O'Brien v. Skinner
38 L. Ed. 2d 702, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 150, 414 U.S. 524 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause, a state may not deny all means of voting to legally qualified voters, such as pretrial detainees and misdemeanants confined in their county of residence, while granting absentee voting privileges to other citizens, including inmates confined outside their county of residence.
Facts:
- Seventy-two appellants, comprising pretrial detainees and convicted misdemeanants, were confined in the Monroe County jail in New York.
- Under New York law, none of the appellants were legally disenfranchised or subject to any voting disability.
- Before the November 1972 election, the appellants asked election officials to establish a mobile voter registration unit at the jail, but the request was denied.
- The appellants then requested to be either transported to polling places or permitted to use New York's absentee voting provisions.
- Election authorities denied these requests, asserting that the inmates did not qualify for absentee voting under the statute.
- New York law permitted absentee voting for qualified voters who were ill, physically disabled, on vacation, or away from their county for business.
- The law was also interpreted to allow inmates confined in a county other than their legal county of residence to register and vote by mail.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants initiated a proceeding in the Supreme Court for Monroe County, New York, a state trial court, to compel election officials to provide a means for them to vote.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, interpreting state law to permit them to vote by absentee ballot.
- On review, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The respondent election authorities appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
- The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the state's failure to provide a means for the appellants to vote did not violate any state or federal constitutional right.
- The appellants then appealed the decision of the New York Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 New York's election law scheme, as interpreted by its highest court, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by denying pretrial detainees and convicted misdemeanants confined in their county of residence any means to register and vote, while allowing other citizens, including those jailed outside their home county, to vote absentee?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The New York statutory scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law, as construed by the New York Court of Appeals, creates a wholly arbitrary distinction by denying the franchise to inmates jailed in their home county while allowing inmates jailed outside their home county to vote absentee. This disparate treatment of similarly situated citizens imposes a severe and unconstitutionally onerous burden on the appellants' right to vote. This case is distinct from McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs because here, unlike in McDonald, the record shows that appellants are absolutely prohibited from voting by any means, not merely denied the convenience of an absentee ballot.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes. The New York law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it constitutes an absolute denial of the franchise for the appellants, which requires the state to demonstrate a compelling state interest under the strict scrutiny standard. New York provides absentee voting to numerous other citizens, including those on vacation and inmates confined outside their home county. The only suggested state interest—preventing local jail officials from influencing inmates' votes—is not compelling and is a disturbing justification for disenfranchisement. The state should address potential official misconduct directly rather than by denying citizens their fundamental right to vote.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. The New York statutory scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. While the statutes create imperfect and irritating distinctions, these are matters of legislative housekeeping and reform, not constitutional infirmities. A legislature is permitted to address problems one step at a time, and the resulting inequalities are incidental functions of necessary line-drawing. The appellants' inability to vote is an unfortunate circumstance, akin to a voter missing an election to attend a funeral, but it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The Court should refrain from interfering with the details of state election laws.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the Court's voting rights jurisprudence for incarcerated individuals, distinguishing it from the earlier holding in McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs. The Court established that when a state's electoral scheme results in an absolute denial of the franchise for a class of eligible voters, rather than just an inconvenience, it is subject to a more searching constitutional review. This precedent prevents states from creating arbitrary classifications among incarcerated but otherwise qualified voters. The ruling solidifies the principle that while states have broad power to regulate elections, they cannot do so in a way that completely and arbitrarily disenfranchises a specific group while providing access to others in nearly identical circumstances.
