tried to tell 'em
Louisiana Law Review
Volume 30 | Number 2
The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the
1968-1969 Term: A Symposium
February 1970
Property Ownership and the Right to Vote: The
Compelling State Interest Test
R. Bradley Lewis
This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.
Repository Citation
R. Bradley Lewis, Property Ownership and the Right to Vote: The Compelling State Interest Test, 30 La. L. Rev. (1970)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol30/iss2/22
NOTES
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE:
THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST
An election in which only property taxpayers could vote was
held to approve the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the
expansion and improvement of the city-owned utility system.
Appellant, who did not own property, sued to enjoin the issuance
of the bonds and for a declaratory judgment that limitation of
the right to vote to property taxpayers is unconstitutional. A
three-judge federal district court found the election constitu-
tional.' On direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court held
that such a denial of the right to vote is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Cipriano v. City
of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) .2
In a similar case, New York law provided that in the area
in question the school board was to be elected at an annual meet-
ing of qualified school district voters. To qualify as such, an
otherwise qualified voter had to (1) own or lease taxable real
property, (2) be the spouse of one who owns or leases real
property, or (3) be the parent or guardian of a child in school.
Appellant, a 31-year-old college-educated bachelor who lived
with his parents, was denied the right to vote for the school board.
He challenged the constitutionality of the voting requirements in
a three-judge federal district court which held the requirements
valid.3 The United States Supreme Court held that the require-
ments were a denial of equal protection. Kramer v. Union Free
School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969).
The right to vote is said to be a fundamental right.4 How-
ever, it is not usually thought of as a "natural" nor "inalienable"
nor "universal" right.5 Despite the fact that parts of the original
https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3658&context=lalrev
sex ed. lesson #1