Kramer V. Union Free School District No. 15 - Lower-court Proceedings

Lower-court Proceedings

Kramer filed his complaint, seeking to enjoin the school district from enforcing Section 2012 against him, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He contended that the statute violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as construed in recent Supreme Court decisions. The state's position was that the statute validly limited the franchise in school elections to those primarily affected by them, namely property taxpayers in the school district and parents of children attending the district's schools.

At the time, Title 28 of the United States Code required that any lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute must be heard by a specially convened three-judge panel of the District Court, comprised of one circuit judge and two District judges, rather than by a single district judge, unless the constitutional challenge was deemed so insubstantial as to be "frivolous." In a May 1966 opinion, District Judge Joseph Zavatt declined to convene a three-judge court.

In rejecting Kramer's constitutional claim, Judge Zavatt wrote that "Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that his property is being taxed by the school district without his having a vote, since he owns no property in the district. Neither does nor can he allege that the education of his children is being affected without his having a vote, because he has no children." Judge Zavatt also observed that the constitutionality of the same statute had recently been upheld by the New York state courts. He concluded that the "distinctions drawn by the legislature of the State in Section 2012 of the New York Education Law are so clearly reasonable and plaintiff's claim so obviously without merit, that it can only be characterized as frivolous." Accordingly, the District Court dismissed Kramer's complaint.

Kramer appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed Judge Zavatt's dismissal of Kramer's complaint by a 2-to-1 vote and directed that a three-judge District Court be convened. Writing for the Second Circuit panel majority, Judge Paul R. Hays concluded that in light of then-recent Supreme Court caselaw applying the Equal Protection Clause to voter restrictions, Kramer's constitutional challenge could not be considered frivolous. In a concurring opinion, Judge Irving R. Kaufman agreed that Kramer's challence "cannot be said to be insubstantial on its face," so that a three-judge court had to be convened. Chief Judge J. Edward Lumbard disagreed, in an opinion that began: "I dissent. There is no need for three judges to consider a claim so patently without any merit."

On remand, the statutory three-judge District Court upheld the challenged New York statute by a 2-to-1 vote. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Leonard Moore held that even in light of recent equal protection jurisprudence, "the selection of the parent and taxpayer groups would appear to be within the permissive limits of power still preserved by the state legislatures as specified by the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals." Judge John Bartels joined Judge Moore's opinion. Judge Jack Weinstein dissented, opinion that Section 2012 "impose a forbidden property qualification for voting" in violation of the equal protection guarantee. Judge Weinstein observed that under Section 2012, those disqualified from voting in school elections applied not only to "young adults living with their parents," such as Kramer, but also to "older persons residing with their children, to boarders or lodgers, and to clergy, military and others living on tax exempt property."

The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of Kramer's appeal. Oral argument was held on January 30, 1969. Osmond K. Fraenkel, long-time counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the case for petitioner Kramer; John P. Jehu, Associate Counsel of the New York State Education Department, argued for the school district.