Amicus Curiae Brief — Shapiro v. Thompson

- ee ’

SUBJECT INDEX :

, Page

Motion for men fe File Brief as Amicus Curiae... woe

- Interest of Legal Aid Society of Alameda County... sail eohe 1

Issues and Relevance ncis.ce-cecoorens-- ; _ 2

Conclusion ‘ as | 3

Amicus Curiae Brief ; 4.

- Interest of Legal Aid Sodfety of Alameda County 4

‘Summary of Argument | 4 :

(+ Argument 5

oe of California’s One Year AFDC Residence Requirement

» O .@

Conclusion

_ Has No Reasonable Relation to the Purpose of AFDC

ee een ee eee ee

Protection

II. California’s One Year AFDC Residence silent

' Violates the Constitutionally Protected nies of Inter- ©

state Travel —_

> >

5

12

16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Pages .

Baggett v. Bullt, eee ws. 360 Nracear ae

_ Edwards v. California, 314 v, 60 (1941) ' ae

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 Us. 603 (1960 SEE a | R

_ Green v. Department of Pu lie Welfare, Civil Action No. ws

* _. 8349 (D.Del. 1967) : | 12

Harrell v. ‘Helicase, Civil ‘ Iaction No. — 67 (D.D.Col. . ;

1967) f 9, 14,12 *

/ 4

People v. Lyons, 374 Ill 557, 30 N.E.2d 46, 51 =: peat — s

Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966)......... cecal ae

_ Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) : 14

i | GraTuTes

California Welfare and Institutions Code:

Sec. 10000 .......: Sak | eoeniigama . 6 3

See. 10001 ......: caches ab 138

Set: 100 cei Ali

mee "Seaman iakcnrlisecinia ie

2 See. 11252 .......... faveceneenennne — a

* + ROB. THB esisses. . nna a 10 -

. ' See. 17000: “+ sislsiseibdinnatiel , 15

See. 17008 ....... Ss siicciat eile apedeamc ae

Sec. 17004 | eiaccons -< 45

Sees. 17100-17104 ..... | | ‘15

Sanit: STATES Coemeeevinen y~

, Fourtodnth Amendment . fom Wa hea ne 2

‘

Tasix oF AUTHORITIES Crrep .<

Orage Avrnonrrigs a + Pages

Alameda County Welfare Department, General ‘Assistance

Policies and Procedures Manual (1962)..

California State Senate, Report-of Fact Finding Committee

‘on Labor and Welfare on “Aid to Needy Children” (1961)

.Harvith, The Constitutionality of Residence Tests For General

and Categorical Assistance Programs, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 567. .

. 8,12 *-

Kasius, What Happens in a . State Without Résidence Require-

ments, in Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare —

(1966)

- 18 (National Travelers Aid Assn. 1956)

. aia California’s Dual System of Family Law: Its Ori-

gin, Development and Present Status, 16 Stan L. Rev.

257, 900 (1964), 17 Stam L, Rev. 614 (1965)

-Wickenden, Lets Face Up to Restrictive Residence Laws, in

Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare 5 (Na

tional Travelers Aid Assn. 1956) 4

11

pen MEP

2

Ee” the Supreme Const of shia

United States :

OcToBER Tznm, 1967

ow

No. 813.

‘Beawarp Suarmo, Welfare Commissioner

of Connecticut,

oe aes

vB..

| Appellee. m

“

. Vivian Tyompson,

| On Appeal from the United States District Court ‘

pene for - District of Connecticut

otion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus. Curiae

on Behalf of pani

INTEREST OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY |

"OF ALAMEDA COUNTY rhe

ss Legal Aid Society of Alameda County is a non-

‘profit California corporation established in 1929 by mem-

bers of the State Bar for the purpose of: furnishing legal

services ‘to those residents of Alameda County who are

| unable to afford the services of petente attorneys. The |

v

| 2 |

" Legal’ ‘Aid Society has a staff: of, attorneys with training

and practical experience in the lay most relevant to low-

- income persons, including welfare law.

