Document: 399 U.S. 204 90 S.Ct. 1990 26 L.Ed.2d 523 CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA et al., Appellants,v.Emily KOLODZIEJSKI. No. 1066. Argued March 31, 1970. Decided June 23, Rex E. Lee, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants. Fred H. Rosenfeld, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 621, 89 1886, 23 583 (1969), this Court held that a State could not restrict vote in school district elections to owners and lessees real property parents children because exclusion otherwise qualified voters was shown be necessary promote compelling state interest. This ruling, by its terms applicable public officials, extended approval revenue bonds finance local improvements Cipriano City Houma, 701, 1897, 647 (1969). Our decision did not, however, reach question now presented decision: Does Federal Constitution permit taxpayers approve issuance general obligation bonds? 2 arises following factual setting: On 10, 1969, Phoenix Arizona, an election authorize $60,450,000 as well certain bonds. Under Arizona law, taxes were levied service indebtedness, although city legally privileged use other revenues purpose.1 The issued various municipal improvements, with largest amounts go sewer system, parks playgrounds, police safety buildings, libraries. Pursuant constitutional statutory provisions,2 only who also permitted on these bond issues. All issues submitted approved majority those voting. 3 16, six days after supra, restricting franchise violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling applied case before which under law authorization yet final when challenge raised District August 1, appellee Kolodziejski, resident but owned no property, filed her complaint United States challenging constitutionality restriction attacking validity 1969 approving A three judges convened. Court, appellants conceded that, Court's decisions Kramer, invalid regard had been approved. perceived significant difference between therefore nonproperty-owning from unconstitutional Kramer. Because date decision, court rule declared invalid. enjoined taking further action issue election. members Council appealed judgment respect We noted probable jurisdiction, 397 903, 930, 25 85 (1970). affirm do agree should retroactive decision. 4 * denial nonproperty Amendment rights since they, owners, are substantially affected utilities. It is argued rationale does render voting 5 argument proceeds two related fronts. First, it said statutes require amount sufficient bonds,3 thus expressly placing special burden benefit entire community. Second, more generally, whereas secured operation particular facilities may earned both taxing power issuing municipality. Since most municipalities rely substantial extent tax will used make debt payments if sources prove insufficient,4 effect lien subject taxation Whatever actually bonds, unavoidable potential imposed own realty cannot moved beyond municipality's power. Hence, according appellants, justified recognizing unique interests allowing participate 6 Concededly, decided supra. But we have concluded principles case, dictate like result where excludes differences sufficiently justify excluding latter franchise. so far several reasons. 7 unquestioned all residents alike, interest services available ultimate outcome at case. Presumptively, citizens important ways governmental referendum, weighted or nevertheless participating vests individual disapprove government has determined financed Placing such alone can some overriding entitled recognize. 8 ostensibly calls levy purpose. According parties' stipulation anticipated instant true past, than half requirements satisfied paid property.5 Not persons excluded great disapproving they contribute, directly servicing payment 9 Third, justification would seem strongest municipality which, unlike looks even insufficient. Property initially part each year's rental very likely borne tenant rather landlord since, parties stipulated treat business expense normally able pass large cost tenants form higher rent.6 owning their homes dwelling units, virtually share Moreover, commercial property,7 much corporations having vote, treated doing reflected prices goods purchased alike. 10 While theory expected future income hence values municipality, depend predicted levels taxes,8 actual impact increase problematical.9 additional entailed issue, any adverse offset least favorable effects issue.10 11 loosely described 'lien' within jurisdiction sense issuer undertakes bond. economy collapse, high producing little might cases defaults, foreclosures, sales. Nothing us, indicates possibility foreclosures meet obligations significantly affects current estate ability concerned owner liquidate his holdings avoid risk difficulties; price appears function health reflection level improvements. event, convinced economic collapse becoming unshiftable, unsharable denying financed, indirectly sharing burden, paying 12 conclude somewhat different there basis concluding less interested securities owners. adequate reason evidenced fact 14 way;11 find possible protect excessive burdens means appear successful protecting soundly financing Nor problems limit must declaratory challenged provisions statutes, exclude violate Constitution. II 13 view over years many good-faith assumption prohibited Constitution, unjustifiably disruptive give our full effect. adopt similar employed applicability apply authorizations 1970, authorizing challenges definite period, prior unless grounds sustained brought period specified law. States, including apparently Arizona,12 well-defined bringing elections, open addition, commencement pursuant election, applies involved correct holding constitutionally enjoining obtained Affirmed. 