Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Phoenix v. Kolodziejski

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionVoting RightsBond ElectionsLocal Government FinanceEqual Protection Clausefranchise restrictionsproperty taxpayer voting

Facts

Phoenix held an election to authorize more than $60 million in general obligation bonds and certain revenue bonds for municipal improvements including sewers, parks, police and public safety buildings, and libraries. Under Arizona constitutional and statutory provisions, only otherwise qualified voters who were also real property taxpayers could vote on the bond issues. Although Arizona law required property taxes to be levied to service the general obligation bonds, the city was legally permitted to use other revenues as well, and the parties stipulated that more than half of debt service was expected to be paid from non-property-tax revenues. Appellee was a Phoenix resident otherwise qualified to vote but excluded because she owned no real property.

Issue

Does the Equal Protection Clause permit a State to restrict voting in elections approving the issuance of general obligation bonds to otherwise qualified voters who are also real property taxpayers? If not, what retroactive effect should that ruling have on prior bond authorizations?

Rule

When all citizens are affected in important ways by a governmental decision submitted to referendum, the Constitution does not permit exclusion of otherwise qualified citizens from the franchise absent an overriding interest sufficient to justify the restriction. In elections on general obligation bonds, differences between property owners and nonproperty owners are not sufficiently substantial to justify limiting the vote to real property taxpayers.

🔒

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.

Madison, Wisconsin, held a referendum on issuing general obligation bonds to build new libraries, parks, and a stormwater system. State law allowed only otherwise qualified voters who also paid real property taxes to vote, excluding resident tenants such as Elena Ortiz.

Elena sues before any bonds are issued, arguing the voting restriction violates equal protection. What is the strongest answer?

Explanation. When all citizens are affected in important ways by a referendum, otherwise qualified citizens may not be excluded absent an overriding interest. In elections approving general obligation bonds, the majority held that property owners' interests differ somewhat from nonowners' interests, but not enough to justify excluding nonproperty owners. Public facilities and services affect all residents, and nonowners are not substantially less interested in the bond issue.