Attorneys on the staff of the Society represent many

clients. who have been denied payments -under the Aid to —

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in.

California py the. operation of the durational residence re-

| quirement coritained‘in California Welfare and Institutions

‘Code Section 1 We have challenged the statute in ad- —

ministrative corti on the identical grounds as in

_ the instant case, and we intend to pursue the claims of-our |

clients further ‘in order to vindicate their rights. "The posi-

_ ~~ tion of the State of California in opposition to our actions |

will be enti to the position it asserts before this Court.

- ' The Legal Aid Society .wishes to file an amicus curiae

brief in this case for the purpose of answering the argu- —

* ments of amicus curiae State of California in support of

Califorpia’ 8 durational residence ee 3

| ISSUES AND RELEVANCE.

‘In reply to the brief of the State of California, the Legal

Aid Society will argue that, California’s residence require-

- ment statute violates the equal protection clause of the

fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution

_even if the purpose .of the statue is to protect the state

_ treasury, or to provide budgetary predictability. We will

. further argue that the California statute violates the con-

‘" gtitutionally: protected right of interstate travel.

Discussion ‘of these 3 issues is relevant to the instant case

‘the California and Connecticut statutes, although

different in some respects, are basically similar, and a de-

. eision of the Court on thé constitutionality of the Con-

. necticut statute may well determine the constitutionality of

‘the California statute. *

Fas “+i “Ws s e ; . , 2. ‘

For the reasons. stated “ire the Legal Aid: Socisty r re-

| __ spectfully moves the court permit the filing of a brief as

| 3 amicus curiae on | behalf of appellee. 3 See oo |

‘ae s 3 Respectfally submitted,

Lucat, Am Socrery or Atamepa County

By Cumnm A. Garrzs | |

| Chiat Attorney, Appeals Unit -

~ Marx C. Peery potghts

Staff Attorney, Appeals Unit

ae eta ete og Evaenz M. Swann

v

Tn the aii Court of the rr

"United States’ ite,

_ Ocroszr Tzem, 1967

a seer No. 818 ee op,

: BERNARD Sgarmo, Welfare Commissioner

. of Connecticut, :

Appellant,

. VB. Pi

Vivian TxomPson, en

‘Appellee.

On Avpea hie the United States District Cont

for the District of Connecticut

"Brief of Amicus encides in Support of Appellee

%

INTEREST OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY —

.OF ALAMEDA’ COUNTY |

‘The interest of the Legal Aid Society of Alameda Conley -

in this litigation has been set forth under this same cover

in the Motion for Taare to File Brief as Amicus Curiae.

A Ae 1

| SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT as

“This brief will argue first that in light of the express

i purpose of the AFDC program to provide assistance to the

needy, the one year residence requirement imposed by Cali-

Cd

= 45

hein Welfare‘and institutions Code Section 11252 geste BY

“an arbitrary classification, proscribed by the equal protec- |

| tion clause of. the fourteenth amendment. It is further

J argued that even if the validity of the residenge require-

ment is to be judged in light of the specific purposes sug-

| gested. by the State of California, without cons ideration

'. Of the Yundamental purpose of AFDC legislatic 4iie re- ~

ar ‘quirement is unconstitutional because it is’ not | tionally :

° _ related tothe suggested purposes. a C >

Finally, the brief will argue that the intent asia effect

_ ‘Of the AFDC residence test is.to deter the migration of -

Pt te) indigents across state lines into California, and that the

statute is, theréfore invalid on the additional ground that |

it violates the ee — gh a of interstate

travel. - Hem itht

| shoinatt , 7

|. California's One Year AFDC Residence lb ce Hes No

a, Reasonable Relation to the Purpose of AFDC Legislation cand

* Thus Constitutes a Denial of Equal Protection = ig

In defense of it# AFDC durational residence requirement

_... contained in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11252,

‘4 ‘the State of California asserts that the purpose of the

statute is not the commonly stated, historical purpose wes?

