Constituional Law Flashcards
Will a one year voting residence be upheld on a man wishing to vote in a school board election?
The residency requirement here violates the resident’s fundamental rights to vote and to interstate travel. A restriction on the right to vote is subject to strict scrutiny and is valid only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest (otherwise the restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating new residents differently from old residents). Relatively short residency requirements (e.g. 30 days) have been upheld as being necessary to promote the compelling interest of assuring that only bond fide residents vote. However, the SC has struck down longer duration all requirements for a lack of compelling justification. Therefore, the one-year requirement probably unconstitutionally impinges on the right to vote.
The residency requirement also impinges on the fundamental right to travel in the same manner (i.e., it discourages people from migrating by denying them the right to vote without a compelling reason). Thus, the requirement is invalid.
Because fundamental rights are affected by the residency requirement here, the government must show a compelling justification; a mere rational or legitimate basis is not enough.
The Supreme Court has found that there was no compelling interest fro a one-year residence requirement in order to vote.
What has the SC upheld regarding oaths by government employees?
The SC has upheld oaths requiring government employees to oppose:
- The violent overthrow of the government, and
- To support the constitution.
However, it has held government employees cannot be required to show respect for the flag, as a person might refuse to salute the flag on religious grounds.
