Cipriano v. City of Houma

Background

A resident and qualified voter of the City of Houma challenged a Louisiana law that let only “property taxpayers” vote in a special election to approve $10,000,000 in municipal utility revenue bonds. The city held the election to finance improvements to its gas, water, and electric systems, and a majority of property taxpayers approved the bond issue. The challenger sued on behalf of nearly 7,000 nonproperty voters who were otherwise qualified to vote but were excluded because they did not own property. A three-judge federal court upheld the Louisiana law, and the case came to this Court for review.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether excluding otherwise qualified voters just because they do not own property is justified when the issue—utility operations and rates—affects all city residents. The Court found that both property owners and nonowners use the utilities, pay the bills, and are similarly affected by the bond issue, which is repaid from utility revenues rather than property taxes. Because the exclusion did not accurately single out people more affected by the issue, the Court concluded the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Real world impact

The Court applied its ruling prospectively to avoid unfair disruption to cities, bondholders, and others. The decision will affect elections and challenges where the time to contest results has not yet expired under state law, or suits still pending within that period. It does not invalidate securities that were already finally authorized or already sold before this decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices agreed with the judgment; another Justice concurred in the result while noting his views on related voting cases, but no dissent altered the Court’s conclusion here.