McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago
1969 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969),[1] was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that an Illinois law that denied absentee ballots to inmates awaiting trial did not violate their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court declined to apply strict scrutiny, and found that the distinctions drawn by the law were rational. The Court particularly noted that the inmates had not shown they could not vote, but rather only that they could not receive absentee ballots.[2]
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (July 2021) |
Quick Facts McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, Argued November 19, 1968 Decided April 28, 1969 ...
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago | |
---|---|
Argued November 19, 1968 Decided April 28, 1969 | |
Full case name | Sam L. McDONALD and Andrew Byrd on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF CHICAGO, Sidney T. Holzman, Chairman, Marie H. Suthers, Commissioner, and Francis P. Canary, Commissioner |
Docket no. | 68 |
Citations | 394 U.S. 802 (more) 89 S.Ct. 1404, 22 L.Ed.2d 739 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted for defendants, 277 F.Supp. 14 (1967) |
Holding | |
An Illinois law that granted absentee ballots to various eligible voters but not to inmates awaiting trial did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas, Marshall |
Concurrence | Harlan and Stewart |
Laws applied | |
U.S Const. amend. XIV |
Close