residence requirements—to place an economic barrier in the ;

path of poor persons who wish to move to a particular

‘ state'—but rather to conserve public resources by limiting

the number of persons eligible for AFDC in, California and’ gt

to enable the State to make a reliable, annual budget fore- ~

cast of thenumber of persons who-will be eligiblefor AFDC .

ee particular year. The State, however, has failed to con-

“sider the vital and primary purpose of AFDC legislation—

to sustain members of the emer anced who are in need. Cali-

/

. 1, See, 0.9, Regplev. Lyons, 374 U.. 557, 30 N.B.2d 46, 51

” (1940); Edwards v: Conyornty, 314 U.S. 160, 174 uit

- 6 ee

. fornia’s AFDC shiiianis requirement fails to meet the con-

’ stitutional standard of equal protection because the classi-

_ fication it creates is‘arbitrary in light of this basic purpose: — ne Pe

The purpose of the State’s AFDC program is set forth oe

_in a series of statutes beginning with Welfare and Institu-

tions Code Section 10000, which states the general purpose / 4

: of California welfare legislation :

The purpose of this division [Division 9, entitled

‘“Pyblic Social Services” and including all AFDC legis- .

lation] is to provide for protection, care, and assistancé

to the peopléiof the state in need thereof, and to pro-

mote the. welfare and happiness ofsall of the people of -

the state by providing #ppropriate aid and services to

all of its needy and distressed. It is the legislative i in-

tent that aid shall be administered and services pro- |

vided prompty and humanely, with due regard for the |

preservation of family life, and without discrimination

‘ ‘on account of race, national origin or ancestry, religion,

‘ or political affiligtion ; and that aid shall be so adminis-.

‘tered, and. services so provided as to encourage self-

-respect, self-reliance, and the desire to be a good citizen,

useful to society. (Emphasis added)

Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10001, the statute

immediately following, provides in part:

. The purposes of the public social services for which

state grants-in-aid are mide to counties are:

- (a) To provide on behalf of the general public,

and within the limits of public resources, reasonable

_ support and maintenance for needy; and ‘dependent

families arid persons. 1 :

The specific purpose-of the AFDC programas set forth sub- .

sequently i in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11205:

It is the object and purpose of this chapter [entitled .-

‘ “Aid to Families with Dependent Children”] to pro- - -

_ vide aid for -children. ‘whose dependency is caused

by circumstances defined i in Sections, 11250 and 11251

e

=

[defining ‘deprivation of parental support or dare], to:

keep children in their own homes’ wherever possible,

.and to provide the best substitute for their own ‘homes

for those children who must be given foster care.”

‘Those engaged in the administration of aid ‘under

‘this chapter are.responsible to the community.for its

effective, humane, and economical administration.

Tt. is the intent of the jLegislature that the employ-

ment and sfif-maintenance of parents of needy children -

be encouraged to th¢ maximum extent and that this

chapter shall be administered in such a way that needy

children and their parents will be encouraged and in-

- spired to assist in their own maintenance. ‘The départ-

- ment shall take all steps necessary to implement this

section. ' oe 7

The emphasis is overwhelmingly upon ‘the provision of aid

to the need people of the state, rather than upon the preser- _

_ vation of public funds. Indeed,. the reference fn Section

10001 to the “limits of public resources” is no basis at all —

for inferring that the purpose of the program set’ up by —

the legislature is to save money; it is merely a direction to

the. administrator to operate within his budget in accom-

plishing the desired: social objective. The State of Cali- —

fornia, emphasizing this one phrase in Section 10001, has

* lost.sight of the fundamental purpose of AFDC—-to insure

f | the survival anf encourage the self-maintenance of the °

poor? .

