## Facts

- Phoenix held a June 10, 1969 election authorizing \$60,450,000 in general obligation bonds to fund municipal improvements, including sewers, parks, police/public safety buildings, and libraries.
- Arizona law limited voting in such bond elections to otherwise qualified voters who paid real property taxes.
- Emily Kolodziejski, a Phoenix resident otherwise eligible to vote but who owned no real property, was excluded from voting and sued in federal court to invalidate the election.
- The bonds would be serviced through property taxes, though the city could use other revenues if available.
- The district court held the property-taxpayer franchise restriction unconstitutional and invalidated the election; Phoenix appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause permits restricting the vote in general obligation bond elections to real property taxpayers.
2. Whether any differences between property owners’ and nonowners’ interests justify such a voting limitation under strict equal protection review.
3. Whether the rule, if unconstitutional, should apply retroactively or only to bond authorizations not final as of the Court’s decision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating Arizona’s property-taxpayer voting restriction for general obligation bond elections.
- The Court held that nonproperty owners have substantial interests in both the benefits and financial effects of general obligation bonds, so excluding them is not justified.
- The Court applied the ruling prospectively to bond authorizations that were not final as of the date of the decision; the Phoenix authorization fell within that category.

## Legal Principles

- When an election decision substantially affects all residents, limiting the franchise to a subclass of otherwise qualified voters triggers strict equal protection review.
- A state may exclude otherwise qualified voters only if the restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and is closely tailored to that interest.
- Property ownership or real property taxpayer status is not a sufficient proxy for uniquely affected interests in general obligation bond elections because nonowners also benefit from, and may bear the costs of, the financed projects.
- Remedies may be limited to prospective application where reliance interests and administrative disruption counsel against broader retroactive invalidation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that restricting general obligation bond election voting to real property taxpayers violates the Equal Protection Clause because the interests at stake and the burdens of repayment are not confined to property owners; the rule applies to bond authorizations not final as of the decision.


City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970)