## 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

1. 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.


James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137 (1971)