delivered the opinion of the Court.

A provision of the Texas Constitution prohibits “[a]ny member of the Armed Forces of the United States” who moves his home to Texas during the course of his military duty from ever voting in any election in that State “so long as he or she is a member of the Armed Forces.” 1 *90The question presented is whether this provision, as construed by the Supreme Court of Texas in the present case,2 deprives the petitioner of a right secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Texas decided that it does not and refused to issue a writ of mandamus ordering petitioner’s local election officials to permit him to vote, two Justices dissenting. 378 S. W. 2d 304. We granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 812.

The petitioner, a sergeant in the United States Army, entered the service from Alabama in 1946 at the age of 18. *91The State concedes that he has been domiciled in Texas since 1962, and that he intends to make his home there permanently. He has purchased a house in El Paso where he lives with his wife and two children. He is also the proprietor of a small business there. The petitioner’s post of military duty is not in Texas, but at White Sands, New Mexico. He regularly commutes from his home in El Paso to his Army job at White Sands. He pays property taxes in Texas and has his automobile registered there. But for his uniform, the State concedes that the petitioner would be eligible to vote in El Paso County, Texas.

Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621. There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, “[t]he States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U. S. 45, 50. Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651. “In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution.” Pope v. Williams, supra, at 632.

This Texas constitutional provision, however, is unique.3 Texas has said that no serviceman may ever *92acquire a voting residence in the State so long as he remains in service. It is true that the State has treated all members of the military with an equal hand. And mere classification, as this Court has often said, does not of itself deprive a group of equal protection. Williamson *93v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483. But the fact that a State is dealing with a distinct class and treats the members of that class equally does not end the judicial inquiry. “The courts must reach and determine the question whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable in light of its purpose. . . .” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 191.

It is argued that this absolute denial of the vote to servicemen like the petitioner fulfills two purposes. First, the State says it has a legitimate interest in immunizing its elections from the concentrated balloting of military personnel, whose collective voice may overwhelm a small local civilian community. Secondly, the State says it has a valid interest in protecting the franchise from infiltration by transients, and it can reasonably assume that those servicemen who fall within the constitutional exclusion will be within the State for only a short period of time.

The theory underlying the State’s first contention is that the Texas constitutional provision is necessary to prevent the danger of a “takeover” of the civilian community resulting from concentrated voting by large numbers of military personnel in bases placed near Texas towns and cities. A base commander, Texas suggests, who opposes local police administration or teaching policies in local schools, might influence his men to vote in conformity with his predilections. Local bond issues may fail, and property taxes stagnate at low levels because military personnel are unwilling to invest in the future of the area. We stress — and this a theme to be reiterated — that Texas has the right to require that all mili*94tary personnel enrolled to vote be bona fide residents of the community. But if they are in fact residents, with the intention of making Texas their home indefinitely, they, as all other qualified residents, have a right to an equal opportunity for political representation. Cf. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368. “Fencing out” from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible. “[T]he exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions,” Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 161, cannot constitutionally be obliterated because of a fear of the political views of a particular group of bona fide residents. Yet, that is what Texas claims to have done here.

The State’s second argument is that its voting ban is justified because of the transient nature of service in the Armed Forces.4 As the Supreme Court of Texas stated: “Persons in military service are subject at all times to reassignment, and hence to a change in their actual residence . . . they do not elect to be where they are. Their reasons for being where they are . . . cannot be the same as [those of] the permanent residents.” 378 S. W. 2d, at 306. The Texas Constitution provides that a United States citizen can become a qualified elector if he has “resided in this State one (1) year next preceding an election and the last six (6) months within the district or county *95in which such person offers to vote.” Article VI, § 2, Texas Constitution. It is the integrity of this qualification of residence which Texas contends is protected by the voting ban on members of the Armed Forces.

But only where military personnel are involved has Texas been unwilling to develop more precise tests to determine the bona fides of an individual claiming to have actually made his home in the State long enough to vote. The State’s law reports disclose that there have been many eases where the local election officials have determined the issue of bona fide residence. These officials and the courts reviewing their actions have required a “freely exercised intention” of remaining within the State, Harrison v. Chesshir, 316 S. W. 2d 909, 915. The declarations of voters concerning their intent to reside in the State and in a particular county is often not conclusive ; the election officials may look to the actual facts and circumstances. Stratton v. Hall, 90 S. W. 2d 865, 866. By statute,5 Texas deals with particular categories of citizens who, like soldiers, present specialized problems in determining residence. Students at colleges and universities in Texas, patients in hospitals and other institutions within the State, and civilian employees of the United States Government may be as transient as military personnel. But all of them are given at least an opportunity to show the election officials that they are bona fide residents.

Indeed, Texas has been able, in other areas, to winnow successfully from the ranks of the military those whose residence in the State is bona fide. In divorce cases, for example, the residence requirement for jurisdictional purposes, like the requirement for the vote, is one year in the State and six months in the forum county. The Texas courts have held that merely being stationed within the *96State may be insufficient to show residence, even though the statutory period is fulfilled. Even a declared intention to establish a residence may be not enough. “However, the fact that one is a soldier or sailor does not deprive him of the right to change his residence or domicile and acquire a new one.” Robinson v. Robinson, 235 S. W. 2d 228, 230.

We deal here with matters close to the core of our constitutional system. “The right ... to choose,” United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 314, that this Court has been so zealous to protect, means, at the least, that States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State. Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633. By forbidding a soldier ever to controvert the presumption of non-residence, the Texas Constitution imposes an invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[T]here is no indication in the Constitution that . . . occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State.” Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 380.

We recognize that special problems may be involved in determining whether servicemen have actually acquired a new domicile in a State for franchise purposes. We emphasize that Texas is free to take reasonable and adequate steps, as have other States,6 to see that all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the requirements of bona fide residence. But this constitutional provision goes beyond such rules. “[T]he presumption here created is ... definitely conclusive — incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character.” Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U. S. 312, 324. All servicemen not residents of Texas before induction come within the provision’s sweep. Not one of them can ever vote in Texas, no matter how *97long Texas may have been his true home. “[T]he uniform of our country . . . [must not] be the badge of disfranchisement for the man or woman who wears it.” 7

Reversed.

dissenting.

I.

Anyone not familiar with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, the history of that Amendment, and the decisions of the Court in this constitutional area, would gather from today’s opinion that it is an established constitutional tenet that state laws governing the qualifications of voters are subject to the limitations of the Equal Protection Clause. Yet any dispassionate survey of the past will reveal that the present decision is the first to so hold.

In making this holding the Court totally ignores, as it did in last Term’s reapportionment cases, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (and companion cases), all the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the course of judicial decisions which together plainly show that the Equal Protection Clause was not intended to touch state electoral matters. See my dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, at 589. If that history does not prove what I think it does, we are at least entitled to be told why. While I cannot express surprise over today’s decision after the reapportionment cases, which though bound to follow I continue to believe are constitutionally indefensible, I can and do respectfully, but earnestly, record my protest *98against this further extension of federal judicial power into the political affairs of the States. The reapportionment cases do not require this extension. They were concerned with methods of constituting state legislatures; this case involves state voter qualifications. The Court is quite right in not even citing them.1

I deplore the added impetus which this decision gives to the current tendency of judging constitutional ques*99tions on the basis of abstract “justice” unleashed from the limiting principles that go with our constitutional system. Constitutionally principled adjudication, high in the process of which is due recognition of the just demands of federalism, leaves ample room for the protection of individual rights. A constitutional democracy which in order to cope with seeming needs of the moment is willing to temporize with its basic distribution and limitation of governmental powers will sooner or later find itself in trouble.

For reasons set forth at length in my dissent in Reynolds, I would dismiss the complaint in this case for failure to state a claim of federal right.

H-l HH

I also think this decision wrong even on the Court’s premise that it is free to extend the Equal Protection Clause so as to reach state-established voter qualifications. The question here is simply whether the differentiation in voting eligibility requirements which Texas has made is founded on a rational classification. In judging this question I think that the dictates of history, even though the Court has seen fit to disregard them for the purpose of determining whether it should get into the matter at all, should cause the Court to take a hard look before striking down a traditional state poliey in this area as rationally indefensible.

Essentially the Texas statute establishes a rule that servicemen from other States stationed at Texas bases are to be treated as transients for voting purposes. No one disputes that in the vast majority of cases Texas’ view of things accords with fact. Although it is doubtless true that this rule may operate in some instances contrary to the actual facts, I do not think that the Federal Constitution prevents the State from ignoring that possibility in the overall picture. In my opinion Texas *100could rationally conclude that such instances would likely be too minimal to justify the administrative expenditure involved in coping with the “special problems” {ante, p. 96) entailed in winnowing out the bona fide permanent residents from among the transient servicemen living off base and sending their children to local schools.

Beyond this, I think a legitimate distinction may be drawn between those who come voluntarily into Texas in connection with private occupations and those ordered into Texas by military authority. Residences established by the latter are subject to the doubt, not present to the same degree with the former, that when the military compulsion ends, so also may the desire to remain in Texas.

And finally, I think that Texas, given the traditional American notion that control of the military should always be kept in civilian hands, emphasized in the case of Texas by its own special historical experience,2 could *101rationally decide to protect state and local politics against the influences of military voting strength by, in effect, postponing the privilege of voting otherwise attaching to a service-acquired domicile until the serviceman becomes a civilian and by limiting Texan servicemen to voting in the counties of their original domicile.3 Such a policy on Texas’ part may seem to many unduly provincial in light of modern conditions, but it cannot, in my view, be said to be unconstitutional.

Thus, whether or not this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas should not be disturbed.