15 BLACK concurs Part I 16 BLACKMUN took consideration 17 STEWART, whom CHIEF JUSTICE HARLAN join, dissenting. 18 If really 'election,' is, choice popular candidates office system representative democracy, then frame reference necessarily Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506, progeny. For, rightly wrongly, officials legislative elected people, requires electoral generally reflect regime political suffrage based upon 'one man, one vote.' Recent examples doctrine 583, involving board; Hadley Junior College 50, 791, 45, apportionment districts trustees junior college. 19 Whether accepts embodied decisions, relevance here. For nobody claimed Arizona—the here—were way basis, fully fairly represent electorate And councilmen initiated program borrowing money new library, Having made initial construction bonded indebtedness fall—the city. These vote. Yet today says prevents build council believe lays heavy hand initiative independence Nation. 20 647, Louisiana exclusively municipally operated agreed created wholly irrelevant classification. Id., 707, S.Ct., 1901 (Black Stewart, JJ., concurring judgment). As noted: 21 'The operations utilities; revenue. utilities pay rates; however them unconnected status taxpayers. Indeed, benefits fall indiscriminately alike.' 705, 1900. 22 us bears superficial resemblance Cipriano, deal here, income-producing themselves, city's effectively operates taxable located borders. During life privately burdened pledge—and obligation—to purpose repaying principal obligation.1 circumstances confer governing bodies exclusive absolute incur without us. chosen policy, law.2 told cities while free plan propose capital validly weight fall. invidious discrimination condemns, entirely rational policy. reverse judgment, hold denies endorsed.3 relevant statute provides follows: 'A. After issued, body board shall enter minutes record sold, numbers dates, annually cause collected tax, same time manner subdivision, due, likewise redeem mature. 'B. Monies derived constitute fund kept separately known 'Interest Fund' 'Redemption Fund." Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 35—458 (1956). Allison 44 Ariz. 66, 33 P.2d 927 (1934), Supreme ruled predecessor section funds avilable. 1969—1970 fiscal year $3,244,773 total requirement of.$5,594,937 met ad valorem typical recent years. Ariz.Const., Art. 7, 13, 9, 8; §§ 9—523, 35—452 (1956), 35—455 (Supp.1969). See n. 1967—1968, yielded $26.835 billion (approximately 86%) governments. Dept. Commerce, $31.171 Bureau Census, Governmental Finances 1967—68, p. year, utilized 55% requirements. 'the (appellee's) material bearing payments.' along depends how changes rent affect demanded—the responsive demand levels, larger proportion ultimately tenants. C. Shoup, Public Finance 385—390 (1969); D. Netzer, Economics Tax 32—40 (1966); Simon, Incidence Urban Real Property, Readings Taxation 416 (published American Economic Assn. 1959). 1957, about 28 1/2% governments industrial properties. 6, 19. theory, value present future; owner-occupied residences, 'income' satisfaction homeowners derive enjoyment residences. reduce earnings passed rent. owner-occupiers net costs property. discussion 'capitalization' unshiftable taxes, see Newman, An Introduction 262 (1968); 442—443; 34 36; J. Jensen, 63—75 (1931). empirical evidence capitalization unshifted 'most unsatisfactory.' 34—35; 443. 34. briefs besides elections: Alaska (Alaska Stat. 07.30.010(b) (Supp.1969)); Colorado (Colo.Const., XI, 8); Florida (Fla.Const., 12, F.S.A.); Idaho (Idaho Code Ann. 31—1905 (1963), 404 (Supp.1969), 50—1026 (1967)); (La.Const., 14, 14(a)); Michigan (Mich.Const., II, 6); Montana (Mont.Const., IX, 2, XIII, 5; Mont.Rev.Codes 11—2310 (1968), 75—3912 (1962)); New Mexico (N.M.Const., 11, 12); York (N.Y.Town Law (McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 62, 1965); N.Y.Village 4—402 64, 1966); Oklahoma (Okla.Const., X, 27); Rhode Island (R.I. Const. Amdt. 29, 2); Texas (Tex.Const., 3a, Vernon's Ann.St.); Utah (Utah Const., XIV, 3). 16—1202 (Supp.1969) 16—1204 (1956) provide contest suits 'electors' five completion canvass declaration Morgan Board Supervisors, 67 133, 192 236 (1948), unclear whether expiration five-day barred. found bar suit provides: 'After mature.' another source 'it transferred redemption statute. *' 77, P.2d, 931. clear, 35 458 'is mandatory binding mentioned therein, article, provided section.' 74, 930. excise repay optional, imposition purposes mandatory. Texes become 42-312. incorporated towns right electors 13; 8. 9—523 35—455. subdivisions just towns. contrary prevails, add premise THE opinion, joins subject, views expressed Estate Donnelly, 286, 295, 1033, 1039, 312

Category: 1