Three Tiers, Exceedingly Persuasive Justifications and Undue Burdens: Searching for the Golden Mean in U.S. Constitutional Law

European Journal of Law Reform 2018 (20) 2-3

60 Pages Posted: 26 Aug 2018

See all articles by Barry Sullivan

Barry Sullivan

Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Date Written: July 2018

Abstract

When government action is challenged on equal protection grounds in the US, conventional wisdom holds that the courts will analyse constitutionality under one of three standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. In substantive due process cases, two standards are applied: rational basis and strict scrutiny. In fact, careful study shows that the levels of scrutiny are actually more plastic than conventional wisdom would suggest and have shifted over time. In addition, courts sometimes confuse matters by appearing to introduce new tests, as when Justice Ginsburg characterized the government’s burden in Virginia v. United States, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) in terms of “an exceedingly persuasive justification”. Finally, while the Court originally applied strict scrutiny review to reproductive rights in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court has subsequently applied an ‘undue burden’ test in that area. A similar trend can be seen in voting rights cases. While the Court long ago characterized the right to vote as “fundamental...because preservative of all rights”, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), and the modern Court initially applied strict scrutiny to voting rights, the Court has now moved away from strict scrutiny, just as it has in the reproductive rights area. This erosion of constitutional protection for voting rights is the central concern of this article. The focus here is on the way these tests have evolved with respect to limitations on the right to vote. The article begins with a description of the three-tiered paradigm and then considers the US Supreme Court’s development of the ‘undue burden’ test as a substitute for the strict scrutiny standard in the reproductive rights jurisprudence. The article then considers the Court’s analogous move away from strict scrutiny in voting rights cases. That move is particularly troubling because overly deferential review may subvert democratic government by giving elected officials enormous power to frame electoral rules in a way that potentially games the system for their own benefit. Building on existing scholarship with respect to reproductive rights, this article suggests a possible way forward, one that may satisfy the Court’s concerns with the need for regulation of the electoral process while also providing the more robust protection needed to protect the right to participate meaningfully in the electoral process.

Keywords: Equal Protection, Franchise, Fundamental Rights, Intermediate Scrutiny, Rationality Review, Reproductive Rights, Right to Vote, Strict Scrutiny, Substantive Due Process, Undue Burden, US Constitutional Law

Suggested Citation

Sullivan, Barry, Three Tiers, Exceedingly Persuasive Justifications and Undue Burdens: Searching for the Golden Mean in U.S. Constitutional Law (July 2018). European Journal of Law Reform 2018 (20) 2-3, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3232916

Barry Sullivan (Contact Author)

Loyola University Chicago School of Law ( email )

25 E. Pearson
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/sullivan.html

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
71
Abstract Views
503
rank
372,085
PlumX Metrics