Rosenstock v. Scaringe
| Decision Date | 21 October 1976 |
| Citation | 357 N.E.2d 347,388 N.Y.S.2d 876,40 N.Y.2d 563 |
| Parties | , 357 N.E.2d 347 In the Matter of Simon ROSENSTOCK, Respondent, v. Charles P. SCARINGE et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Albany County, Respondents, and Eileen Gallagher, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Ruth Tompkins Bridgham, Albany, for appellant.
Stephen W. Herrick, Albany, for Simon Rosenstock, respondent.
Robert G. Lyman, Albany, for Charles P. Scaringe and others, respondents.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Lawrence L. Doolittle and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), in his statutory capacity under section 71 of the Executive Law.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Appellant attacks subdivision 3 of section 2103 of the Education Law as violative of the equal protection clause. The threshold question therefore is a determination of the standard of review to be applied in assaying the statute's constitutionality (Alevy v. Downstate Med. Center of State of N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d 326, 331, 384 N.Y.S.2d 82, 86, 348 N.E.2d 537, 541; Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 59, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1, 16, 340 N.E.2d 444, 455).
Where a statute directly infringes upon the fundamental right to vote, the appropriate standard of review is to strictly scrutinize the legislation to determine if it is necessary to promote a compelling State interest (Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169). However, the direct impact of subdivision 3 of section 2103 is not on one's right to vote, but on an individual's right to hold public office, and the right to be a candidate is not in itself sufficient to call for strict scrutiny of the statute (see Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142--143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92).
Appellant's reliance on Bullock as calling for rigorous review of the statute is misplaced. In Bullock, the Supreme Court found a Texas statute, which imposed a requirement that a potential candidate pay substantial filing fees as a condition to his right to run for certain local offices, to be 'patently exclusionary (in) character' in that its effect would be the disenfranchisement of voters who happen to be members of the less affluent segment of the community (Bullock v. Carter, supra, at pp. 143--144, 92 S.Ct. 849). Noting that the statutory scheme had a direct and appreciable impact on the right to vote, the court concluded that the strict scrutiny test was to be applied.
No such direct and appreciable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Carenbauer v. Hechler
...and it may be restricted simply upon a showing that the restriction has some "rational basis." In the Matter of Rosenstock v. Scaringe, 388 N.Y.S.2d 876, 357 N.E.2d 347, 40 N.Y.2d 563 (1976). In West Virginia, by contrast, citizens have a fundamental constitutional right to hold public offi......
-
Hope v. Perales
...necessary to promote a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose (Matter of Rosenstock v. Scaringe, 40 N.Y.2d 563, 388 N.Y.S.2d 876, 357 N.E.2d 347 [1976]. If neither a fundamental right is abridged nor a suspect classification is created, the statute will b......
-
Golden v. Clark
...necessary to promote a compelling State interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose (see, Matter of Rosenstock v. Scaringe, 40 N.Y.2d 563, 388 N.Y.S.2d 876, 357 N.E.2d 347; Alevy v. Downstate Med. Center, 39 N.Y.2d 326, 331-332, 384 N.Y.S.2d 82, 348 N.E.2d 537). If plaintiffs' fu......
-
Roth v. Cuevas
...that an individual not be a member of the same household as another member of the same school board. See, Rosenstock v. Scaringe, 40 N.Y.2d 563, 388 N.Y.S.2d 876, 357 N.E.2d 347 (1976). Therefore, rational qualifications are not limited to "age, integrity, training or, perhaps, residence" w......