Legal Opinion

Young v. Gnoss

California Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1972No. S.F. 22888PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

This proceeding for writ of mandate challenges the constitutionality of the provisions of California law which impose durational residence requirements of 90 days in the county and 54 days in the precinct as a prerequisite to voting in this state, 1 and which close the voter registration books 54 days before an election. 2 As will appear, we have concluded that the cited provisions violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330 [31 L.Ed.2d 274, 92 S.Ct. 995], but that petitioners are not entitled to relief at…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dunn v. BlumsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Oregon v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Otsuka v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Castro v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Richardson v. RamirezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Knoll v. DavidsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Ortiz Angleró v. Barreto PérezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1980

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API