Document: 395 U.S. 701 89 S.Ct. 1897 23 L.Ed.2d 647 Joseph Q. CIPRIANO, Appellant,v.CITY OF HOUMA et al. No. 705. Argued April 24, 1969. Decided June 16, Kenneth Watkins, Houma, La., for appellant. Eugene E. Huppenbauer, Jr., New Orleans, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case we must determine whether provisions of Louisiana law which give only 'property taxpayers' the right to vote in elections called approve issuance revenue bonds by a municipal utility are constitutional. This thus presents an issue similar one considered Kramer v. Union Free School District 15, 621, 1886, 583. With judge dissenting, three-judge Court determined that were However, as Kramer, find challenged violate Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment; therefore reverse. 2 The Constitution provides legislature may authorize municipalities '(f)or purpose constructing, acquiring, extending or improving any producing public utility.' La.Const., Art. 14, § 14(m). Pursuant provision, enacted legislation authorizing bonds. La.Rev.Stat. 33:4251 (1950).1 further provided, however, could if they approved 'majority number and amount property taxpayers qualified * (who at bond election).'2 39:501 (1950). See also §§ 33:4258, 39:508 3 Appellee City Houma owns operates gas, water, electric systems. September 1967 city officials scheduled special election obtain voter approval $10,000,000 planned finance extension improvement municipally owned systems with proceeds. At majority 'in amount' issue. within period provided contesting result election, 33:4260 (1950), suit was instituted United States Eastern Louisiana. 4 Appellant alleged he duly voter3 had been prevented from voting solely because not owner. He sued himself class 6,926 nonproperty otherwise voters. sought enjoin declaratory judgment limitation franchise is unconstitutional. A convened pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2281, 2284. court then dismissed suit, finding Cipriano 286 F.Supp. 823 (D.C.E.D.La.1968). brought direct appeal Court, 1253; noted probable jurisdiction. 393 1061, 714, 21 704 (1969). 5 As supra, state statute grants limited some voters denies it others,4 'the exclusions necessary promote compelling interest.' 627, 1890. Moreover, no less showing interest required merely questions need have submitted voters.' Id., 629, 1890, n. 11. 6 appellees maintain owners 'special pecuniary interest' efficiency system directly affects values' basic security their investment (their) (is) stake.' Assuming, arguendo,5 State might, circumstances, constitutionally limit who 'specially interested' allegedly so limiting equal protection laws those excluded depends on 'whether all fact substantially interested affected than includes.' 632, 1892. 7 time about 40% city's registered taxpayers. Of course, operation systems—gas, electric—affects virtually every resident city, well owners. All users pay bills, rates be outstanding.6 Certainly alone feeling impact bad service high rates, reaping benefits good low rates. 8 paid operations utilities; financed way tax revenue. Property owners, like use utilities rates; impat them unconnected status Indeed, burdens fall indiscriminately owner alike. 9 profits systems' into general fund used services would supported taxes. concerned expanding operations; such improvements produce revenues eventually reduce burden support services. On other hand, feel interests rate payers indicate expansion debt obligations should made. these differences opinion cannot justify excluding either group when, case, both operations. For, Carrington Rash, 380 89, 94, 85 775, 779, 13 675 (1965), "(f)encing out' sector population impermissible.' 10 contains classification excludes matter voted upon permitted vote. When, State's sole justification 'rational basis' interest,' clearly does meet 'exacting standard precision require statutes selectively distribute franchise.' We reverse Court. 11 Significant hardships imposed cities, bondholders, others connected our decision today given full retroactive effect. Where substantial inequitable results applied retroactively, there ample basis cases avoiding 'injustice hardship' holding nonretroactivity. Great Northern R. Co. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 358, 364, 53 145, 148, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932). Chicot County Drainage Dist. Baxter Bank, 308 371, 60 317, 84 329 (1940). Cf. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 1731, 14 601 (1965). Therefore, will apply prospectively. That is, where, under law, challenging has expired, specified yet final. Thus, where authorization securities legally complete date decision. affect validity sold issued prior final authorization. 12 reversed. remanded proceedings consistent opinion. It ordered. Judgment reversed remanded. 15 Mr. Justice BLACK STEWART concur Unlike 583, involves 'wholly irrelevant achievement' objective. Kotch Board River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 552, 556, 67 910, 912, 91 1093. 16 HARLAN, while adhering his views expressed dissent Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 589, 1362, 1396, 506 (1964); Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 680, 86 1079, 1089, 169 (1966); Avery Midland Count, 390 474, 486, 88 1114, 1121, 20 45 (1968), but considering bound Court's decisions cases, concurs result. municipality incur Constitution. 14(f). These included computing debt, secured exclusively mortgage assets pledge revenues. informed oral argument 'number means votes represent assessed actually voting.' qualifications age, residence, registration. challenge qualification regulations. constitutionality permitting elections. unnecessary decide 'primarily interested.' For example, proposed decrease forestalled new

Category: 1