9. The State has also misconstrued the*purpose of AFDC by

emphasizing the “safeguarding of pubic funds”, a phrase from the

“introductory sentence of Section 11004. That section in full deals

with the conditions and methods for the collection from welfare -

‘ recipients of prior overpayments; it shoyld not be construed as the

purpose by which the constitutionality of the residence ‘requirement

is to be determined. , Ue: part ear ike : “i

. In addition, the State has apparently overlooked Seetion 11205,

quoted supra, pp. 6-7, which clearly states the purpose of the AFDC .

chapter and contains no reference to conserving public resources. ~

i ha 8 cae .

The State has apparently lost sight of the logic of the _ :

‘matter as -well.'On page 8 of its amicus. curiae brief the fol-

lowing statements are made: | ,

| There is no requirement in the Constitution that man-

dates a state to afford relief to all or any of its needy

‘ residents regardless of the period of their residence.

That this succor‘is socially desirable few, would deny.

That California has an obligation to supply unpol-

luted air and water, adequate schools, highways, hos-

pitals, protective services to all of its citizens none

would deny. But it does not follow that the non-dis-

criminatory residence requirements of California law

amount to an unreasonable classification within the ° .

meaning of the qual Protection Clause. |

But of course it does follow. The “socially desirable succor”

to which the State alludes is the very survival of a sig-

nificant number of people in, our society. A family deprived

_of ‘minimal food, clothing and shelter finds it difficult to

take advantage of less essential services provided by the

state. The fundamental nature of the legislation involved ma

Gn this case® is not to be obscured by vague references to.

fiscal and budgetary convenience. As a federal court has.

reéently stated. in a case considering the -constitutionality

of welfare residence laws: eee,

, This national movement toward assistance where assist- ~*

ance is needed, and the human terms of the problem,

‘permit the court somewhat greater latitude in deciding

3. The essential nature of the payments provided under welfare

categorical aid programs distinguishes the residence requirement |

-.°< gages from Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611 (1960), which

upheld an allegedly arbitrary termination of old-age insurance bene-

fits under the Social Security Act. For a discussion of other dis-

tinctions between Flemming and the residence cases, see Harvith, |

the Constitutionality of Residence Tests for General and Categorical -

Assistance Programs, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 567, 575-579 (1966).

eo

| "eae eet

that this difference in the treatment of those in our

midst who are in need amounts to. unequal protection

of the laws than if the treatment were with respect to

some. matter less critical to. their living conditions.

Harrell v. Tobriner, Civil Action 1497-67 (D.D. Col.

1967), at pp. 21-22.

.In fact, it may well be that the Constitution does mandate

a right of survival as a condition precedent to-the enjoy-

' ment of the other basic rights it establishes. |

In light of this fundamental purpose of AFDC legisla-

tion—to sustain members of the community who are in

need—a statute which arbitrarily singles out a certain class

of the ‘needy for total exclusion denies to that class the

equal protection of the laws and thereby. contravenes. the

- fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

_ Even if it were to be assumed that conservation of jullie els

resourcés and budgetary predictability, in and of them-

selves, are valid and properly conceived purposes for wel-

’ fare legislation, a classification which excludes persons who -

have recently: arrived in California has no rational rela- 7

tionship, to either of: those purposes and’is therefore con-

stitutionally impermissible. In an attempt to conserve

_ AFDC funds, California can no more. justify the exclusion

of residents who have not lived in California for one year

than it could justify the exclusion of residents whose sur-

names begin with a particular letter of the alphabet. The %

State argues that it has a rational basis for excluding re-

cently arrived residents. because it makes possible the pre-

_ diction. of the number of persons “who, will be eligible dee

3 AFDC each year and thereby facilitates the planning of

yearly budgets. Whethér the State is contending that the

need for budgetary predictability justifies the classifica-

_ dion as a-method ‘of saving money or that budgetary pre-.

a ae ic Be 2

‘dictability is an. adequate justification of the residence

requirement independent ofthe conservation of public

funds, the premise of either argument fails because there

-is-no basis for the assertion that the residence require-

+ ment furthers predictability. No connection is apparent,

and the State has said nothing-to enlighten us on this point —

Welfare statutes contain complex eligibility requirements,

of which residence is only one, and it seems very doubtful .

