## Facts

- Fort Worth, Texas held a city bond authorization election to approve bonds to finance construction of a new public library.
- Texas law (state constitution, election code, and city charter) limited voting in city bond elections to otherwise qualified electors who had “rendered” (listed) real, mixed, or personal property for taxation in the election district during the election year.
- Residents who met general voter qualifications (citizenship, age, and residence) but had not rendered property were barred from voting.
- Although a majority of all ballots cast favored the bond issue, the proposal failed because only votes cast by “qualified” (property-rendering) electors were counted for the required majority.
- A three-judge federal district court held the restriction violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not serve a compelling state interest.
- Texas officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting the franchise in a city general obligation bond election to electors who rendered property for taxation in the election year violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the bond election was an election of “special interest” permitting a narrowed electorate, or a matter of general interest requiring strict scrutiny of voter exclusions.
3. Whether asserted state interests (protecting property taxpayers and encouraging property rendering to aid tax enforcement) are compelling and sufficiently connected to the restriction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the property-rendering voting requirement.
- The Court held the bond election was not a “special interest” election; it was a matter of general community concern.
- Because the election was of general interest, the restriction on voting triggered strict scrutiny.
- The property-rendering requirement impermissibly disenfranchised otherwise qualified voters based solely on failure to render property in the election year.
- The asserted interests were not compelling, and the classification was not justified under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court limited the decision’s effect to bond authorization elections whose results were not final as of the relevant dates (for Texas, those not final as of the district court’s judgment; for other jurisdictions, those not final as of the Supreme Court’s decision).

## Legal Principles

- When an election is not one of “special interest,” voter qualifications beyond residence, age, and citizenship are subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A State must show a compelling interest to justify a classification that restricts the franchise in an election of general public concern.
- General obligation bond elections are matters of general interest even when debt service is paid entirely from property taxes; non-property owners and non-rendering residents remain substantially affected.
- Conditioning voting on rendering property for taxation is an unconstitutional method of favoring property taxpayers or encouraging tax compliance when it excludes otherwise qualified electors.

## Conclusion

Texas could not restrict voting in a city general obligation bond election to electors who rendered property for taxation in the election year because the election concerned general public interests and the State failed to justify disenfranchising otherwise qualified voters under strict scrutiny; the Court affirmed invalidation of the rule while limiting relief to elections not yet final.


Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975)