In a 1976 Supreme Court case the court determined that a law mandating different drinking ages for men and women violated the Equal Protection Clause. ... The state had failed to show the discrimination served an important government purpose.
Mr. Lynn's [R-Anchorage] proposal concerns different classifications, but [the 1976 case] sheds light on the court's reluctance to prescribe different minimum drinking ages for different people. Unlike the distinction made between men and women, distinguishing military or non-military would probably be subject to rational basis review. As a result, it would be easier for a state to prove that the different age requirements are justified -- it would only have to show a legitimate state purpose for applying different standards to different classes.
Unfortunately for Mr. Lynn and his supporters, the lower qualifications of the standard still may not be enough for the law to survive. After all, what legitimate interest could a state really have in lowering the drinking age for men and women in uniform?
Lynn's bill is dead for the current legislative session but may come up again next year. Read more at the Legal As She Is Spoke blog.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.