Raymond E. Trafelet v. James R. Thompson, Governor of Illinois
Trafelet Et Al., Judges v. Thompson, Governor of Illinois, Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Mr. Justice White,
dissenting.
This case presents the issue whether a state law that requires elected judges to retire at the age of 70, challenged on grounds that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ought to be subjected to strict scrutiny or to the less exacting rational-relationship test employed by the court below. The determination turns on whether the challenged judicial retirement law is properly regarded as a limitation *907 on access to the ballot that impairs “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968). We have held as recently as last Term that a state law limiting access to the ballot “impairs the voters’ ability to express their political preferences,” and thus could be justified only by a compelling state interest whose presence or absence is determined when a reviewing court subjects the questioned provision to strict scrutiny. Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U. S. 173, 184 (1979). Accord, e. g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 728-729 (1974).
Because the decision of the court below as to the appropriate standard of review is possibly in conflict with these and other decisions of this Court, I would grant this petition for certiorari and dissent from the Court’s unwillingness to do so.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
444 U.S. 906 100 S.Ct. 219 62 L.Ed.2d 142
Raymond E. TRAFELET et al. v. James R. THOMPSON, Governor of Illinois, et al
No. 78-1917
Supreme Court of the United States
October 9, 1979
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
1
This case presents the issue whether a state law that requires elected judges to retire at the age of 70, challenged on grounds that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ought to be subjected to strict scrutiny or to the less exacting rational-relationship test employed by the court below. The determination turns on whether the challenged judicial retirement law is properly regarded as a limitation on access to the ballot that impairs "the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). We have held as recently as last Term that a state law limiting access to the ballot "impairs the voters' ability to express their political preferences," and thus could be justified only by a compelling state interest whose presence or absence is determined when a reviewing court subjects the questioned provision to strict scrutiny. Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 , 99 S.Ct. 983, 990 , 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979). Accord, e. g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 728-729 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974).
2
Because the decision of the court below as to the appropriate standard of review is possibly in conflict with these and other decisions of this Court, I would grant this petition for certiorari and dissent from the Court's unwillingness to do so.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(strict scrutiny has been applied to classifications which burden candidates or voters identifiable by economic status or political preferences)
-
(equal protection clause does not prohibit adoption of more rigorous standards for assuring excellence in the judiciary than for other elective offices)
-
(Illinois statutory provision requiring retirement of elected judges at 70 upheld as rational)
Cited by 45 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals19
- Federal District Courts9
- State Highest Courts7
- State Appellate Courts8
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Malmed v. Thornburgh
- 22 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1387, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,030 Malmed, Edwin S., Kubacki, Stanley L., Lagakos, Gregory G., Murphy, Joseph T., Stern, James L. v. Thornburgh, Richard L., Individually and as Governor of Pennsylvania, Allen, Ethel D., Individually and as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Casey, Robert E., Individually and as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Barbieri, Alexander F., Individually and as Pennsylvania State Court Administrator
- Richards v. Lavelle
- Richards v. Lavelle
- O'connor v. State Of Nevada
- Havens v. Miller
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.