A state statute provides that persons moving into a community to attend a college on a full-time basis may not vote in any elections for local or state officials that are held in that community. Instead, the statute provides that for voting purposes all such persons shall retain their residence in the communities from which they came. In the state the age of majority is 18. Which of the following is the strongest argument to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of this state statute?
A state does not have an interest that is sufficiently compelling to justify the exclusion from voting of an entire class of persons. There are less restrictive means by which the state could assure that only actual residents of a community vote in its elections. Most persons moving to a community to attend college full time are likely to have attained the age of majority under the laws of this state. On its face this statute impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce
Question: A state statute provides that persons moving into a community to attend a college on a full-time basis may not vote in any elections for local or state officials that are held in that community. Instead, the statute provides that for voting purposes all such persons shall retain their residence in the communities from which they came. In the state the age of majority is 18. Which of the following is the strongest argument to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of this state statute?
A. A state does not have an interest that is sufficiently compelling to justify the exclusion from voting of an entire class of persons.
B. There are less restrictive means by which the state could assure that only actual residents of a community vote in its elections.
C. Most persons moving to a community to attend college full time are likely to have attained the age of majority under the laws of this state.
D. On its face this statute impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce
Answer: