About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 996 (1972)
Durational Residence Requirements for State and Local Office: A Violation of Equal Protection

handle is hein.journals/scal45 and id is 1004 raw text is: NOTES DURATIONAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL OFFICE: A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION? The political disenfranchisement of interstate movers, occasioned by durational residence requirements for voters and candidates, is a prob- lem which has concerned many courts in recent years. The convergence of two current trends in the area of equal protection, one increasingly protective of the right to engage in political activity and the other in- creasingly protective of the right to travel, has set the stage for challenges to durational residence requirements for both voters and political can- didates. After discussing the current constitutional status of such qualifications, this Note will be concerned with an equal protection analysis of durational residence requirements for candidates for state and local office. Such requirements will be studied under the two ex- isting equal protection standards of review: (1) the traditional rational basis test, and (2) the stricter compelling state interest test. It will be argued that the more appropriate test in such cases is the latter. It will be shown that, although durational residence requirements for candidacy are likely to be found constitutional under the traditional rational basis test, such requirements cannot withstand the stricter equal protection standard. I. THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF DURATIONAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING AND CANDIDACY The basic assumption underlying the representative democratic process is the existence of open and free participation by the citizenry in the formulation of community policies.' The responsiveness of the com- munity to the needs of its citizens may be implemented in at least two ways in a representative democracy: (1) the citizen may vote for the candidate that best represents his views about how the community 1. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964) (invalidated Georgia congressional ap- portionment scheme); Reynolds v. Sims, 877 U.S. 533, 562 (1964) (invalidated Alabama legislative apportionment scheme). 996