From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cipriano v. City of Houma

U.S.
Jun 16, 1969
395 U.S. 701 (1969)

Summary

holding unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause the restriction of the right to vote in a revenue bond referendum to only those who pay property taxes

Summary of this case from Molinari v. Bloomberg

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 705.

Argued April 24, 1969. Decided June 16, 1969.

Louisiana law provides that only "property taxpayers" have the right to vote in elections called to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility system. At a special election a majority of the property taxpayers approved a bond issue for the City of Houma's municipally owned utility systems. Within the period permitted to contest the election result appellant, a nonproperty taxpayer otherwise qualified to vote, brought suit for himself and others similarly situated to enjoin the issuance of the bonds and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the limitation of the franchise to property taxpayers is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court held the limitation constitutional. Held:

1. The "property taxpayer" limitation on the franchise violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, ante, p. 621.

(a) Where the State grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some qualified voters and denies it to others, "the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Kramer, supra, at 627.

(b) Here the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike, and the classification thus unconstitutionally excludes otherwise qualified voters who are as substantially affected and directly interested in the matter voted on as those who are permitted to vote.

2. This decision will have prospective effect, and will apply only where the time for challenging the election result has not expired, or in cases brought within the time specified for challenging the election and which are not yet final.

286 F. Supp. 823, reversed and remanded.

Kenneth Watkins argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant. Eugene E. Huppenbauer, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Ted J. Borowski.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General, and John V. Parker for the State of Louisiana et al., and by Irving A. Jennings, J. A. Riggins, Jr., and Rex E. Lee for the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement Power District.


In this case we must determine whether provisions of Louisiana law which give only "property taxpayers" the right to vote in elections called to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility are constitutional. This case thus presents an issue similar to the one considered in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, ante, p. 621. With one judge dissenting, a three-judge District Court determined that the Louisiana provisions were constitutional. However, as in Kramer, we find that the challenged provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; we therefore reverse.

The Louisiana Constitution provides that the legislature may authorize municipalities to issue bonds "[f]or the purpose of constructing, acquiring, extending or improving any revenue-producing public utility." La. Const., Art. 14, § 14(m). Pursuant to this provision, the legislature enacted legislation authorizing Louisiana municipalities to issue revenue bonds. La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4251 (1950). The legislature further provided, however, that the municipalities could issue the bonds only if they were approved by a "majority in number and amount of the property taxpayers qualified to vote . . . [who vote at the bond election]." La. Rev. Stat. § 39:501 (1950). See also La. Rev. Stat. §§ 33:4258, 39:508 (1950).

The amount of debt a municipality may incur is limited by the Louisiana Constitution. La. Const., Art. 14, § 14(f). These revenue bonds are not included in computing the municipal debt, however, if they are secured exclusively by a mortgage on the assets of the utility system and a pledge of the system revenues. La. Const., Art. 14, § 14(m).

We were informed at oral argument that "number and amount" means the bonds must be approved by a majority of the property taxpayers voting and their votes must also represent a "majority of the assessed property owned by those taxpayers who are actually voting."

Appellee City of Houma owns and operates gas, water, and electric utility systems. In September 1967 the city officials scheduled a special election to obtain voter approval for the issuance of $10,000,000 of utility revenue bonds. The city planned to finance extension and improvement of the municipally owned utility systems with the bond proceeds. At the special election a majority "in number and amount" of the property taxpayers approved the bond issue. However, within the period provided by Louisiana law for contesting the result of the election, La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4260 (1950), this suit was instituted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Appellant alleged that he was a duly qualified voter of the City of Houma, and that he had been prevented from voting in the revenue bond election solely because he was not a property owner. He sued for himself and for a class of 6,926 nonproperty taxpayers otherwise qualified as City of Houma voters. Appellant sought to enjoin the issuance of the bonds approved at the special election and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the limitation of the franchise to property taxpayers is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, 2284. The court then dismissed the suit, finding the Louisiana provisions constitutional. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 286 F. Supp. 823 (D.C. E. D. La. 1968). Appellant brought a direct appeal to this Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1253; we noted probable jurisdiction. 393 U.S. 1061 (1969).

The qualifications are of age, residence, and registration. See La. Rev. Stat. § 39:508 (1950).

