Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 31 N.Y.2d 36 (1972)

A state can impose reasonable residency requirements for voting, but these requirements must be applied neutrally and cannot create undue burdens on specific classes of voters, such as students, to effectively deny their right to vote.

Summary

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York Election Law § 151, concerning student residency for voting purposes. A group of students were denied voter registration based on their residency in university dormitories. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the state can ensure that only bona fide residents vote, the law must be applied neutrally without creating a presumption against student residency. The court found that the law itself was not unconstitutional but that the summary denial of registration based solely on student status was improper and required further individualized inquiry.

Facts

Several groups of students residing in college or university dormitories in New York were denied voter registration or had their registrations challenged by county election boards. The Suffolk County Board of Elections used questionnaires with an extensive line of inquiry. The Oneida and Onondaga County Boards of Elections either refused registration outright or notified students that their existing registrations would be voided or challenged. The students argued that Section 151 of the Election Law, as amended, was unconstitutional.

Procedural History

In Palla, Special Term found that the petitioners were subjected to a special line of inquiry and established residency. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for proceedings with sworn witness testimony. In Bell and Gorenberg, Special Term consolidated the actions, upheld the constitutionality of Election Law § 151, and dismissed the petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed in Bell and Gorenberg.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Section 151 of the New York Election Law, concerning student residency for voting purposes, is facially unconstitutional as violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, or the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

2. Whether the summary denial of voter registration to students based solely on their student status violates the Election Law.

Holding

1. No, because the statute itself is a permissible effort to ensure that all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the traditional requirements of bona fide residence.

2. Yes, because the Board of Elections erred in summarily denying the petitioners’ applications based solely on their student status. The law requires an individualized assessment of residency based on expressed intent, conduct, and attendant circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the right to vote is fundamental but that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring that only bona fide residents vote. Section 151 of the Election Law, the court stated, does not impose additional qualifications for voting but provides a framework for determining residency, which is a prerequisite for voting. The court acknowledged that students, like other transient populations, may require a more detailed inquiry to determine their true domicile. However, the court emphasized that the inquiry must be neutral and cannot presume that students are not residents. The court stated: “[t]he intention to change is not alone sufficient. It must exist, but must concur with and be manifested by resultant acts which are independent of the presence as a student in the new locality”. The court differentiated this case from others where statutes explicitly disenfranchised specific groups. Here, the court found that the law’s criteria were applicable to all prospective registrants, and the classification of students was a reasonable effort to assure that applicants for the vote actually fulfill the requirements of bona fide residence. The court held that the election boards erred in summarily denying the student’s applications. They should have allowed them the opportunity to demonstrate residency through the procedures outlined in the Election Law. The court remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with the Election Law, emphasizing the need for individualized assessment of residency.