Source: https://openjurist.org/395/us/701
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:43:54+00:00

Document:
CITY OF HOUMA et al.
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).1 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).'2 La.Rev.Stat. § 39:501 (1950). See also La.Rev.Stat. §§ 33:4258, 39:508 (1950).
Appellant alleged that he was a duly qualified voter3 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, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21 L.Ed.2d 704 (1969).
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,4 '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, 89 S.Ct. at 1890. 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, 89 S.Ct. at 1890, n. 11.
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,5 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, 89 S.Ct. at 1892.
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.6 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.

References: Art. 14
 § 14
 § 33
 § 39
 v. 
 § 1253
 v.