- that changing this one requirement would make any signifi-

--cant difference in the State’s ability to plan its budget.

Several states, including New York, have’no residence re-

- quirements, and they seem to be able to forecast their yearly

' expenses reasonably well. California itself has no. residence

‘requirement for assistancé under the Aid to the Blind pro-

‘gram (see Welfare and Institutions Code coaeaer 12550)

and has been able j¢ plan’ dequately.

* This Court already held that where the purpose. of a

statute is to consegve public funds, the statute may not dis-

criminate arbitrarily in achieving that purpose. In Rinaldi

v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 205 (1966), a county attempted to obtain

reimbursement from a prisone¥’s earnings for the tran-:

script furnished to him in connection with his unsuccessful

Pa in forma pauperis appeal. The state statute requiring Tre-.

payment did not, however, apply to unsuccessful appellants

who received a fine, a suspended sentence, or who had. been

placed on probation; it applied only to unsuccessful appel-

lants confined in institutions. The Court made the assump-

tion that the legislature could validly- provide for replenish- .

ing a county treasure from the pockets, of those who had -

4. In light of its assertion that the residence test don not

deter migration of the poor, the State could not be arguing here -

that the abolition of the residence test would upset budgetary pre-

dictability because of a sudden i insurge of indigents. °

-

11

directly benefited from county cpeailbait a? but héld et!

appellant had been denied the equal protection of the laws

.. because there was no rationality in the nature of the class

singled out by the statute. The differences between the

class required to repay and those not:so rehired 1 were un-

related to the fiscal objective of the statute and were only

minimally related to any administrative convenience. The

_ classification created by the California AFDC _requirement-- a

is likewise unrelated to any “fiscal objective and unjustified :

_ by. administrative (budgetary) Gonvenience;.in fact it is

considerably more invidious than the classification in Rin-

aldi because poor persons who have recently arrived in.

- California have needs which are not merely equal to, but .

greater than those of. pdor persons who have. lived 1 in the.

"state for over a year. | poe

- Moreover, it is highly questionable -whether the 2 AFDG..

residence requirement accomplishes its pro¢laimed purpose

of preserving state finances. The immediate, apparent sav- _.

ing is quite small. In New York in 1955 about two. percent

‘of the total public assistance caseload: were persons who

had not resided ‘in the state a full year.* As the court points _

out and documents.in Harrell v. Tobriner, Civil Action No.

1497-67 (D.D.Col. 1967) at pp. 12-13, 19, the administrative

expenses of investigating cases and enforcing residence

. laws and the long term social costs, of’ family-separation,

malnutrition, and, juvenile crime are probably much greater

than the. apparent saving.. , |

_ 5. “Examples of such ‘needs are rental and utility deposits. Fur-

thermore it takes some time for a newly arrived farhily to acquaint

itself with the most economical methods of shopping for food, cloth-

ing, and other items. a

6. Kasius, What Happens in a State Without Rididonee Require---—--—-

ments, in Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare 18, 19- .

20 (National Travelers Aid Association siete i

Thus the classification created by the statute is arbitrary

even in — of the pprposes ore by the State.

. Celifornia's One Year AFDC Residence Requiremdge Vicktes

the Constitutionally Protected Right of Interstate

The State of California apparently acknowledges that a

stated statute which does not directly foreclose a citizen’s

= right of interstate travel,:but still discourages, burdens, or '

has a chilling effect upon the exercise of that right may vio-

- late the Constitution. The State argues, however, that its -

“AFDC durational residence requirement is not proscribed:

by the Constitution because it is neither the purpose nor the

effect .of the statute to discourage ayant of indigents

to California.

