Wit v. Berman
2002 WL 31300013, 306 F.3d 1256 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state election law that limits a citizen's right to vote to a single district based on the legal concept of domicile is a reasonable, non-discriminatory restriction that serves important state regulatory interests and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Facts:
- Harold M. Wit and Donald C. Ebel have each maintained homes in New York City for over forty years, where they own property and pay income and property taxes.
- Both men spend a considerable portion of every year living in their New York City residences.
- Both men also have homes in the towns of East Hampton and Southampton, respectively.
- Wit and Ebel are registered to vote in the Hamptons.
- Because they are registered to vote in the Hamptons, they are barred from also registering to vote in New York City.
- New York Election Law defines 'residence' for voting as 'that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home.'
- The same law makes it a felony for any person to register as an elector in more than one election district for the same election.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold M. Wit and Donald C. Ebel filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the enforcement of New York's Election Law.
- The appellees moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- Wit and Ebel, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 New York's Election Law, which defines residence for voting purposes as a single, principal home and thereby prohibits citizens with multiple homes from voting in more than one local election, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Winter, Circuit Judge
No, the New York Election Law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A state law that imposes reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions on voting rights is constitutionally permissible if it advances important state regulatory interests. The court found that New York's requirement that a voter have a single domicile serves the crucial state interests of administrative workability and preventing electoral chaos and fraud. The court reasoned that basing voting rights on a subjective 'stake' in a community's affairs, rather than a single domicile, would be unmanageable for election officials and could lead to corruption. Furthermore, New York's law is pragmatic and favorable to individuals with multiple homes, as it allows them to choose which residence they wish to designate as their domicile for voting purposes, rather than imposing a rigid determination upon them.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the state's broad authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections through clear, objective rules. It solidifies the constitutionality of using the traditional legal concept of a single domicile as the basis for voter registration, explicitly rejecting a more subjective, interests-based approach. The ruling emphasizes that the state's interest in creating administrable, fraud-resistant election systems can justify reasonable burdens on the right to vote, such as prohibiting an individual from voting in multiple jurisdictions even when they have substantial connections to each. This provides a strong precedent for upholding similar single-domicile voting laws against equal protection challenges.
