31 N.Y.2d 36 (1972)
A student may establish residency for voting purposes at their college location, but election boards can make detailed inquiries to ensure the claimed residency is bona fide and independent of their student status.
Summary
This case addresses whether students can establish residency for voting purposes at their college or university location. The New York Court of Appeals held that students can establish residency where they attend college, but election boards are entitled to make detailed inquiries to ensure that the claimed residency is bona fide and independent of their student status. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 151 of the New York Election Law, which allows for these inquiries, finding that it does not create an unconstitutional barrier to student voting but rather ensures that all voters meet the traditional requirements of bona fide residence.
Facts
Several students residing at college dormitories in New York State were either denied voter registration or notified that their existing registration would be challenged. The Suffolk County Board of Elections denied registration to students at Stony Brook. In Oneida and Onondaga Counties, some students were registered, but later notified their right to vote would be challenged. These students challenged the constitutionality of Section 151 of the New York Election Law, arguing it unfairly restricted their right to vote based on their status as students.
Procedural History
In Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, the Special Term initially found that the students had established residency, but the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a hearing. In Bell and Gorenberg, the Special Term upheld the constitutionality of Section 151 and dismissed the petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed in Bell and Gorenberg. The cases were then consolidated and appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Section 151 of the New York Election Law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a special burden for students seeking to register to vote.
2. Whether Section 151 violates the Voting Rights Act or the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by abridging the right to vote of 18-year-olds.
Holding
1. No, because Section 151 represents a permissible effort to ensure that all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the traditional requirements of bona fide residence.
2. No, because the statute does not disenfranchise anyone, but merely determines the place where one may legally vote.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that residence for voting purposes requires both an intention to reside at a fixed place and physical presence, coupled with conduct indicating such intent. The court emphasized that Section 151 does not impose additional qualifications for student voters but merely provides a framework for determining whether a student has genuinely changed their domicile. The court stated, “That statute, insofar as relevant, provides that for ‘the purpose of registering and voting no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence… by reason of his presence or absence… while a student of any institution of learning’.” The court found that the statute is neutral and does not disenfranchise anyone but merely determines the appropriate place for an individual to vote. The court acknowledged that students might face a more detailed inquiry into their residency, but this was justified by the fact that their presence in a college town is often temporary. The court held that the classification was reasonable and did not violate equal protection, as it served the legitimate state interest of preventing non-residents from voting. The court held, “We deal admittedly with what is foremost among all political rights the right to vote. Section 151 distinguishes between residents and nonresidents not students and other citizens.” The court determined the Board of Elections erred in summarily denying the students’ applications based solely on their student status.