Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

Virginia to Student Voters: Lose Your Scholarships

Okay, so it ain't "Drop Dead." But the county registrar in the county where Virginia Tech trains the next generation of dog-fighting quarterbacks recently announced that students who register to vote at their college address (specifically, a dormitory) are subject to sanctions. The registrar claimed that parents of such students could no longer claim the students as dependents on their tax return (IRS response: "What?"); that the student could lose their scholarships; that the students could lose the right to be covered on their parents' car or health insurance.

Let's pause, and look at some seemingly unrelated statutes: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(c) says:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; . . . [creates a private cause of action entitling the injured person or class to damages].

(emphasis added). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sez:

?. . . Because voting rights involve the First Amendment freedom of association, the State may not impose restrictions upon that right unless there is a compelling state interest in the imposed restriction or classification. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). It would seem, therefore, that the extra burden of proof imposed upon students in regard to proof of their domicil may only be held constitutional if a compelling state interest is thereby served.

U.S. v. State of Texas, 445 F. Supp. 1245, 1255 (E.D. Tex. 1978), aff'd sub. nom. Symm v. U.S., 439 U.S. 1109 (1979). The Supreme Court sez:

We recently held that ? ?the government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected ... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.? ?

Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47, 59 (2006) (internal citations omitted). So, let's put it together:

Voting rights are First Amendment rights, which means that discriminating against someone has to satisfy strict scrutiny. Denial of benefits in such a way as to infringe on First Amendment rights is an auto-fail for the government. Conspiracy (action by two or more) to infringe First Amendment rights creates a private cause of action, with treble damages and attorney's fees.

Virginia Tech students, call me! Let's get together and sue the effin' bastards!

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on September 08, 2008 (boomark / email).