Greidinger v. Davis
61 U.S.L.W. 2585, 988 F.2d 1344 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that conditions the fundamental right to vote on the public disclosure of a voter's Social Security Number imposes a substantial burden on that right and is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- The Virginia Constitution required all qualified citizens to provide their Social Security Number (SSN) on their voter registration application.
- Marc Alan Greidinger completed a Virginia Voter Registration Application but refused to disclose his SSN.
- Due to this omission, the General Registrar of Stafford County denied Greidinger's application.
- Consequently, the Virginia State Board of Elections prevented Greidinger from voting in the November 5, 1991, general election.
- Virginia's statutory scheme made voter registration books, containing the application and SSN, open to public inspection by any registered voter.
- The scheme also permitted the dissemination of statewide voter registration lists, including SSNs, to candidates, political parties, incumbent officeholders, and certain nonprofit organizations.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia stipulated that no state interest is served by disclosing voters' SSNs to private individuals who request information from local registrars.
Procedural Posture:
- Marc Alan Greidinger sued members of the Virginia State Board of Elections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the court of first instance.
- Greidinger alleged the SSN requirement unconstitutionally burdened his right to vote and also violated the federal Privacy Act of 1974.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for Greidinger on the Privacy Act claim but rejected his constitutional challenge.
- The district court held that Virginia's voter registration scheme was necessary to promote the compelling state interest of conducting fair and honest elections.
- The district court entered a final judgment against Greidinger on his constitutional claim.
- Greidinger, as the appellant, appealed the district court's adverse constitutional ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 state's requirement that a citizen publicly disclose their Social Security Number as a condition of voter registration impose an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes, a state law conditioning the right to vote on the public disclosure of a voter's Social Security Number imposes an unconstitutional burden on that right. The court determined that forcing a would-be voter to consent to the public disclosure of their SSN, with its attendant risks of fraud and privacy invasion, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote. Applying strict scrutiny, the court found that while Virginia has a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud and promoting voter participation, the public disclosure of SSNs is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. The court reasoned that Virginia's interests could be met through less intrusive means, such as using a voter's address, date of birth, or a unique voter registration number, without exposing citizens to the 'alarming and potentially financially ruinous' harm that can result from SSN misuse. Furthermore, Virginia had stipulated that it had no state interest in disseminating SSNs to private individuals, undermining its own argument for the necessity of public disclosure.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that even indirect conditions on voting, such as the compelled disclosure of sensitive personal information, can constitute a 'substantial burden' triggering strict scrutiny. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing a state's interest in election integrity against an individual's fundamental rights, including privacy. The case sets a precedent that election regulations must not only serve a compelling purpose but must also be the least restrictive means of achieving that purpose, particularly when they implicate significant privacy concerns like the disclosure of an SSN. This holding influences future challenges to voter ID laws and other registration requirements that may deter participation by demanding the surrender of sensitive personal data.
Unlock the full brief for Greidinger v. Davis