## Facts

- The Akron City Council enacted a fair housing ordinance barring housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin.
- Akron voters adopted a city charter amendment (“Issue 26”) that repealed the ordinance.
- The amendment required any future city measure addressing housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry to be approved by a majority of voters in a city-wide referendum.
- Other housing regulations and ordinary municipal legislation could be enacted through the normal city council process without a referendum.
- City residents challenged the amendment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the amendment, and the challengers sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a city charter amendment that repeals a fair housing ordinance and requires voter approval for any future housing anti-discrimination measures violates the Equal Protection Clause by placing a distinct political burden on measures addressing race and related classifications.
2. Whether facial neutrality and equal access to the ballot cure a structural change that makes it harder to obtain legislation protecting against housing discrimination.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Court held the charter amendment unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court reasoned that the amendment singled out laws addressing housing discrimination based on race (and related categories) and forced them to clear an additional political hurdle not imposed on other subjects.
- The Court rejected the argument that the amendment was valid because it did not itself mandate discrimination and because all voters could participate equally in a referendum.
- The charter amendment was invalidated because it reorganized the political process in a manner that disadvantaged those seeking protections against discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Equal protection prohibits government from restructuring political decisionmaking in a way that places special burdens on efforts to obtain legislation addressing racial discrimination.
- A law may violate equal protection even if framed as a procedural requirement and even if facially neutral, when it selectively targets measures aimed at combating racial discrimination for unique political obstacles.
- The relevant constitutional harm includes “fencing out” a minority interest from ordinary political channels by shifting decisionmaking on race-related protections to a more burdensome level of governmental action.
- Democratic process design is subject to constitutional limits when it differentially burdens race-related protective legislation without adequate justification.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Akron’s charter amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause because it selectively required voter referenda for fair-housing anti-discrimination measures, thereby imposing a distinct political barrier on obtaining protections against housing discrimination tied to race and related classifications.


Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)