Legal Document

402 U.S. 137 91 Supreme Court Reporter 1331 28 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 678 Ronald JAMES et al., Appellants,v.Anita VALTIERRA Appellees. Virginia C. SHAFFER, Appellant, versus Anita Nos. 154, 226. Argued March 3 and 4, 1971. Decided April 26, Donald Atkinson, San Mateo, Cal., for James others. Moses Lasky, Francisco, Shaffer. Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., appellees. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These cases raise but a single issue. It grows out Housing Act 1937, 50 Statutes-at-Large 888, as amended, 42 Code KF62 § 1401 seq., which established federal housing agency authorized to make loans grants state agencies slum clearance lowrent projects. In response, California Legislature created in each county city public authority take advantage financing made available by Act. See Rptr. (West’s) Health & Safety 34240. At time legislation was passed Constitution had many years reserved State's people power initiate reject or approve referendum any legislature. Cal.Const., Article IV, 1. The same section electors counties cities initiative over acts local government bodies. 1950, however, State held that authorities' decisions on seeking aid projects were 'executive' 'administrative,' not 'legislative,' therefore constitution's provisions did apply these actions.1 Within six months decision voters adopted XXXIV constitution bring under policy. provided no low-rent project should be developed, constructed, acquired manner body until approved majority those voting at community election.2 2 present suits brought citizens Jose, California, Mateo County, localities where authorities could funds because low-cost proposals been defeated referendums. plaintiffs, who are eligible housing, sought declaration unconstitutional its requirement violated: (1) Supremacy Clause Constitution; (2) Privileges Immunities Clause; (3) Equal Protection Clause. A three-judge court denied plaintiffs equal protection laws it enjoined enforcement. 313 F.Supp. (ND 1970). Two appeals taken from judgment, one Jose City Council, other member council. We noted probable jurisdiction both appeals. 398 949, 90 1873, 26 288 (1970); 399 925, 2247, 790 (1970). For reasons follow, we reverse. found argument unpersuasive, agree. By 1937 Federal Government has offered governments creation housing. However, does purport require accept this outlaw referendums whether accepted. also find privileges immunities without merit. 4 While District cited several Court, chief reliance plainly rested Hunter Erickson, 393 385, 89 557, 21 616 (1969). first paragraph Court's stated simply: 'We hold unconstitutional. Erickson * *.' below erred relying invalidate XXXIV. Unlike case before us, conclusion Akron's law placing 'special burdens racial minorities within governmental process.' Id., 391, S.Ct., 560. Akron amended charter ordinance regulating real estate basis race, color, religion, national origin effect approval election. amendment classification based upon race required dealing with matters only if they survived mandatory while ordinances took such special noted: 5 'Because core Fourteenth Amendment is prevention meaningful unjustified official distinctions (citing group discrimination cases) classifications 'constitutionally suspect' subject 'most rigid scrutiny.' They 'bear far heavier burden justification' than classifications.' 391—392, 561. 6 concluded advanced sufficient justify hence Amendment. 7 provision, cannot said California's rests 'distinctions race.' requires project, will occupied minority. And record here would support claim seemingly neutral face fact aimed Cf. Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 81 125, 110 (1960). affirmed extending Hunter, decline do. 8 entire history demonstrates repeated use give voice questions provision included constitution, Cal.Const. 1849, VIII, have commonplace occurrence active political life.3 Provisions demonstrate devotion democracy, bias, discrimination, prejudice. Nonetheless, appellees contend denies them demands place citizen initiative. suggest nature constitutes hampers persons desiring achieving their objective when roadblock faces groups influence advantage. But course lawmaking procedure 'disadvantages' particular always deny protection. Under holding, presumably able unless all, disadvantage some group. analyze structures determine gubernatorial veto filibuster rule likely 'disadvantage' diverse shifting up American people. 9 Furthermore, an examination reveals advocating low-income singled must obstacle. Mandatory constitutional amendments, issuance general obligation long-term bonds governments, certain municipal territorial annexations. XVIII; XIII, 40; XI, 2(b). statute books contain much enacted voter initiative, can repealed except referendum. 24(c). Some wisely parks may alienated referendums, see, e.g., Charter 1700. 10 decided own vote This ensures all lead large expenditures increased services lower tax revenues.4 gives affect future development community. democratic decisionmaking violate command shall person 'the laws.' 11 judgment reversed remanded dismissal complaint. 12 Reversed remanded. 13 DOUGLAS part consideration cases. 14 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 15 very terms, prior applies solely 16 'any composed urban rural dwellings, apartments living accommodations low income, financed whole extends assistance supplying labor, guaranteeing payment liens, otherwise.' Persons income defined 17 'persons families lack amount necessary enable them, financial assistance, live decent, safe sanitary overcrowding.' 18 article explicitly singles bear burden. Publicly assisted developments designed accommodate aged, veterans, employees, moderate class poor, need referenda.* 19 my view, invidious prohibits. 'The States, course, prohibited discriminating between 'rich' 'poor' formulation application Douglas 372 353, 361, 83 814, 818, 811 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). neither 'a applicability poor more harshly rich,' ibid., nor 'effort redress economic imbalances,' ibid. rather explicit poverty—a suspect exacting judicial scrutiny, see McDonald Board Election Commissioners, 394 802, 807, 1404, 1407, 22 739 (1969); Harper Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 169 (1966); supra. 20 chooses scrutiny whatsoever treats contained totally benign, technical classification. Both Solicitor General amicus curiae strenuously argued, found, XXXIV, imposing substantial violates Yet after observing discriminate response question unresponsive assertion 'referendums prejudice.' too late day prohibits discrimination; me, singling placed tramples values protect. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions respectfully dissent. Authority Eureka Superior 35 Cal.2d 550, 557—558, 219 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 457, 460—461 (1950). 'Section No rent hereafter until, qualified city, town county, be, proposed develop, construct, acquire same, issue, favor thereof election purpose, 'For purposes term 'low project' mean otherwise. income' (as determined developing, constructing, acquiring project) See, W. Crouch, Initiative Referendum Public through issued authority. To sure, contracts contributions cover interest principal, agree provide units waive taxes property. include schools, police, fire protection, sewers, streets, drains, lighting. cost defrayed governing body's receipt 10% rentals, rentals set artificially low. appellants building federally entails costs Appellant Shaffer's Brief 34—35. Appellees' 47. §§ 1401—1430. authorizes formation Renewal Area Agencies whose construction 'low-income, middle-income normal-market housing,' 33701 seq. Only programs even though agencies' receive assistance.

Classification Label: 1