Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 (1969)
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 8:24PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Can a governmental entity limit the franchise to a particular class of people for school board elections?
Background. Under New York law, certain school districts could limit the franchise for school board elections to: 1.) those who own or lease real property within the district; and 2.) those who are parents or have custody of children enrolled in the local school. Appellant was a 31 year old college educated stockbroker who had no children and lived with his parents. He sought to vote in the election despite being denied, as proscribed by law. The appellant sued and claimed that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court agreed.
Court's Analysis. The Court recognized that once the State grants the franchise, any unequal treatment in who can vote needs to meet exacting judicial scrutiny. This is so because any limit of the franchise undermines the legitimacy of representative government.
Still, there may be situations when the franchise can be limited as long as it is narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling State interest. The State claimed that it had a legitimate and compelling interest into allowing only those primarily interest in such elections to vote - namely property taxpayers and parents.
The Court, however, found that the law was not narrowly tailored. For example, a single unemployed individual with no children, who pays no federal and state taxes, who happens to lease a place in the district, can vote in the election, but a person who pays federal and state taxes, has a job, but does not own or lease property (and has no children) cannot. Since the law includes many who have little interest in such elections and excludes those who might have an interest, the election law fails under Equal Protection Clause analysis.