DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
70-13
Appellee 
Blumstein
Appellant 
Dunn
Tags
Term:
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 
Decision: 6 votes for Dunn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

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.

Cite this Page
DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 December 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/>.
DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/ (last visited December 14, 2014).
"DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed December 14, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/.