» The most commonly stated and accepted purpose of state

welfare residence requirements is either to limit the migra-

tion of all needy persons: or, in the candid words of the

Supreme Court of Illinois, to prevent the state from becom-

ing “a haven of the transient poor seeking the most advan-

tageoyg statutory provisions granted those requiring as-

sistance.’” The State of Connecticut has acknowledged such

a purpos¢-in the imstant case..The State of Delaware and

the District of Columbia have frankly done the same.*

Commentators are in agreement as the purpose of these

statutes. ® Historical panies: going nae to ‘the Elizabethan ;

1. People v. Lyons, 374 Il. 557, 30 N.B.2d 46, 51 (1940).

8. See-Green v. Department of Public Welfare, Civil Astion No.

8349 (D. Del. 1967) ; Harrell v: Tobriner, Civil Action No. 1497-67

. (D,D. Col. 1967). |

9. See, €.9., Wickenden, Let’s Face Up to Restrictive Residence

Laws, in Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare 5, 6

(National. Travelers Aid Association 1956); Harvith, the Consti-

’ tutionality of Residence Tests for General and Categorical Assist-

aaee Regen, Pe L. Rev. 567,615 (1966). —si«Ce

Poor Law, indicates that the purpose of welfare residence —

or settlement laws’is to “seal off” poverty in a particular —

locality.” Yet the State of California now, asserts without

any documentation, that its AFDC residence test is by no

means intended to keep the poor out of California. Cali-

fornia legislators appear to be of a different view. The Re-

port of the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Labor and .

Welfare of 1961 entitled “Aid to Needy Children” | (the ©

former designation of the AFDC program) states at p. 107: .

The committee recommends that no action be taken

at this time by the legislature to eliminate: existing

+ §tate residence requirements. Again, thereare no re-

‘liable cost. estimates available and, |, furthermore, the

high standard of aid paid relative to that of other

-states would undoubtedly result in some influx of per-

sons seeking such assistance. Additionally, the subject

of State eligibility requirements has been recommended -

for study by the United States Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare. This is a promising ‘unider-

taking because the federal government could do much _

to equalize ADC aid payments among various states, ©

10. See the iesstlini in the majority opinion in Edwards v.

California, 314 U.S. 160, 174 (1941); tenBroek, California’s Dual

System of Family Law: Its Origin, Development, and Present

_ Status, 16 Stan. L. Rev. 257, 264-265, 900 (1964), 17 Stan. L. Rev... asst

614 (1965).

11. The only indications of legislative purpose upon which Cali-

* fornia relies are phrases in Welfare and Institutions Code Sections

10001(a) and 11004 which refer to the conservation of public funds.

Section 10001(a) is part of the general “purpose” provisions for all

of California’s categorical aid programs, and Section 11004 deals ©

with the collection of overpayments; neither section purports to

state the purpose of the challenged residence requirement found in

Section 11252. And,-as diseussed on p. 7, supra, references to public

resources are merely directions to the administrator of the program,

‘not statements of purpose. Finally, the phrases referring to the

conservation of funds are entirely inconclusive on the question of

- - whether the purpose of the residence test is to save money by ex-

cluding an arbitrary category of residents or to save money by

discouraging ime poor from. entering —

\

14

and thereby wile them to consider elimination of

residence requirements. — :

In light of this evidence and in light of the flimainess of the

alternative purposes. suggested by the State of California

and discussed earlier in this brief, it must be concluded that

the primary purpose of. California’s AFDC residence re-

quirement is to deter the migration of indigents.

