Fact Pattern/Question:

State X has a voter referendum process where voters can place an issue on the ballot in a city or state election if certain requirements are met. For city elections, state law permits cities to establish the requirements. Plaintiff resides in Duncan City in State X. Plaintiff is Black and lives in Ward 2 of the city, where residents are primarily Black or Latino and live in apartments. Recently, landlords in Ward 2 have been evicting residents in order to tear down the apartment buildings and build expensive condos and townhouses in their place that current residents cannot afford. Plaintiff wanted to put a referendum on the ballot for the next city election that prohibited landlords from taking these actions.

Plaintiff obtained signatures on a petition from ten percent of Ward 2 city residents (500 signatures) who approved of putting the referendum on the ballot and presented the information to the Duncan City Council for inclusion on the ballot in the next city election. City Council voted against including it on the ballot on the grounds that plaintiff needed to obtain signatures from ten percent of all city residents (5,000 signatures), not just ten percent or 500 signatures from Ward 2 residents. During that same meeting, City Council approved a different referendum for inclusion on the ballot without meeting the ten percent requirement. A White city resident proposed the referendum, which suggested a change in the zoning requirements in Ward 3 of the city, an affluent area where most residents are White.

Discuss the equal protection issues.

Issue statement:

Did City Council violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Legal standards/rule statement:

Equal protection applies when the government treats similarly situated people differently. There is a potential equal protection claim here because City Council appears to be treating similarly situated people (city voters) differently based on race or national origin regarding voting on a referendum. Governmental action that intentionally discriminates against a suspect class or significantly burdens a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny. Here, both suspect classifications and fundamental rights are involved.

Suspect Classification - Intentional Discrimination

Suspect classifications include race and national origin. Plaintiff has the burden to prove that City Council intentionally discriminated based on race or national origin, which can include selective enforcement of facially neutral laws or requirements. If Plaintiff shows a substantial disparate impact on race or national origin in the administration or enforcement of a law or requirement, then the burden shifts to the government to show that the effect was inadvertent and caused by racially neutral factors.

Suspect Classification Analysis:

Provide your analysis here.

Suspect Classification Conclusion:

State your conclusion here.

Legal standards/rule statement: Suspect Classification - Strict Scrutiny

When intentional discrimination against a suspect class is established, the governmental action is presumed unconstitutional, and the government must prove that its actions were necessary or narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest. That means that City Council must establish that its actions of enforcing the signature requirement for Plaintiff's referendum and not for the other referendum were necessary to meet a compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny Analysis:

Provide your analysis here.

Strict Scrutiny Conclusion:

State your conclusion here.

Legal standards/rule statement: Fundamental Right

Governmental actions that significantly or unduly burden the right to vote are subject to strict scrutiny. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that City Council's actions significantly or unduly burdened their right to vote. If Plaintiff does so, then City Council must prove that it meets strict scrutiny requirements. Significantly or unduly burden means that the burden on the right is more than incidental.

Fundamental Right Analysis:

Provide your analysis here.

Fundamental Right Conclusion:

State your conclusion here.