VOTING BOOTH WITH STEEL BARS - PRISONERS VOTING RIGHTS AND O'BRIEN V SKINNER

• NCJ Number: 17846
• Journal: Capital University Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (1974) Pages: 245-265
• Author(s): D W CARROLL
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 21 pages
• Corporate Author: Capital University Law Review
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IN THIS 1974 CASE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PRISONERS WHO ARE OTHERWISE LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO VOTE CANNOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE SOLELY BECAUSE OF INCARCERATION.

Abstract

THE COURT ALSO RULED THAT IF THE STATE PROVIDES NO OTHER METHOD OF VOTING FOR THE PRISONERS, THE STATUTE WHICH EXCLUDES PRISONERS FROM ABSENTEE VOTING DENIES THEM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE USE OF THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST FOR A STATE CLASSIFICATION VERSUS THE STRICT STANDARD OF REVIEW USED IN THE CASE OF ABRIDGED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS, AND COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS. THE COURT'S RULING IN O'BRIEN IS THEN COMPARED TO THAT IN THE 1969 U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MCDONALD V. BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF CHICAGO. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT DECIDED THAT SINCE ONLY THE PRIVILEGE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT, NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE, HAD BEEN DENIED BY STATE STATUTE, THE RATIONALE BASIS TEST COULD BE USED. IT SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THAT THE STATE HAD NOT DENIED THE PRISONERS EQUAL PROTECTION SINCE THEY HAD FAILED TO SHOW THAT ALL METHODS OF VOTING HAD BEEN DENIED THEM. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE O'BRIEN COURT'S USE OF THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST TO DECIDE A CASE INVOLVING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE (DUE TO WHAT WAS JUDGED TO BE THE 'WHOLLY ARBITRARY' EXCLUSION OF ABSENTEE BALLOTING TO IN-COUNTY RESIDENTS, AS OPPOSED TO PRISONERS FROM A DIFFERENT COUNTY) INDICATES A BLURRING OF THE TESTS OF STRICT SCRUTINY AND MINIMAL SCRUTINY, AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION OF SOME UNSTATED MIDDLE STANDARD OF REVIEW MORE LENIENT THAN THE COMPELLING INTEREST TEST, BUT STRICTER THAN THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST. HE CONTENDS THAT WHILE O'BRIEN IS NOT A LANDMARK CASE, IT IS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT IT IS INDICATIVE OF THIS TREND - THE EXISTENCE OF A MIDDLE GROUND STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATECREATED CLASSIFICATION - AS WELL AS THE TREND TOWARD LIBERALIZATION OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS.