In a 1977 decision* involving the United Steelworkers of America, the U.S. Supreme Court by a split
Fantastic news! We've located the answer you've been seeking!
Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that … the anti-democratic effects of the meeting attendance rule outweighs the interests urged in its support. … An attendance requirement that results in the exclusion of 96.5 percent of the members from candidacy for union office hardly seems to be a “reasonable qualification” (as required by Landrum-Griffin) consistent with the goal of free and democratic elections. A requirement having that result obviously severely restricts the free choice of the membership in selecting their leaders.
The minority of the court believed the attendance rule to be a reasonable qualification. It criticized the majority for using a statistical test. The rule was reasonable, it said, because it could encourage attendance at meetings, guarantee that candidates for office had a meaningful interest in the union, and assure that the candidates had a chance to become informed about union affairs.
Do you agree with the majority or the minority here and, in either case, why?