The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 16, 1971
Decision: Tuesday, March 21, 1972
Issues: Civil Rights, Residency Requirements

Advocates

Not available

Facts of the Case

A Tennessee law required a one-year residence in the state and a three-month residence in the county as a precondition for voting. James Blumstein, a university professor who had recently moved to Tennessee, challenged the law by filing suit against Governor Winfield Dunn and other local officials in federal district court.

Question

Did Tennessee's durational residency requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the law was an unconstitutional infringement upon the right to vote and the right to travel. Applying a strict equal protection test, the Court found that the law did not necessarily promote a compelling state interest. Justice Marshall argued in the majority opinion that the durational residency requirements were neither the least restrictive means available to prevent electoral fraud nor an appropriate method of guaranteeing the existence of "knowledgeable voters" within the state.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Civil Rights, Residency Requirements: 6 - 1
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
Burger
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's opinion
Douglas
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's opinion
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's opinion
Stewart
Voted with the majority, joined Marshall's opinion
White
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Marshall
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Blackmun
Did not participate
Powell
Did not participate
Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/>
(last visited ).