Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Cipriano v. City of Houma

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionVoting RightsMunicipal Bond ElectionsEqual Protection Clauselimited-purpose electionsproperty taxpayersrevenue bonds

Facts

Louisiana law allowed municipalities to issue revenue bonds for public utilities only if approved by a majority in number and amount of property taxpayers qualified to vote who participated in the bond election. The City of Houma scheduled a special election on a $10,000,000 utility revenue bond issue to extend and improve its municipally owned gas, water, and electric systems, and the property taxpayers voting approved it. The plaintiff was a duly qualified Houma voter but was barred from voting solely because he was not a property owner, and he sued on behalf of himself and other similarly situated nonproperty taxpayers. The bonds were to be paid solely from utility operations rather than property tax revenues, and utility rates and services affected property owners and nonproperty owners alike.

Issue

Whether Louisiana may constitutionally limit voting in municipal utility revenue bond elections to property taxpayers, excluding other otherwise qualified voters. Specifically, the question is whether that restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

If a state statute grants the right to vote in a limited-purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others, the exclusions are valid only if they are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Where the state justifies the restriction by claiming that included voters have a special interest, the classification is unconstitutional unless those excluded are in fact substantially less interested or affected than those allowed to vote.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Dayton, Ohio schedules a special election on whether to approve revenue bonds to modernize the city's municipally owned water system. State law allows only registered voters who pay property taxes in Dayton to vote, even though renters and homeowners alike receive water service and pay monthly water bills, and the bonds will be repaid solely from water-system revenues.

If excluded renters sue before the state-law deadline for contesting the election expires, what is the strongest constitutional argument against the voting restriction?

Explanation. When a state grants the vote in a limited-purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others, the exclusion must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Here, the bonds are payable only from utility revenues, and both renters and owners use the water system, pay rates, and are affected by service quality. Under the majority's reasoning, property taxpayers are not the only voters substantially affected, so the selective franchise violates equal protection.