291:, Illinois. Illinois law did not allow convicts to vote, but these inmates had not yet been convicted, so in March 1967 they attempted to obtain absentee ballots. Illinois law (specifically Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 46, ยงยง 19โ1 to 19โ3) allowed four reasons for people to receive absentee ballots: 1) being absent from one's home county "for any reason whatever", 2) physical incapacity, with a doctor's affidavit, 3) religious observance on election day, or 4) serving as a poll watcher in another county. The inmates argued that "physical incapacity" included their situation, and they even got an affidavit from the warden of the jail to that effect. The Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago denied their applications, saying that the category only included "medical incapacity", not "judicial" incapacity.
31:
344:, a Kentucky law was upheld that granted absentee ballots to those absent from their county who were "in the United States services, or bona fide, full time student," but not others absent from their county. Finding Illinois's rules to be no more unreasonable than these other examples, the Court ruled in favor of the Board. McDonald and Byrd appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
377:
Such an exacting approach is not necessary here, however, for two readily apparent reasons. First, the distinctions made by
Illinois' absentee provisions are not drawn on the basis of wealth or race. Secondly, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Illinois statutory scheme has an impact
395:
to a legitimate state end." From that point of view, Illinois absentee ballot laws were unobjectionable. It was rational, after all, to afford some voting conveniences to those with some medical problems, without granting the same to the whole population; and it was also rational to not want inmates
361:
first observed that the plaintiffs had two basic challenges to how
Illinois had classified voters: first, that the distinction between medical incapacitated persons and the "judicially" incapacitated "bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate state objective"; and second, that neither was
331:
for the Board on
December 11. First, it agreed with the Board's interpretation of the statute, restricting "physical incapacity" to mean incapacity for medical reasons. Then, considering the constitutional question, it compared the Illinois law to three other cases where state laws about absentee
319:
According to the plaintiffs' argument, there was no good reason for
Illinois to discriminate between those it already gave absentee ballots to - including people who might be in jails in counties other than their home county - while not giving ballots to them. Although a state could choose who it
396:
voting for local officials from inside prison walls, where the same officials might have undue influence. The majority noted that the plaintiffs had not attempted to vote by any other means than by absentee ballot, saying that
Illinois might well permit them to vote in some other manner.
315:
of the
Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. They sought an injunction to force the Board to give them absentee ballots, and the Board sought to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that giving them the ballots would be a crime under Illinois law.
55:
Sam L. McDONALD and Andrew Byrd on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF CHICAGO, Sidney T. Holzman, Chairman, Marie H. Suthers, Commissioner, and
Francis P. Canary,
300:
698:
340:, a Kansas law was upheld that granted absentee ballots to those who would be outside the state, even though physically disabled person inside the state could not get one. And in the 1963 case
703:
268:
249:
85:
708:
378:
on appellants' ability to exercise the fundamental right to vote. It is thus not the right to vote that is at stake here but a claimed right to receive absentee ballots.
336:, a Missouri law was upheld that granted absentee ballots to people traveling for work (e.g. railroad employees, traveling salesmen), but not others. In the 1936 case
235:
693:
718:
279:. The Court particularly noted that the inmates had not shown they could not vote, but rather only that they could not receive absentee ballots.
648:
475:(September 17, 2020). "Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them".
723:
256:
35:
597:
553:
168:
639:
568:
129:
An
Illinois law that granted absentee ballots to various eligible voters but not to inmates awaiting trial did not violate the
583:
362:
there any good reason to distinguish between those in pretrial detention in their home county, and those detained elsewhere.
405:
312:
130:
391:
Instead, the Court applied the general rule for the constitutionality of a statute, that there must be "a
176:
392:
288:
276:
252:
77:
116:
66:
264:
519:
492:
164:
357:
A unanimous
Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court. Writing for the majority,
713:
554:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=10286121515109702035&hl=en&as_sdt=400006
200:
569:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=1101708249628150508&hl=en&as_sdt=400006
287:
The plaintiffs in this case, Sam L. McDonald and Andrew Byrd, were inmates awaiting trial in
484:
472:
328:
370:
272:
260:
630:
657:
528:
409:
365:
Before dealing with these, the Court addressed the implicit argument that, because the
180:
687:
496:
320:
gave absentee ballots to, it could not "unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminate".
412:
concurred in the result, but did not join the majority opinion or write their own.
598:"The Voting Booth with Steel Bars: Prisoners Voting Rights and O'Brien v. Skinner"
80:
358:
188:
148:
324:
192:
156:
488:
366:
308:
666:
327:
for the inmates to be given ballots, but after a hearing, they granted
304:
100:
675:
438:
217:
Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas, Marshall
30:
275:, and found that the distinctions drawn by the law were
386:, 394 US 802 (1969), (Warren, writing for the majority)
624:
McDonald v. Board of
Election Commissioners of Chicago
522:
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
441:
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
384:
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
245:
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
23:
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
699:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
115:
Summary judgment granted for defendants, 277 F.Supp.
229:
221:
213:
208:
137:
123:
111:
106:
96:
72:
62:
49:
42:
21:
477:Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy
263:to inmates awaiting trial did not violate their
375:
704:History of voting rights in the United States
8:
255:802 (1969), was a unanimous decision by the
323:On March 30, the District Court granted a
18:
332:ballot had been upheld. In the 1916 case
626:, 394 U.S. 802 (1969) is available from:
567:, 144 Kan. 813 - Court of Appeals 1936,
421:
16:1969 United States Supreme Court case
7:
514:
512:
510:
508:
506:
433:
431:
429:
427:
425:
709:Prisoners' and ex-prisoners' rights
257:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
694:United States Supreme Court cases
259:that an Illinois law that denied
29:
719:1969 in United States case law
295:Case before the District Court
271:. The Court declined to apply
1:
608:: 246 – via HeinOnline.
602:Capital University Law Review
596:Carroll, David Wm T. (1974).
453:(394): 802. November 19, 1968
348:Decision of the Supreme Court
91:89 S.Ct. 1404, 22 L.Ed.2d 739
369:was involved, some level of
133:of the Fourteenth Amendment.
740:
299:McDonald and Byrd sued in
724:Legal history of Illinois
234:
142:
128:
28:
580:Hallahan v. Mittlebeeler
524:, 277 F.Supp. 14 (1967)"
342:Hallahan v. Mittlebeeler
43:Argued November 19, 1968
313:Equal Protection clause
131:Equal Protection clause
552:, 268 Mo. 580 (1916),
389:
177:William J. Brennan Jr.
45:Decided April 28, 1969
489:10.1089/elj.2020.0646
393:rational relationship
307:, arguing that their
265:constitutional rights
236:U.S Const. amend. XIV
443:, 394 US 802 (1969)"
359:Chief Justice Warren
269:Fourteenth Amendment
667:Library of Congress
550:Straughan v. Meyers
334:Straughan v. Meyers
225:Harlan and Stewart
165:William O. Douglas
153:Associate Justices
473:Hasen, Richard L.
241:
240:
201:Thurgood Marshall
169:John M. Harlan II
731:
680:
674:
671:
665:
662:
656:
653:
647:
644:
638:
635:
629:
610:
609:
593:
587:
577:
571:
565:Lemons v. Noller
562:
556:
547:
541:
540:
538:
536:
516:
501:
500:
469:
463:
462:
460:
458:
435:
387:
353:Majority opinion
338:Lemons v. Noller
329:summary judgment
261:absentee ballots
138:Court membership
33:
32:
19:
739:
738:
734:
733:
732:
730:
729:
728:
684:
683:
678:
672:
669:
663:
660:
654:
651:
645:
642:
636:
633:
627:
619:
614:
613:
595:
594:
590:
578:
574:
563:
559:
548:
544:
534:
532:
518:
517:
504:
471:
470:
466:
456:
454:
437:
436:
423:
418:
402:
388:
382:
371:strict scrutiny
355:
350:
325:temporary order
297:
285:
273:strict scrutiny
191:
179:
167:
92:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
737:
735:
727:
726:
721:
716:
711:
706:
701:
696:
686:
685:
682:
681:
649:Google Scholar
618:
617:External links
615:
612:
611:
588:
572:
557:
542:
529:Google Scholar
523:
502:
483:(3): 263โ288.
464:
442:
420:
419:
417:
414:
401:
398:
385:
380:
373:was required:
354:
351:
349:
346:
296:
293:
284:
281:
239:
238:
232:
231:
227:
226:
223:
219:
218:
215:
211:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
181:Potter Stewart
154:
151:
146:
140:
139:
135:
134:
126:
125:
121:
120:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
93:
90:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
57:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
24:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
736:
725:
722:
720:
717:
715:
712:
710:
707:
705:
702:
700:
697:
695:
692:
691:
689:
677:
668:
659:
650:
641:
640:CourtListener
632:
625:
621:
620:
616:
607:
603:
599:
592:
589:
585:
582:, 373 S.W.2d
581:
576:
573:
570:
566:
561:
558:
555:
551:
546:
543:
531:
530:
525:
521:
515:
513:
511:
509:
507:
503:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
468:
465:
452:
448:
444:
440:
434:
432:
430:
428:
426:
422:
415:
413:
411:
407:
399:
397:
394:
383:
379:
374:
372:
368:
367:right to vote
363:
360:
352:
347:
345:
343:
339:
335:
330:
326:
321:
317:
314:
310:
309:right to vote
306:
302:
301:federal court
294:
292:
290:
282:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
246:
237:
233:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:Case opinions
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:Chief Justice
144:
143:
141:
136:
132:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
102:
101:Oral argument
99:
95:
88:
87:
82:
79:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
58:
54:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
20:
623:
605:
601:
591:
579:
575:
564:
560:
549:
545:
533:. Retrieved
527:
480:
476:
467:
455:. Retrieved
450:
446:
403:
390:
376:
364:
356:
341:
337:
333:
322:
318:
298:
286:
244:
243:
242:
230:Laws applied
196:
184:
172:
160:
107:Case history
84:
56:Commissioner
53:
447:Open Jurist
400:Concurrence
289:Cook County
222:Concurrence
189:Byron White
149:Earl Warren
688:Categories
676:OpenJurist
416:References
311:under the
283:Background
267:under the
193:Abe Fortas
157:Hugo Black
63:Docket no.
497:219425824
404:Justices
73:Citations
714:Penology
622:Text of
535:June 26,
457:June 26,
381:โ
277:rational
214:Majority
97:Argument
631:Cornell
410:Stewart
305:Chicago
124:Holding
679:
673:
670:
664:
661:
658:Justia
655:
652:
646:
643:
637:
634:
628:
586:(1963)
495:
406:Harlan
199:
197:·
195:
187:
185:·
183:
175:
173:·
171:
163:
161:·
159:
119:(1967)
493:S2CID
112:Prior
537:2021
459:2021
408:and
253:U.S.
86:more
78:U.S.
76:394
584:726
485:doi
303:in
250:394
81:802
690::
604:.
600:.
526:.
505:^
491:.
481:19
479:.
451:US
449:.
445:.
424:^
248:,
117:14
67:68
606:3
539:.
520:"
499:.
487::
461:.
439:"
89:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.