Gordon v. Lance
29 L. Ed. 2d 273, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 30, 403 U.S. 1 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state constitutional provision requiring a supermajority (e.g., 60%) vote in a referendum to approve the issuance of public bonds does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so long as the provision does not discriminate against any identifiable class of voters.
Facts:
- The Constitution and statutes of West Virginia require that political subdivisions obtain approval from 60% of voters in a referendum to incur bonded indebtedness.
- The Board of Education of Roane County, West Virginia, proposed issuing $1,830,000 in general obligation bonds to construct and improve school facilities.
- In the same election, voters were asked to authorize a levy of additional taxes.
- The bond issue proposal received 51.55% of the affirmative votes, failing to meet the 60% threshold.
- The tax levy proposal also failed, receiving 51.51% of the vote.
- Following the election, citizens who had voted in favor of the proposals demanded that the Board of Education authorize the bonds and taxes despite the outcome.
- The Board of Education refused to authorize the bonds or the tax levy.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (voters who favored the proposals) filed an action in a West Virginia trial court against the Board of Education.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that the 60% requirements were unconstitutional.
- The West Virginia trial court dismissed the complaint.
- Respondents appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the 60% requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Board of Education (as petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
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 a state constitutional and statutory requirement that political subdivisions may not incur bonded indebtedness without the approval of 60% of the voters in a referendum election violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A state law requiring a supermajority vote for bond referenda does not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as it is applied neutrally and does not discriminate against any identifiable class. The court distinguished this case from prior voting rights cases like Gray v. Sanders and Cipriano v. City of Houma, which involved diluting votes based on group characteristics like geographic location or property ownership. Here, the 60% requirement applies equally to all voters and all bond issues, regardless of purpose, and does not single out a 'discrete and insular minority.' The Constitution does not mandate that a simple majority must prevail on every issue; indeed, the U.S. Constitution itself contains supermajority requirements for actions such as treaty ratification and impeachment. States retain the power to structure their fiscal decision-making processes, and it is a reasonable policy choice to require a broad consensus before committing future generations to long-term debt.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Justice Harlan concurred in the result for reasons stated in a separate opinion in another case, Whitcomb v. Chavis.
Dissenting - Justices Brennan and Marshall
No. The opinion notes that Justices Brennan and Marshall would have affirmed the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which found the 60% requirement unconstitutional. The state court had reasoned that the requirement was defective because the votes of those who favored the bonds had a proportionately smaller impact on the outcome than the votes of those who opposed them, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the Equal Protection Clause does not require simple majority rule for all governmental decisions, particularly in the realm of state and local finance. It distinguishes between unconstitutional voting schemes that dilute votes based on a voter's identity or location, and permissible procedural rules that require a heightened level of consensus for specific types of governmental action. The ruling grants states significant leeway to implement supermajority requirements for referenda on issues like taxation and public debt, provided these rules are applied neutrally. It clarifies that the 'one person, one vote' doctrine is primarily concerned with representation and access to the ballot, not with ensuring that a simple majority can always enact its policy preferences.
