## Facts

- Harold M. Wit and Donald C. Ebel maintained long-term homes in New York City and separately owned homes in Long Island towns (East Hampton and Southampton), where each was registered to vote.
- Each alleged substantial connections to New York City, including long-term residence, tax payments, property ownership, and significant time spent there.
- New York City election officials refused to register them to vote in New York City because each was already registered in another New York election district.
- New York Election Law required voter registration in a district only if the applicant was a “resident” of that district, defined as the person’s “fixed, permanent and principal home” to which the person always intends to return when temporarily away.
- New York law also made it a felony to register or attempt to register in more than one election district for the same election.
- Plaintiffs sued state and local election officials, alleging the statutory scheme violated equal protection by preventing individuals with multiple homes from voting in more than one locality.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s definition of voting “residence” and its prohibition on registering in more than one election district for the same election violate equal protection by limiting multi-home individuals to voting in only one locality.
2. Whether the statutory scheme burdens a fundamental right such that heightened scrutiny applies, or instead is a generally applicable regulation of the place of voting reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the Election Law did not deny plaintiffs the right to vote; it required them to choose one locality in which to exercise that right.
- The court applied rational-basis review, concluding the one-residence rule and ban on multiple registrations were rationally related to legitimate state interests.
- The court accepted as legitimate state objectives preventing multiple voting and disproportionate political influence, maintaining administrative clarity, and preserving electoral equality between voters with one home and those with multiple homes.

## Legal Principles

- A state may require each voter to designate a single “fixed, permanent and principal” residence for voting purposes and may prohibit registration in more than one election district for the same election.
- A law that regulates where a person votes, without depriving the person of the ability to vote somewhere, generally does not trigger strict scrutiny and may be upheld under rational-basis review.
- Preventing multiple voting, avoiding electoral distortion, and ensuring administrable registration rules are legitimate interests supporting a one-residence voting framework.
- Equal protection is not violated by treating multi-home individuals as eligible to vote only in one locality when the classification reasonably supports the “one person, one vote” principle.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York may constitutionally limit voters with multiple homes to registering and voting in only one election district per election, because the rule leaves the franchise intact and rationally serves anti-fraud, administrability, and electoral-equality interests.


Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256 (2d Cir. 2002)