Furthermore, the natural and likely effects of California’s

AFDC residence requirement are to prevent the migration .

of some needy persons who would otherwise come to Cali-

fornia and to put considerable economic pressure on those

@ho actually arrive in. the State, thus forestalling the

exercise of the right of interstate travel in some instances

my burdening the exercise of that right in other instances. —

uicy Vig has not required proof of the effects of a statute

on

e exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms when

the likely effect of a challenged statute is apparent. In

Baggett v. Bullett, 377 U.S. 360, 372-374 (1964), the Court

_ reasoned that the likely effect of requiring state teachers

to take a vague loyalty oath as a condition precedent to

employment would be to cause them to “steer far wider of

_the.unlawful zone [of speech] . , . than if the boundaries -

of the forbidden areas were dieity marked.” And i in Sher-

- bert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403-404 (1963), it was held that

the disqualification of a Seventh-day Adventist from un-

employment compensation. benefits because of her refusal -

to accept work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith,

imposed a burden upon the free exercise of her. religion.

’ Although there was no criminal sanction directly com-

pelling her to work's six-day week, the Conrt regarded as

equivalent the indirect pressure brought to bear against

her by compelling a choice between her religion and the

benefits. aerate while the plaigtifs in residence ce require. \

oe

Sad | 15

‘ment cases in current litigation were not actually prevented

from migrating, they are subject to constant.economic pres-

sure to forego their right to set up residence in the state

of their choice and return to the state from which’ they

came.? -. bes i Ade )

When a statute’s intended, chilling effect upon a con-.

stitutional right is apparent, as here, the burden shifts to

the state to demonstrate that the statute does not in fact

have the effect.imputed to it. The State of California, ap-

parently recognizing this burden, has attempted to demon-

state that its residence requirement does not have any

proscribed effect on the right to travel by quoting statistics .

which indicate that over one million persons migrated to -

_the state between 1955 and 1960 and that there, has been

_ a 25 percent increase in California’s population since 1960.

(Amicus brief, p. 9) Neither figure demonstrates anything

_ concerning the number of needy persons who have come to _

California i recent years or, more significantly, the num- .

ber fri in ee prevented from coming. Moreoyer, Cali-

fornia has not even attempted to show that the residence

requirement does ‘not have a burdensome effect upon poor

people once they arrive in the State. The State has not

12. The provisions of California’s County Aid and Relief to

Indigents (commonly, referred to as General Assistance) further

reinforce the pressure upon indigent migrants to return to .their

state of origin. The State requires each:county to support its poor ~

residents who are unable to qualify for categorical assistance (e¢..,

AFDC), but imposes a three year state residence requirement on

such support. The State permits the counties to give “nonresident” -

indigents emergency relief and to. pay the expenses necessary to ..

transport them to another state when possible. California Welfare’. __

and Institutions Code Sees. 17000, 17003, 17004; 17100-17104. .

- Usually, the only emergency relief granted by counties to indigents

who do not meet the Geners Assistance three year residence re-

quirement is contingent upon the indigent’s promise to return to

the state from which he came. See, ¢.g., General Assistance Policies |

and Procedures Manual of the Alameda County Welfare Depart- -

ment. 9-13 (1962). agar ee Ne ges

| eres

ere ie 66

afd amo overcome the lia inference ofthe foto |

its residence test. . fv: :

- Phus the puryens nh the effect of California’s AFDC.

| residence requirement is to .prevent discourage poor °-

persons from traveling to California and taking. up resi-

_ dence, and the requirement is invalid under the Constitution.

The California AFDC veidilanen’ requirement has no more

- claim to consitutional validity than the Connecticut AFDC

residence requirement. In determining validity under the

equal protection clause, both statutes must be viewed in

light of the fundamental purpose of .AFDC legislation,

_ Even if. judged’in light of intended fiscal savings and ad-

ministrative éonvenience, they are still arbitrary. The real

législative intent and effect of these statutes, however, is

. to discourage indigents from coming to the state. There-_

| fore, both the California and the Connecticut residence

* requirement violate the constitutional right of: interstate

’ travel as ‘well as the right to the equal. ia of the

lgws. : |

- Respectfully submitted,

Lea Am Socrery or Atamepa County

By Cuerre A. Ganves :

_, ” Chief Attorney, Appeals Unit

Manx C. Przny

(Sted Attorney, Appeals Uni

Evogye M: Swanw

+. /emociated Counsel