disparity of 1.5 percent
How later courts described this case
- disparity of 1.5 percent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WISDOM, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent.
The requirement that jury commissioners be freeholders is an anachronism offensive to the United States Constitution. “Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race * * * are traditionally disfavored”. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 1966, 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S.Ct. 1079 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 . The exclusion of non-freeholders is an irrational classification, in that it excludes all persons, many eminently qualified, who prefer to rent rather than own their homes. The exclusion of non-freeholders serves no compelling state interest. See Kramer v. Union Free School District, 1969, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed.2d 583 ; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 1969, 395 U. S. 701 , 89 S.Ct. 1897 , 23 L.Ed.2d 647 ; Stewart v. Parish School Board of St. Charles, E.D.La.1970, 310 F.Supp. 1172 .
I would hold that, on its face, Article 19.01 is repugnant to both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.