Dunn v. Blumstein

In Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, the court held that durational residence laws restricting voting rights "are unconstitutional unless the State can demonstrate that such laws are 'necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.' Thus phrased, the constitutional question may sound like a mathematical formula. But legal 'tests' do not have the precision of mathematical formulas. The key words emphasize a matter of degree: that a heavy burden of justification is on the State, and that the statute will be closely scrutinized in light of its asserted purposes." (Ibid.) The Supreme Court expressly stated that "durational residence laws must be measured by a strict equal protection test," and, after applying the strict test, struck down a Tennessee statute that both required residence for one year and eliminated the possibility of registering to vote 30 days prior to an election. Rather than determining that place of residence could be used to establish a suspect class, the Court decided the issue based on the right to vote. Id. at 341-42.