|
|
O’brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
O’brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974)
O’Brien v. Skinner No. 72-1058 Argued November 6, 1973 Decided January 16, 1974 414 U.S. 524
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Appellants, who are incarcerated in jail as convicted misdemeanants or pretrial detainees unable to make bail but who are under no voting disability under state law, and who requested but were denied the right to register and vote under mobile registration, absentee voting, or other procedures, brought this action challenging the constitutionality of the New York election laws. The contested statutes allow qualified persons to register and vote by absentee measures if precluded from personally doing so because of illness, physical disability, their duties, occupation, or business, and permit absentee voting (but not registration) if the voters are vacationing away from their residence on election day or are confined in a veterans’ hospital. The state trial and intermediate appellate courts initially viewed appellants’ confinement as physical disability and held that they were entitled to vote by absentee ballot. The New York Court of Appeals reversed that determination, concluding that the disability imposed by incarceration did not come within the terms of the statute.
Held:
The challenged provisions as thus construed, which raise no question of disenfranchisement of persons convicted of criminal conduct and permit incarcerated persons to register and vote by absentee means if confined in a county where they are not residents, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they arbitrarily discriminate between categories of qualified voters. Pp. 528-531.
31 N.Y.2d 317, 291 N.E.2d 134, reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 531. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 535.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," O’brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974) in 414 U.S. 524 414 U.S. 525. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=87AX7B9FCN6EL8Z.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." O’brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974), in 414 U.S. 524, page 414 U.S. 525. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=87AX7B9FCN6EL8Z.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in O’brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974). cited in 1974, 414 U.S. 524, pp.414 U.S. 525. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=87AX7B9FCN6EL8Z.
|