Student voter registration

[John Q. Barrett]

Margo is plainly correct that Symm v. United States, 439 U.S. 1105
(1979) (mem.) was a Supreme Court decision on the merits.  The Court
affirmed the District Court order enjoining a county registrar of voters
from requiring some registrants to complete his "residency
questionnaire" but, by acting summarily, the Court did not address the
District Court's reasoning.  Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion
(joined by Chief Justice Burger), on jurisdictional grounds, states
explicitly that the Court was making, pursuant to statutory requirement,
a merits decision:  "this case is here on direct appeal from the
decision of a three-judge District Court [and] we are obligated to
decide the merits of cases which Congress allows a party to bring here
by appeal, regardless of their importance...."  439 U.S. at 1107
(emphasis added).

 

Please also note what this case was about, according to Justice
Rehnquist:  LeRoy Symm was the tax collector and ex officio voting
registrar of Waller County, TX, a small county west of Houston where a
slight majority of the people in 1976, when this case started, where
"Negro."  Waller County was (and is) home of Prairie View A&M
University, a historically black college.  When people in Waller County
registered to vote using the State of Texas voter registration form,
those who were known to Symm and his deputy as county residents, along
with those who were listed on the county's property tax rolls, were
registered routinely.  Other registrants were "required to complete a
residency questionnaire, which asks whether the applicant is a college
student and, if so, inquires into the student's home address, property
ownership, employment status, future plans, and so forth."  439 U.S. at
1105.  In October 1976, the (Ford Administration) Department of Justice,
led by Attorney General Edward H. Levi, sued Symm, Waller County, Texas
and state officials, alleging that the questionnaire violated Prairie
View students' statutory voting rights and constitutional rights under
the 14th, 15th and 26th Amendments.  The District Court found that the
questionnaire violated the 26th Amendment and entered a permanent
injunction.  The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that judgment.

 

John

 

Professor John Q. Barrett

St. John's University School of Law

Homepage
<http://new.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/faculty/profiles/Barrett>


 

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Margo Schlanger
Sent: 2008-10-31 10:08
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Student voter registration

 

I don't think I understand -- why WOULDN'T we draw inferences from a
summary affirmance?  It's not a denial of cert. (as Chief Justice
Rehnquist emphasized in dissent, in Symms) -- it's a ruling on the
merits.  

 

In addition, where you spend your summers hardly determines your
domicile, or there's be a lot of NYC psychiatrists with domiciles in
Cape Cod.  When I lived in New Haven, as a student, I registered to vote
in New Haven.  It was my community; I followed its politics, I payed
taxes in Connecticut, my car was registered there.  I could go on.
Fraud?  Throwing around accusations of fraud seems WAY overblown here
(not to mention wrong on the merits).  I might even say it's outrageous
(at least there's MY outrage).  And talking about "home states" assumes
the answer.   

 

Margo

 

___________________________________ 
Margo Schlanger
Visiting Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School 
Professor of Law & Director, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse 
Washington University in St. Louis, School of Law
e-mail: mschlanger at wulaw.wustl.edu <mailto:mschlanger at wulaw.wustl.edu>  
web: http://schlanger.wustl.edu <http://schlanger.wustl.edu/>  

 

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Earl Maltz
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 9:13 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Student voter registration

Many thanks to those who pointed me to the summary affirmance in the
Symms case, which is apparently the decision on which the mainstream
media is relying in asserting that students have a constitutional
right to vote wherever they attend college.  Even to the extent that
one can draw any inferences from a summary affirmance, it is clear
that the decision does not establish any such rule.

Here's the larger point.  While the students themselves don't know
any better, it seems to me that those who are encouraging students at
private colleges like Kenyon (the subject of the Time magazine piece)
to register and vote in Ohio (a battleground state) rather than their
home states are chargeable with knowledge of the law, and thus are
engaged in systematic voting fraud (most Kenyon students are from out
of state, and many return home each summer, so cannot possibly be
domiciliaries of Ohio).  Where's the outrage?

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081031/81932aff/attachment.htm