Carrington v. Rash
85 S. Ct. 775, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1734, 13 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that creates a conclusive, irrebuttable presumption that all active-duty military personnel who moved to the state during their service are not residents for voting purposes violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Sergeant Carrington, was a member of the U.S. Army who entered the service from Alabama in 1946.
- In 1962, Carrington established his home in El Paso, Texas, with the intention of remaining there permanently.
- Carrington owned a house in El Paso where he lived with his wife and children, operated a small business there, paid property taxes, and had his car registered in Texas.
- Carrington's military post was in New Mexico, and he commuted to work from his home in Texas.
- Texas officials refused to allow Carrington to register to vote solely because of his status as an active-duty member of the Armed Forces.
- Texas conceded that Carrington met all voting qualifications except for the one imposed on military personnel.
Procedural Posture:
- Sergeant Carrington attempted to register to vote in El Paso County, Texas, but was refused by local election officials.
- Carrington sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's court of last resort, to compel the officials to permit him to vote.
- The Supreme Court of Texas denied the writ, upholding the state constitutional provision that disqualified Carrington from voting.
- Carrington (petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas, and the Court granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits any member of the Armed Forces who moves to Texas during their military service from ever voting in the state as long as they remain in the military, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The Texas constitutional provision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating an invidious discrimination against members of the Armed Forces. While states have broad powers to set reasonable residence requirements for voting, they cannot single out one class of citizens and create a conclusive presumption that they can never establish residency. Texas's justifications—preventing a military 'takeover' of local politics and excluding transient populations—are insufficient. The Court reasoned that 'fencing out' a group of bona fide residents because of how they might vote is constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, Texas already has individualized methods to determine the bona fide residency of other potentially transient groups, such as college students and federal employees, and even determines residency for military personnel in other legal contexts like divorce proceedings. By forbidding a soldier from ever controverting the presumption of non-residence, Texas imposes an unconstitutional discrimination based on occupation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The Texas provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Harlan first argued that the Equal Protection Clause was never intended to apply to state voter qualifications, and the Court should not extend its power into the political affairs of states. Even assuming the Clause applies, the law is constitutional under a rational basis review. Texas could rationally conclude that the vast majority of servicemen are transients and that the administrative burden of identifying the few bona fide residents among them is not justified. The state can also legitimately distinguish between individuals who voluntarily move to Texas and those ordered there by the military. Finally, Texas has a rational interest in protecting local politics from the concentrated influence of military voting strength, a policy rooted in the American tradition of civilian control over the military.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the application of the Equal Protection Clause to state voter qualification laws. It establishes that a person's occupation, specifically military service, cannot be the basis for an irrebuttable presumption of non-residence that disenfranchises an entire class of citizens. The ruling affirms that while states can set residency requirements, they must provide individuals with an opportunity to prove they meet those requirements, rather than relying on broad, class-based stereotypes. This precedent strengthens protections for the voting rights of mobile populations and reinforces the principle that classifications burdening the right to vote are subject to close judicial scrutiny.
