Dunn v. Blumstein

Background

James Blumstein, a law professor who moved to Tennessee in June 1970, tried to register to vote in July but was turned away because state law required one year of residence in the State and three months in the county before voting. He sued Tennessee officials, a three-judge federal court held the rules unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed that judgment.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a State may bar recent movers from voting. It said voting is a fundamental right and durational residency rules also punish people who exercise the right to travel. Because those rules burden both voting and travel, the State had to show they were necessary to further a compelling interest. Tennessee claimed fraud prevention and better-informed voters, but the Court found the State’s registration system, criminal penalties for fraud, and a 30-day registration cutoff meant long waiting periods were not necessary and were too blunt a way to serve those goals.

Real world impact

The decision means people who move to a new State or county can’t be excluded from voting simply because they recently moved. States must rely on targeted measures—like registration checks or fraud laws—rather than blanket one-year or three-month waiting periods. Congress had already barred such waits for presidential elections; this ruling extends strict scrutiny to similar state and local rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun agreed with the outcome but cautioned about how broadly to rule. Chief Justice Burger dissented, defending older cases that upheld state waiting rules and warning against the demanding 'compelling interest' test.