Human Rights Party of Ann Arbor v. Secretary of State for Michigan, Civ. A. No. 38333.

• Decision Date: 11 May 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 38333.
• Citation: 370 F. Supp. 921
• Parties: HUMAN RIGHTS PARTY OF ANN ARBOR, and Sonia R. Yaco, by her next friend, Charles Ream, on her own behalf and on behalf of all minors similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the STATE OF MICHIGAN, and his agents — school election officials administering Ann Arbor School District Board elections, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

370 F. Supp. 921

HUMAN RIGHTS PARTY OF ANN ARBOR, and Sonia R. Yaco, by her next friend, Charles Ream, on her own behalf and on behalf of all minors similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the STATE OF MICHIGAN, and his agents — school election officials administering Ann Arbor School District Board elections, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 38333.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

May 11, 1973.

Gabe Kaimowitz, Ann Arbor, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Edmond F. DeVine, Ann Arbor, Mich., Russell A. Searle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing Mich., for defendants.

Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, KAESS, Chief District Judge, and GUBOW, District Judge.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUBOW, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have instituted this action to enjoin the enforcement of the Michigan statute governing eligibility to hold office on the Boards of Education in Michigan school districts, M.S.A. § 15.3492, M.C.L.A. § 340.492, and to have the court declare the statute unconstitutional on the ground that it denies persons under eighteen (18) years of age equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U. S.C. § 2201, 28 U.S.C. § 2202, and 42 U. S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, a three-judge panel was convened to consider the case.

The facts are undisputed:

Plaintiff, Human Rights Party of Ann Arbor, endorsed the candidacy of Plaintiff Yaco, then fifteen (15) years old, for election as a member of the Board of Education of the School District of Ann Arbor. The election was held on June 12, 1972. Sonia Yaco complied with the procedural requirements for candidacy by submitting a petition, signed by more than eighty-five (85) qualified electors, that she be certified as a candidate. Defendant's agent, Office of Operations of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, denied certification of Miss Yaco's candidacy for the June 12 ballot. In doing so, the Office of Operations was acting in accordance with the Michigan statute under attack in this case. That statute provides in pertinent part:

"Any school elector in a school district . . . shall be eligible to election or appointment to office in such school district."¹ M.S.A. § 15.3492, M.C.L.A. § 340.492

Under M.S.A. § 15.3511, M.C.L.A. § 340.511 (which, it should be pointed out, is not here challenged), "A school elector shall possess the qualifications provided for qualified electors in section 1 of article 2 of the constitution . . .". Article 2, § 1, as modified by the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, includes the requirement that an elector be at least eighteen (18) years of age. Thus, the effect of the statute being challenged here is to exclude persons under eighteen (18) years of age from eligibility for election to the Board of Education.

On June 7, 1972, a hearing was held on an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The preliminary injunction was denied by District Court Judge Lawrence Gubow.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

The question of whether the classification created by M.S.A. § 15.3492, M. C.L.A. § 340.492 offends the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment presents the threshold problem of determining the proper standard to apply in resolving the question. Two possible standards have evolved. The traditional test is "whether the challenged classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of a valid state objective". McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). See, Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 362, 90 S.Ct. 532, 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970). The more exacting "compelling interest" standard requires the state to show that the classification created by the state statute is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 337, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 626-628, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969).

The initial and direct impact of the Michigan statutory age restriction is felt, of course, by those who seek office, and the "compelling interest" standard has not generally been invoked by the Supreme Court to test restrictions on candidacy status. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142-143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L. Ed.2d 92 (1972); Turner v. Fouche, supra, 396 U.S. at 362, 90 S.Ct. 532. As Plaintiffs strenuously contend, however, the restriction on the right to seek office necessarily limits the right of voters to vote for the candidate of their choosing. See, Stapleton v. Clerk for the City of Inkster, 311 F.Supp. 1187 (E.D.Mich.1970); Manson v. Edwards, 345 F.Supp. 719 (E.D.Mich.1972). Where the "fundamental right" to vote is limited by State action, the "compelling interest" standard of review is more frequently called into play. See, e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 405 U.S. at 337, 92 S.Ct. 995; Harper v. Virginia Board of Education, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S. Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966).² Nonetheless, the mere existence of a statutory barrier to access to the ballot does not itself require application of the more rigid standard of review even though the field of choice open to voters is necessarily limited thereby. Bullock v. Carter, supra, 405 U.S. at 143, 92 S. Ct. at 856. "In approaching candidate restrictions, it is essential to examine in a realistic light the extent and nature of their impact on voters." Id. The Court in Bullock held that the compelling interest standard must apply to a Texas statutory scheme requiring an excessively high filing fee for candidates. The Court's rationale was that this restriction had the indirect impact of giving to affluent voters a greater freedom of choice in voting than that afforded to voters of more limited economic resources.³ Since the compelling interest standard had been applied to statutory schemes which discriminated directly against voters according to economic status,⁴ the Bullock Court held that the same standard should be applied when voter discrimination by economic status was the indirect result of the statutory scheme directed at candidates.

The reasoning of the Bullock Court leads us to the conclusion that the compelling interest standard is applicable to a statutory restriction on candidacy if that restriction has an indirect discriminatory impact of the sort which, had it resulted directly from a statute limiting the right to vote, would require application of the stricter standard of review to that statute.

The statute under consideration here has the indirect impact of limiting the right to vote on the basis of age since the candidates excluded are those most likely to be favored by young citizens. See, Bullock v. Carter, supra, 405 U.S. at p. 144, 92 S.Ct. 849. Thus, we are brought to the question of whether a state limitation on the right to vote based on age must meet the compelling interest test in order to satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court most recently discussed this question in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260, 27 L.Ed. 2d 272 (1970), in which the Court upheld portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Five Justices, who were not otherwise in agreement with one another as to the Court's holding in the case, nevertheless constituted a majority on the question of the application of the Equal Protection Clause to state age qualifications on the right to vote. Justice Stewart, in an opinion joined in by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, pointed out that in all prior decisions on the subject, the Court had "been careful . . . to note the undoubted power of a State to establish a qualification for voting based on age". Id. at 294, 91 S.Ct. at 349. Justice Stewart added that "to test the power to establish an age qualification by the `compelling interest' standard is really to deny a State any choice at all, because no State could demonstrate a `compelling interest' in drawing the line with respect to age at one point rather than another". Id. Justice Black went even further and stated that "the establishment of voter age qualifications is a matter of legislative judgment which cannot be properly decided under the Equal Protection Clause". Id. at 127, n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 266. Justice Harlan agreed with Justice Black on the question of qualifications based on age, stating "that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to restrict the authority of the States to allocate their political power as they see fit". Id. at 154, 91 S.Ct. at 280. It obviously follows, from the positions of Justices Black and Harlan,...