Marston v. Lewis

1973-03-19

Headline: Arizona voting rules upheld: Court allows 50-day residency and registration cutoff for state and local elections, letting officials keep a longer deadline to prepare accurate voter lists.

Holding: The Court reversed the lower court and held that Arizona's 50-day residency and registration cutoff for state and local elections is allowed under the Constitution because it helps officials prepare accurate voter lists.

Real World Impact:

Allows Arizona to enforce a 50-day cutoff for state and local elections.
Delays voting ability for newly arrived residents in state and local races.
Gives officials more time to correct registration errors before elections.

Topics: voting rules, residency requirements, voter registration, election administration

Summary

Background

Fourteen county recorders and other Arizona public officials appealed a lower court decision that struck down the State’s 50-day residency and 50-day registration cutoff for voting. The district court had entered an injunction enforcing a 30-day limit after a prior decision, and appellants did not seek review of the rules as applied to presidential elections. The dispute arose because Arizona ties its residency rule to the closing of registration and uses a large volunteer deputy registrar system to sign up voters.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a 50-day cutoff for state and local elections is justified by practical needs to prepare accurate voter lists. The Supreme Court majority accepted the State’s judgment that 50 days is necessary here because volunteer registration produces errors (about 1.13 mistakes per form in testimony) and because fall primary work creates a backlog that delays processing. On that factual record, the Court reversed the district court and allowed Arizona to enforce the 50-day cutoff for state and local contests.

Real world impact

The decision means newly arrived residents may be barred from voting in some state and local elections until they meet the 50-day rule or register in time. County recorders may continue using the 50-day deadline to correct errors and complete lists. The ruling rests on specific administrative facts and could be reevaluated if Arizona changes its registration system or staffing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Douglas and Brennan) dissented, arguing 30 days was sufficient and that the 50-day rule reflected addressable administrative problems rather than a true necessity.