EPC Flashcards
T/F: If government action is challenged under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause, and no fundamental right or suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, the law will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or irrational. A rational basis standard applies.
True.
The government may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion __________.
before viability
Under the one person, one vote principle __________.
Regarding congressional districts, almost exact mathematical equality between the congressional districts within a state is required under the one person, one vote principle. The rationale is that voting is a fundamental right, diluting one person’s vote compared to another’s raises equal protection concerns, and there is no compelling interest that would justify more than a couple of percentage points difference from district to district.
The state passed a law stating that “only persons living with their parents or guardians who are bona fide residents of the state shall be entitled to free public education; all others who wish to attend public schools within the state may do so, but they must pay tuition of $3,000 per semester.” A 15-year-old girl moved in with her friend so that she could attend the public schools in the state, and the state legislature passed the tuition statute just as she completed her junior year. The girl wants to complete her senior year in the state high school, but cannot afford to pay tuition.
If the girl sues in federal court to strike down the tuition statute, is the court likely to rule that the statute is constitutional?
The court is likely to rule that the statute is constitutional. A bona fide residence requirement, such as this statute, that is not based on a suspect classification and does not limit the exercise of a fundamental right, is judged by the rational basis test.
It uniformly furthers the state interest in assuring that services provided for its residents are enjoyed only by residents.
A state enacted health care legislation to provide comprehensive insurance coverage on prescription drugs for all of its citizens. The legislation provided state reimbursement for the cost of all prescription drugs with one exception-a drug commonly known as the “abortion pill,” which was prescribed to induce early term abortions without surgery. All other prescription drugs for pregnant women were covered. A pregnant woman who had received a prescription for the drug and was subsequently denied reimbursement filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the legislation.
What best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state legislation?
The court should require the woman to show that the legislation is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. The right of privacy includes the right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances without undue interference from the government. However, neither federal nor state government is required to grant medical benefit payments for abortions, even if it grants benefits for childbirth services. The Court has held that a state’s failure to provide funding for a woman’s abortion decision does not constitute interference with her constitutional right to make that decision.
The police department of a small city has jurisdiction within the city limits and over a defined portion of the surrounding rural communities within the county. A farmer lives in one of the rural communities receiving police protection from the city. The farmer does not pay any tax to the city directly, but a portion of the farmer’s county property tax is turned over by the county to the city in order to support the city’s police department.
The farmer’s property was vandalized several times over the past several months, and the farmer became unhappy with the police protection that the city was providing. After his complaints to the police department and city hall did not improve the situation, the farmer wanted to vote against the mayor in the next election, but a city ordinance provides that only residents of the city may vote in city elections.
If the farmer brings a suit to compel the city to allow him to vote in the city’s mayoral election, is he likely to prevail?
The farmer is not likely to prevail because RBR applies. Although the right to vote is a fundamental right, laws prohibiting nonresidents from voting are generally valid, provided that they meet the minimal scrutiny, or “rational basis,” standard. Under this standard, a law will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Limiting the voters in a city’s mayoral election to residents of the city serves the interests of efficiency and prevents persons with little personal interest in the city from voting. Thus, a court would likely uphold the ordinance.
A state’s constitution authorizes a state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every 12 years. During the most recent reapportionment process, consultants had provided the board with two alternative plans for reapportionment. One plan provided for districts with less than a 3% difference in proportional representation between districts. The other plan was drawn up to conform state legislative districts as nearly as possible to county borders, resulting in differences in proportional representation between districts of up to 12%. The current apportionment of legislative districts results in differences of up to 15% between districts. The board ultimately selected the reapportionment plan based on county borders, and this plan was approved by the state legislature.
A Caucasian resident and registered voter of the state brought a constitutional challenge to the reapportionment in federal court. His claim is based on the fact that, as a result of the plan that the board selected, the percentage of the African-American voting population in the district in which he lives increased from 45% to 55%. Had the other plan been selected, the percentage would have been unchanged in his district.
In the absence of a federal statute applicable to the state, is the resident likely to prevail?
The resident will not prevail because the reapportionment plan does not violate the EPC, which has been interpreted to prohibit state dilution of the right to vote, so that whenever a governmental body establishes voting districts for the election of representatives, the number of persons in each district may not vary significantly.
But for the purpose of electing representatives to a state or local governmental body, the variance in the number of persons included in each district can be greater than that permitted for congressional districts. If the deviation from mathematical equality between districts is reasonable and tailored to promote a legitimate state interest, the law establishing the districts will likely be upheld. The Court has held that maintaining the integrity of local political subdivision lines when establishing legislative districts is a legitimate state interest, as long as the final apportionment is substantially based on population.
Here, the reapportionment attempted to conform legislative districts as nearly as possible to county borders and had a maximum variance of 12%. Thus, it will probably withstand the resident’s challenge.
