AGO 1992-008.
Case Date | March 24, 1992 |
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Attorney General Opinions
1992.
AGO 1992-008.
March 24, 1992Opinion No. 1992-008Senator John B. Larson President Pro
Tempore State of Connecticut SenateRoom
3300Legislative Office BuildingHartford, Connecticut
06106Representative Edward C. Krawiecki, Jr.
Minority Leader State of Connecticut House of
RepresentativesState CapitolHartford, Connecticut 06106
Dear Sen. Larson and Rep. Krawiecki:
We are writing in response to your February 25, 1992, and
February 27, 1992, requests for an Opinion on the constitutionality of proposed
measures before the General Assembly which would impose durational residency
requirements upon persons seeking General Assistance welfare benefits in the
State of Connecticut. Specifically, you ask: 1) whether the State may deny
General Assistance benefits to persons not satisfying a durational residency
requirement; 2) whether the State may restrict General Assistance benefits for
newcomers to a lower level of support than is available to longer term
residents of Connecticut; and 3) whether any such restriction tied to the level
of welfare support available in newcomers' previous states of domicile, is
permissible. Under each scenario presented, new residents to the state would be
ineligible for public welfare benefits which longer term residents could
obtain.
It is unquestionably valid for States to guard against the
depletion of resources by limiting their availability to only "bona fide"
residents. A determination of bona fide residency generally depends on an
individual's place of residence in a state, plus the intent to remain, as may
be evidenced by one's voter registration, driver's license, and similar
criteria. See 72 Conn.Op.Atty.Gen. (9/6/72).1 As observed in Attorney General
of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 903 (n. 3):
"A bona fide residence requirement, appropriately defined and
uniformly applied, furthers the substantial state interest in assuring that
services provided for its residents are enjoyed only by residents. Such a
requirement ... [generally] does not burden or penalize the constitutional
right of interstate travel, for any person is free to move to a State and to
establish residence there. A bona fide residence requirement simply requires
that the person does establish residence before demanding the services that are
restricted to residents." 461 U.S., at 328-329, 103 S.Ct., at
1842-1843."
While the requirement that individuals that receive state
benefits be bona fide residents is appropriate, a "durational" residency
requirement--a requirement that determines benefits based upon the length of
time of residence--is subject to constitutional scrutiny.
The validity of durational residency requirements has been tested
in a number of equal protection cases challenging states' classifications
according to residency. Over the past 23 years, the United States Supreme Court
has consistently found...
To continue reading
Request your trial