Facts
- California Constitution Article XXXIV required majority approval by local voters before any “low-rent housing project” could be developed, constructed, or acquired by a state public body in that locality.
- Individuals eligible for low-cost public housing challenged the referendum requirement as unconstitutional, primarily under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A three-judge federal district court held the requirement denied equal protection and enjoined its enforcement, relying chiefly on Hunter v. Erickson.
- State and local defendants appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether California’s constitutional requirement of a local referendum before approval of a low-rent public housing project violates the Equal Protection Clause by imposing a special political burden on low-income persons and their supporters.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld Article XXXIV.
- The Court held that requiring voter approval for low-rent public housing projects is a permissible use of the referendum process and does not, on this record, deny equal protection.
- The Court distinguished Hunter v. Erickson because Article XXXIV did not single out racial minorities or laws protecting racial minorities, and there was no showing of discriminatory racial purpose.
Legal Principles
- A state may allocate decision-making authority through referenda; the Constitution does not bar use of direct democracy mechanisms merely because they may affect political outcomes.
- Equal protection analysis turns on whether the law employs a suspect classification or reflects invidious discrimination; absent such showings, a more deferential review applies.
- A facially neutral requirement applicable to all low-rent public housing projects, without evidence it was enacted because of adverse effects on a racial minority, is not invalidated solely because it may burden certain groups more than others.
- Hunter v. Erickson is limited where the challenged process does not isolate racial minorities or uniquely burden anti-discrimination measures.
Conclusion
The Court upheld California’s mandatory local referendum for low-rent public housing projects, concluding that the state could require voter approval as a democratic control mechanism and that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated absent proof of suspect classification or discriminatory purpose.