What level of scrutiny must laws prohibiting non-residents from voting generally pass?

Laws prohibiting non-residents from voting generally are reviewed under rational basis scrutiny. This standard applies because voting restrictions that differentiate between residents and non-residents typically relate to the state's interests in maintaining the integrity and administration of elections.

Rational basis scrutiny requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In the context of voting, a state can argue that restricting voting to residents prevents non-residents, who may not have a substantial stake in local governance, from influencing local decisions. This rationale is typically viewed as a legitimate government interest, which is sufficient under rational basis scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are higher levels of scrutiny applied to laws that disproportionately affect fundamental rights or certain protected categories, such as race or gender. However, the right to vote does not extend to non-residents in the same way it does to residents, hence does not warrant such strict levels of judicial examination. As a result, the rational basis test remains applicable for laws addressing non-resident voting restrictions.