City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski
26 L. Ed. 2d 523, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 15, 399 U.S. 204 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that restricts the franchise in elections for the approval of general obligation bonds to only real property owners violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both property owners and non-property owners have a substantial interest in such elections, as both are affected by the projects being financed and both contribute to the servicing of the bonds.
Facts:
- The City of Phoenix, Arizona, planned to finance various municipal improvements, including a sewer system, parks, and public safety buildings, through the issuance of general obligation bonds.
- On June 10, 1969, Phoenix held an election to authorize these bonds.
- Pursuant to Arizona's constitution and statutes, only registered voters who were also real property taxpayers were permitted to vote in the bond election.
- Appellee Kolodziejski, a resident of Phoenix and an otherwise qualified voter, was prevented from voting because she did not own any real property.
- The bond issues were approved by a majority of the property owners who voted.
- Although Arizona law required property taxes to be levied to service the bonds, the city was permitted to use other revenues and, in practice, paid for more than half of its debt service with funds from other local taxes paid by property owners and non-property owners alike.
- Non-property owners, such as renters, indirectly bear the burden of property taxes through increased rental costs, as landlords treat property taxes as a business expense.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee Kolodziejski filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of the state's voting restriction in bond elections.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court held that the exclusion of non-property-owning voters was unconstitutional under the precedents of Cipriano and Kramer.
- The District Court declared the June 10, 1969, bond election invalid and enjoined the City of Phoenix from issuing the bonds approved in that election.
- The City of Phoenix and members of the City Council, as appellants, appealed the District Court's judgment regarding the general obligation bonds directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arizona law that restricts the vote in elections to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds to real property taxpayers violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes, the Arizona law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The differences in interests between property owners and non-property owners are not sufficiently substantial to justify excluding non-property owners from voting in general obligation bond elections. The Court reasoned that all residents, not just property owners, have a substantial interest in public facilities and services and are significantly affected by the outcome of the bond election. Furthermore, non-property owners contribute substantially to servicing the bonds, both directly through other local taxes that the city uses for repayment, and indirectly, as tenants bear the cost of property taxes through higher rents and all consumers bear the cost through higher prices on goods and services. The Court extended the principles of Kramer v. Union Free School District and Cipriano v. City of Houma, concluding that since non-property owners are as substantially affected as property owners, excluding them from the franchise is unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
No, the Arizona law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This case is not about electing officials, so the 'one man, one vote' principle from cases like Reynolds v. Sims is not directly applicable. General obligation bonds, unlike the revenue bonds in Cipriano, create a mandatory legal obligation to levy property taxes and function as a lien on all taxable real estate within the city. Therefore, it is an entirely rational public policy for the state to permit only those who bear the direct legal and financial burden of the bonded indebtedness—the property owners—to approve it. The dissent argues that this classification is not invidious discrimination but a reasonable way to protect the interests of those whose property secures the municipal debt.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting rights in special-purpose elections, effectively closing the door on property ownership as a valid qualification for voting in most bond elections. By treating general obligation bonds similarly to revenue bonds for franchise purposes, the Court emphasized a holistic view of economic interest, recognizing the indirect financial burdens borne by renters and consumers. This ruling solidified a precedent that requires states to justify voter exclusions with a compelling interest, making it much harder to create special-interest electorates based on taxpayer status.
