegregation order.
o S.Ct. ruled that the district court lacked authority to increase the teacher salaries
15
Similar to Mobile v. Bolden. The court determined that this was a violation because in
1982 the amendments to the voting rights act eliminated the need to show a
discriminatory purpose when challenging an election system as being racially
discriminatory.
Palmer v. Thompson
Jackson Mississippi responded to a desegregation order by closing its public swimming
pools rather than desegregating them.
o There is not enough evidence to show that Jacksons decision to close its public
swimming pools was racially motivated.
o The States decision is neutral on its face and therefore no evidence of a violation
of EP.
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
This case involved a veterans preference statute. The problem is that 98% of veterans are
men so it has the effect of discriminating against women.
o Ct. rules that the statute is neutral on its face and that there is no intent to
discriminate.
o Test: not in spite of but because of
Neutral on its face then must show they discriminate because of
17
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
This case involved a citys drawing of the voting districts to exclude blacks from participating
in the citys elections. The city drew the district to be a 28 sided figure and all but 4-5 of the
400 blacks were drawn outside of the district with no whites being excluded.
- Ct. determined that the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical
purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with
segregating white and colored voters by fencing negro citizens out of town to deprive
them of their pre-existing municipal vote.
19
o
o
o
o
o
Gratz v. Bollinger
This case involved University of Michigans use of racial preferences in the
undergraduate admissions process. The college assigned points to each factor considered,
most factors are worth 5 points but race is worth 20. School stated the interest was
diversity.
o Ct. ruled that race cannot be sole factor or a predominant factor.
Not a narrowly tailored approach and therefore unconstitutional.
Fisher v. UT Austin
Found that the lower court did not apply strict scrutiny; remanded to the lower court for
correct application
Shaw v. Reno
When race is used as a predominate factor to draw district lines, strict scrutiny must be
applied.
o One way to show race is a predominate factor is if the district is a bizarre shape.
o Ct. rules that if the only interest is complying with voting rights that is not
enough.
Race must be the controlling factor
Easley v. Cromartie
Plaintiff must show a facially neutral law is unexplainable on grounds other than race.
o To determine if race is a predominate factor:
The districts shape
The splitting of towns and counties
High African American voting population
Gender Classifications
- Immutable characteristic (visible)
Reed v. Reed
This case was the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a gender classification. This
case involved estates where a male was preferred over a female.
20
21
Alabama alimony statutes provide that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay
alimony upon divorce. State used a justification of helping needy women and to
remediate past discrimination.
o Ct used intermediate scrutiny and determined that needy is an important
governmental interest but it is not substantially related because needy males could
not get help.
There is no reason not to have a gender neutral statute
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
All female nursing school barred men from entering. University claims past
discrimination and this would disrupt the female students.
o Ct. said no past discrimination because nursing is 90% women and men are able
to audit to therefore it would not disrupt women if they were able to enroll.
o Ct. used intermediate scrutiny and defined exceedingly persuasive justification:
The burden is met only by showing at least the classification serves important
governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are
substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County
State statute makes statutory rape only a crime for men. Statutory rape is sex with a
minor (consensual or not). The state claims the important interest is to prevent
illegitimate teenage pregnancies.
o Ct. rules this is permissible because it is sufficiently related to equalize the
deterrents on the sexes.
o Ct says a gender neutral statute would frustrate its purpose because females would
not report the crime for fear of criminal prosecution.
Rational basis review because women can get pregnant and men cannot.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Military Selective Service Act only requires males to register for the draft.
Women are not permitted to participate in combat and therefore should not have to
register.
o Ct. gives great weight to Congress and the Military in determining.
Purpose of the SS is to have combat ready and since Congress determined
women are prohibited from combat, they cannot be combat ready and
therefore only males can.
o Ct. rules that Congress acted within the constitution and the SS act does not
violate.
Califano v. Webster
The Social Security Act allows women to get a slightly higher monthly payment to
remedy longstanding disparate treatment of women. Women are economically
disadvantaged by men.
o Ct. uses intermediate scrutiny and finds this constitutional because of the past
disparity.
22
24
25
26
o Court overruled Buck v. Bell and stated that the right to procreate is a
fundamental right.
Court also says Marriage is a fundamental right
Court uses Strict Scrutiny for a fundamental right
Decided on the grounds of Equal Protection
Griswold v. Connecticut
Statute makes it a crime to provide birth control and for anyone to use birth control.
o Court recognizes the implicit right to privacy because of the intimate relationship
between husband and wife
o ONLY applies to marital relationships
o Statute is unconstitutional
o Privacy is not specifically expressed in the constitution
Implied by the 4th amendment, first amendment right of association, 3rd
amendment and the 5th amendment.
zone of privacy is created by several fundamental rights
Rights can be regulated but not completely banned
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Contraception was given to unmarried students, the statute treated married and single
people differently.
o Court applies right to privacy to individuals, married or single and declares this
statute unconstitutional.
Rational basis
Carey v. Population Services International
NY made it a crime for anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute
contraceptives to anyone over the age of 15, to distribute contraceptives to a minor under
the age of 16 or to advertise contraceptives.
o Court used Strict Scrutiny and said compelling is the key.
Unduly restricted access to birth control and interfered with the right to
control procreation.
Roe v. Wade
Abortion rights
o Court determines that the womans right to choose stems from privacy interests
but the state also has an interest in safety.
o Court rules that abortion rights break down by trimester:
1st trimester (0 to 3 months) it is up to the mother and the doctor
(ABSOLUTE)
2nd trimester (3-6 months) state may regulate for mothers health (there IS
a compelling interest here)
3rd trimester-Post Viability (6-9 months) state has an interest in the life of
the fetus except for the mothers life or safety.
27
29
liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were
sacrificed.
We require in substantive-due process cases a careful description of the
asserted fundamental liberty interest. Our Nations history, legal
traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial guideposts for
responsible decision making, that direct and restrain our exposition of the
Due Process Clause.
o Right to privacy DOES NOT include physician-assisted death
Vacco v. Quill
NY makes it a crime to commit or attempt suicide but patients may refuse lifesaving
treatment.
o Court determines that NY has valid and important public interests that satisfy the
rational basis analysis.
Everyone regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to
refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist
a suicide. doesnt discriminate
-
\
Whalen v. Roe
NY requires certain prescription drugs be written on triplicate form in order to maintain a
record of those drugs. NY claims an interest in regulating controlled substances.
o Court determines that NYs interest outweighs the privacy interest claimed to be
violated by the statute.
o Court validates the statute and holds it constitutional.
Saenz v. Roe
This case involved CA attempting to limit the amount of welfare benefits a new citizen
receives. CA states that a citizen who has not lived in CA for at least a year is entitled to
the welfare benefits that the person would have had in the state they lived in prior to
moving. Once the year is up, they are entitled to the higher CA benefits.
o Court states that citizens have a fundamental right to travel.
Strict Scrutiny
Shapiro v. Thompson: struck down a residency requirement
o Court says the right to travel:
Protects the rights of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state
The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien
when temporarily present in the second state
For those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, to be treated
like other citizens of that state.
o Right to travel (Interstate, not International):
Ingress/egress
Inherent nature of our federal system
Articles of confederation
Commerce Clause of the Constitution (one nation)
30
Welcome Visitor
Article IV, sec 2 substantial/substantial test
Intermediate scrutiny
No discrimination
Right of new citizens to be treated like other citizens
14th amendment citizenship clause
Citizen of the U.S. is also a citizen of the state in which they reside
o Court strikes down CA residency requirement for the welfare benefits
Court has upheld residency requirements for in-state tuition and divorces
No fundamental right to international travel
Right to Vote
- Amendments: 15th (Denial on basis of RACE), 19th, 24th and 26th
- 14th amendment makes the right to vote a fundamental right
Reapportionment by the legislature is NOT a political question and therefore the Court can
decide.
- Congressional Reapportionment is HOR in Congress, legislative reapportionment is done
by the state legislature
- Reapportionment is always a state legislative function
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
Virginia has a poll tax requiring voters to pay a small fee to cast their vote.
o Ct. says right to vote is fundamental so Strict Scrutiny is applied
The poll tax infringes on the right to vote and therefore is unconstitutional
Reynolds v. Sims
60 years since the last apportionment of the Alabama legislature.
o Ct determines that mal-apportionment violates equal protection.
o The Ct determines that districts should be apportioned to the population 1 person
= 1 vote
o Legislature must make an honest, good faith effort to draw a district of
equal population as is practicable.
Take the total # of votes and divide by the # of districts
Ex. 100 seats with a populations of 100,000
100,000/100 = 1,000 per district
After lines are drawn, count the population
o Determine the one that exceeds by the most and the one
that is under by the least
Take the difference between the most and the
least and that gives the variation %/.
Wesberry v. Sanders
1 person 1 vote applies to legislature, congressional seats, local govt officials, special
purpose govt unit,
o Dilution/reapportionment 1 person, 1 vote applies to HOR
31
Who has the duty to reapportion the state legislature? Entire state legislature
Who reapportions Congress (HOR)? State legislature draws congressional districts
o Ct. determined that below 9.6% for state legislature is honest/good faith effort and
therefore constitutional
o Above 16.4% is presumptively invalid
Kramer v. Union Free School District
Statue limiting the right to vote unless a person owned property or are parents of a child
enrolled in the school.
o Statute is over-inclusive and under-inclusive
o Ct. determines this statute violates the fundamental right to vote even if it is a
limited purpose election.
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basis Water Storage District
This case represents the EXCEPTION to the 1 person, 1 vote
o Special purpose government unit that disproportionally affects some more than
others, then you can have voting on some other basis than the 1 person, 1 vote and
it is constitutionally permissible.
Ball v. James
Arizona reclaimed water districts director are elected by voters but limits voter eligibility
to landowners and apportions voting power according to the amount of land a voter owns.
o Court rules the exception to the one person, one vote applies
o Limited purpose local government unit that disproportionately affects (exception)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
This case was decided 3-3-3 plurality opinion. Marion County requires a photo ID to
vote. The state interests are to deter fraud, modernize the election and to increase voter
confidence.
o Ct determines that requiring a photo ID is not a substantial burden on a persons
fundamental right to vote
The photo ID is provided for free
There are exceptions for religious reasons, etc. to accommodate.
Bush v. Gore
33