As we noted in Kramer, supra, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others, "the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, at 627. Moreover, no less showing that the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest is required merely because "the questions scheduled for the election need not have been submitted to the voters." Id., at 629, n. 11.

Appellant does not challenge any other voter qualification regulations. The sole issue in this case is the constitutionality of the provisions of Louisiana law permitting only property taxpayers to vote in utility bond elections.

The appellees maintain that property owners have a "special pecuniary interest" in the election, because the efficiency of the utility system directly affects "property and property values" and thus "the basic security of their investment in [their] property [is] at stake." Assuming, arguendo, that a State might, in some circumstances, constitutionally limit the franchise to qualified voters who are also "specially interested" in the election, whether the statute allegedly so limiting the franchise denies equal protection of the laws to those otherwise qualified voters who are excluded depends on "whether all those excluded are in fact substantially less interested or affected than those the statute includes." Id., at 632.

As in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, we find it unnecessary to decide whether a State might, in some circumstances, limit the franchise to those "primarily interested."

At the time of the election, only about 40% of the city's registered voters were property taxpayers. Of course, the operation of the utility systems — gas, water, and electric — affects virtually every resident of the city, nonproperty owners as well as property owners. All users pay utility bills, and the rates may be affected substantially by the amount of revenue bonds outstanding. Certainly property owners are not alone in feeling the impact of bad utility service or high rates, or in reaping the benefits of good service and low rates.

For example, a proposed decrease in utility rates may be forestalled by the issuance of new revenue bonds.

The revenue bonds are to be paid only from the operations of the utilities; they are not financed in any way by property tax revenue. Property owners, like nonproperty owners, use the utilities and pay the rates; however, the impact of the revenue bond issue on them is unconnected to their status as property taxpayers. Indeed, the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike.

Moreover, the profits of the utility systems' operations are paid into the general fund of the city and are used to finance city services that otherwise would be supported by taxes. Of course, property taxpayers may be concerned with expanding and improving the city's utility operations; such improvements could produce revenues which eventually would reduce the burden on the property tax to support city services. On the other hand, nonproperty taxpayers may feel that their interests as rate payers indicate that no further expansion of utility debt obligations should be made. Of course, these differences of opinion cannot justify excluding either group from the bond election, when, as in this case, both are substantially affected by the utility operations. For, as we noted in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 94 (1965), "`[f]encing out' from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible."

The challenged statute contains a classification which excludes otherwise qualified voters who are as substantially affected and directly interested in the matter voted upon as are those who are permitted to vote. When, as in this case, the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides a "rational basis" for limiting the franchise to those voters with a "special interest," the statute clearly does not meet the "exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise." Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, at 632. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court.

Significant hardships would be imposed on cities, bondholders, and others connected with municipal utilities if our decision today were given full retroactive effect. Where a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the "injustice or hardship" by a holding of nonretroactivity. Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364 (1932). See Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940). Cf. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965). Therefore, we will apply our decision in this case prospectively. That is, we will apply it only where, under state law, the time for challenging the election result has not expired, or in cases brought within the time specified by state law for challenging the election and which are not yet final. Thus, the decision will not apply where the authorization to issue the securities is legally complete on the date of this decision. Of course, our decision will not affect the validity of securities which have been sold or issued prior to this decision and pursuant to such final authorization.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE STEWART concur in the judgment of the Court. Unlike Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, ante, p. 621, this case involves a voting classification "wholly irrelevant to achievement" of the State's objective. Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, while adhering to his views expressed in dissent in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589 (1964); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 680 (1966); and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 486 (1968), but considering himself bound by the Court's decisions in those cases, concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Cipriano v. City of Houma

U.S.
Jun 16, 1969
395 U.S. 701 (1969)

holding unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause the restriction of the right to vote in a revenue bond referendum to only those who pay property taxes

Summary of this case from Molinari v. Bloomberg

holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute which granted the right to vote in revenue bond elections exclusively to property taxpayers

Summary of this case from Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

holding that provisions of Louisiana law giving only "property taxpayers" the right to vote in elections to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility were unconstitutional because non-property owners were affected by utility services and utility rates, making them "as substantially affected and directly interested in the matter voted upon as are those who are permitted to vote"

Summary of this case from BOARD OF EDUC. OF SHELBY CO. v. MEMPHIS C. BD. OF ED

holding that Louisiana's practice of giving only "property taxpayers" the right to vote in elections called to approve issuance of revenue bonds by municipal utility violated equal protection

Summary of this case from Perry v. Beamer

holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that permitted only "property taxpayers" to vote in a special election to approve or reject a municipal utility's issuance of revenue bonds

Summary of this case from Kendall v. Howard Cnty.

holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that permitted only “property taxpayers” to vote in a special election to approve or reject a municipal utility's issuance of revenue bonds

Summary of this case from Kendall v. Howard Cnty.

finding unconstitutional a state law that permits only property taxpayers to vote in certain elections and rejecting the argument that the law is justified by the interest in limiting the franchise to those who have a special pecuniary interest or will be directly affected by the election

Summary of this case from Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs

finding unconstitutional a state law that permits only property taxpayers to vote in certain elections and rejecting the argument that the law is justified by the interest in limiting the franchise to those who have a special pecuniary interest in or will be directly affected by the election

Summary of this case from Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted

striking property ownership requirement for utility bond election

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Bush

striking down a state law that limited the vote in a municipal bond election to property taxpayers

Summary of this case from Morsman v. City of Madras

striking town property qualification in municipal utility bond election

Summary of this case from Opinion No. JC-0406

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969), for example, the Court struck down Louisiana's provisions for bond-authorization elections as violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

Summary of this case from American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969), for example, we struck down a Louisiana law which gave only property taxpayers the right to vote in elections called to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility.

Summary of this case from American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969), a case with particular relevance to the present action, the Court invalidated a state law which limited participation in a bond election for the support of a municipal utility system to property holders.

Summary of this case from Ball v. James

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969), we held that a bond election which concerned only a city's provision of utilities involved a sufficiently broad governmental function.

Summary of this case from Ball v. James

In Cipriano, the Court necessarily held that the provision of electrical, water, and gas utility services was a sufficiently important governmental service to require application of the Fourteenth Amendment's strict scrutiny safeguards.

Summary of this case from Ball v. James

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969), decided the same day, we invalidated a Louisiana statute limiting the franchise in local revenue bond elections to the "property taxpayers" of the district.

Summary of this case from Hill v. Stone

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, we invoked the doctrine of nonretroactive application to protect property interests of "cities, bondholders, and others connected with municipal utilities"; and, in Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, we invoked the doctrine to protect elections held under possibly discriminatory voting laws.

Summary of this case from Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, we held that a state law which gave only "property taxpayers" the right to vote on the issuance of revenue bonds of a municipal utility system violated equal protection as "the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike."

Summary of this case from Oregon v. Mitchell

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, the Court held unconstitutional a Louisiana law that permitted only property owners to vote on the question of approving bonds that were to be financed exclusively from the revenues of municipally operated public utilities.

Summary of this case from Phoenix v. Kolodziejski

In Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, the denial of the franchise to nonproperty owners in elections on revenue bonds was held to be a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the nonproperty owners since they, as well as property owners, are substantially affected by the issuance of revenue bonds to finance municipal utilities.

Summary of this case from Phoenix v. Kolodziejski

asking whether a law that gave only property taxpayers the right to vote in certain elections was necessary to serve a compelling state interest but not applying the per se rule of Harper

Summary of this case from Jones v. Governor of Fla.

analyzing law restricting vote in a municipal revenue bond election to taxpaying residents

Summary of this case from City of Herriman v. Bell

limiting right to vote in local elections to those with special interests invalid

Summary of this case from Missouri Protection v. Carnahan

limiting voting right in bond referendum to "property taxpayers"

Summary of this case from Gray v. Town of Darien
Case details for

Cipriano v. City of Houma

Case Details

Full title:CIPRIANO v . CITY OF HOUMA ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 16, 1969

Citations

395 U.S. 701 (1969)
89 S. Ct. 1897

Citing Cases

Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. v. Bolen

From the undeniably correct premise that public transportation is an issue affecting all citizens, the Court…

Schindler v. Palo Verde Irrigation Dist.

There are no factual or legal allegations that property qualification disenfranchises persons who have a…