Hunter v. Erickson

1969-01-20

Headline: City charter amendment requiring voter approval for race-based housing ordinances struck down, restoring local fair housing enforcement and removing an extra referendum barrier that blocked anti-discrimination rules.

Holding: The Court held that Akron’s charter provision requiring voter approval for race-based housing ordinances discriminated against minorities and violated the Equal Protection Clause, so the charter amendment was invalidated.

Real World Impact:

Blocks city rules requiring voter approval to pass anti-discrimination housing laws.
Restores local enforcement of fair housing protections without a special referendum hurdle.
Protects minorities from procedural burdens that single them out politically.

Topics: housing discrimination, voting and referendums, equal protection, local government power

Summary

Background

Nellie Hunter, a Black resident of Akron, Ohio, sought enforcement of a 1964 city fair housing ordinance after a real estate agent refused to show her houses because owners did not want them shown to Negroes. The city had created a local Commission to enforce the ordinance. Voters later approved a charter amendment, §137, which suspended the ordinance and required majority voter approval at a general election before any ordinance addressing housing on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin could take effect. Hunter sued in Ohio courts seeking a writ to require enforcement; the Ohio courts upheld the charter amendment, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether the amendment denied equal protection.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether §137’s special rule for race-based housing measures treated racial matters differently from other local measures and therefore disadvantaged minorities. The Justices concluded that the charter drew an explicit racial classification by making it substantially harder to pass anti-discrimination housing laws than other local rules. Akron’s defenses — including that voters should decide or that the change merely delayed action — were rejected because the amendment imposed a special burden on racial minorities and therefore denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reversed the Ohio court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates Akron’s voter-approval barrier and restores the local ordinance’s enforcement path without the special referendum requirement. Minority residents seeking protection from housing discrimination regain access to the city’s enforcement procedures. The Court noted that federal and state laws do not replace the local enforcement mechanisms and also made clear that mere repeal of an ordinance is not automatically unconstitutional.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart, concurred and emphasized a framework distinguishing neutral procedural rules from facially discriminatory ones; Justice Black dissented, arguing the Court overstepped by blocking a voter decision to repeal or alter local law.