An amendment of a city charter prohibiting racial discrimination except if decided by popular vote discriminates against minorities, and constitute a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The question in the case was "whether the City of Akron, Ohio, has denied [a black citizen] the equal protection of its laws by amending the city charter to prevent the city council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing without the approval of the majority of the voters of Akron."
The Court held an amendment of a city charter to discriminate against minorities, and constitute a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This amendment provided that an ordinance enacted by the city council would not be effective unless approved by a majority of the city voters at a regular or general election, and that any such ordinance in effect at the time of the charter amendment shall cease to be effective until approved by the voters, a fair housing ordinance having in fact been previously enacted by the city council; that ordinance dealt with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing.
The amendment discriminated and violated the equal protection of the laws since, under the city's general system of enacting ordinances, an ordinance was effective a specified time after passage by the city council unless 10 percent of the voters petitioned for a referendum, and the amendment of the charter not only suspended the operation of the existing ordinance forbidding housing discrimination, but also made an explicit racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial matters or other housing matters and made it more difficult to secure enactment of ordinances subject to the amendment, it being immaterial that the amendment drew no distinctions among racial and religious groups, since the amendment disadvantaged those who would benefit from laws barring racial, religious, or ancestral discriminations as against those who would bar other discriminations or who would otherwise regulate the real-estate market in their favor, and since the reality is that the law's impact falls on the minority and places special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process.
Background
Ohio law
The Akron City Council in 1964 enacted a fair housing ordinance premised on a recognition of the social and economic losses to society which flow from substandard, ghetto housing and its tendency to breed discrimination and segregation contrary to the policy of the city to "assure equal opportunity to all persons to live in decent housing facilities regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin." Akron Ordinance No. 873-1964 § 1. A Commission on Equal Opportunity in Housing was established by the ordinance in the office of the Mayor to enforce the antidiscrimination sections of the ordinance through conciliation or persuasion if possible, but, if not, then through "such order as the facts warrant," based upon a hearing at which witnesses may be subpoenaed, and entitled to enforcement in the courts. Akron Ordinance No. 873-1964, as amended by Akron Ordinance No. 926-1964.
Charter amendment
Thereafter, a proposal for an amendment to the city charter, which had been placed on the ballot by petition, was passed.
It provided that any ordinance (including any in effect) which regulates the use, sale, advertisement, transfer, listing assignment, lease, sublease, or financing of real property on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry must first be approved by a majority of the voters before becoming effective.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4112.02(H) and 4112.02(H)(1) (1967) makes it unlawful for "any person" to refuse to sell or otherwise deny or withhold commercial housing from any person because of the race or color of the prospective owner. "Commercial housing" is defined to exclude any personal residence offered for sale or rent by the owner or by his broker, salesman, agent, or employee. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112.01(K) (1967). The statute makes it unlawful to print, publish, or circulate any statement or advertisement relating to the sale of a personal residence that indicates any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based upon race. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112.02(H)(6) (1967).
Housing commission complaint
Seeking to invoke this machinery which had been established by the city for her benefit, Nellie Hunter addressed a complaint to the Commission asserting that a real estate agent had come to show her a list of houses for sale, but that on meeting Mrs. Hunter the agent "stated that she could not show me any of the houses on the list she had prepared for me because all of the owners had specified they did not wish their houses shown to negroes."
A buyer filed a complaint with the housing commission, asserting that she was denied equal housing opportunity in violation of the fair housing ordinance because she was black.
Commission's response
The commission refused to process the complaint because of the charter amendment. Mrs. Hunter's affidavit met with the reply that the fair housing ordinance was unavailable to her because of the charter amendment; the proposal for the charter amendment had been placed on the ballot at a general election upon petition of more than 10% of Akron's voters, and the amendment had been duly passed by a majority.
This amendment provided:
Any ordinance enacted by the Council of The City of Akron which regulates the use, sale, advertisement, transfer, listing assignment, lease, sublease or financing of real property of any kind or of any interest therein on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a regular or general election before said ordinance shall be effective. Any such ordinance in effect at the time of the adoption of this section shall cease to be effective until approved by the electors as provided herein.
Akron City Charter § 137.
Court complaint
Appellant then brought an action in the Ohio courts on behalf of the municipality, herself, and all others similarly situated, to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the Mayor to convene the Commission and to require the Commission and the Director of Law to enforce the fair housing ordinance and process her complaint thereunder with regard to her unsuccessful attempts to purchase a house through a real-estate agent.
First trial court decision
The trial court initially held that the enforcement provisions of the ordinance were invalid under state law.
However, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded. (State ex rel. Hunter v. Erickson 6 Ohio St 2d 130, 35 Ohio Ops 2d 151, 216 NE2d 371 (1966)).
Second trial court decision
On remand, the trial court held that the fair housing ordinance had been rendered ineffective by a subsequent amendment of the city charter which provided that any ordinance enacted by the city council dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing was not to be effective unless approved by a majority of the city voters at a regular or general election, and that any such ordinance in effect at the time of the charter amendment ceased to be effective until approved by the voters.
The trial court denied appellant's housing discrimination complaint, holding that the fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by the charter amendment.
Ohio Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the trial court's ruling that a city's fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by a charter amendment, holding that the charter amendment was not repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. (12 Ohio St 2d 116, 47 Ohio Ops 2d 100, 233 NE2d 129).
Certiorari and arguments
The case was argued on November 13, 1968.
Opinion of the Court
On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed 8–1. Justice White wrote the opinion of the Court. The case was decided on January 20, 1969.
White wrote that the city charter amendment discriminated against minorities and constituted a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, since, under the city's general system of enacting ordinances, an ordinance was effective a specified time after passage by the city council unless 10 percent of the voters petitioned for a referendum, and the amendment of the charter not only suspended the operation of the existing fair housing ordinance, but also made an explicit racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial matters and other housing matters, and made it more difficult to secure enactment of ordinances subject to the amendment, placing special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process.
The Supreme Court held that the charter discriminated against minorities, and constituted a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73, and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112 et seq. were related to open housing, they were not intended to preempt local housing ordinances or provide rights and remedies that were effective substitutes for the ordinance. The case could not be considered moot since the ordinance provided an enforcement mechanism unmatched by either state or federal legislation. The city charter placed special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process, which was not permissible. The mayor was subject to those constitutional limitations that had been duly adopted and remain unrepealed.
Held:
1. The case is not moot. Neither the 1968 Civil Rights Act (which specifically preserves local fair housing laws), nor the 1866 Civil Rights Act, was intended to pre-empt local housing ordinances; the Ohio Act of October 30, 1965 (which concerns "commercial" housing), does not apply to this case; and the Akron ordinance provides an enforcement mechanism unmatched by either state or federal legislation. pp.388–389.
2. The charter amendment contains an explicitly racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial and housing matters and places special burdens on racial and religious minorities within the governmental process by making it more difficult for them to secure legislation on their behalf. pp.389–391.
3. Racial classifications "bear a heavier burden of justification" than other classifications, and here Akron has not justified its discrimination against minorities, which constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws. pp.391–393.
Concurrence
Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart, concurred, stating that he joined in the court's opinion, and that the charter amendment was not an attempt to allocate governmental power on the basis of any general or neutral principle, but had the clear purpose of making it more difficult for certain racial and religious minorities to achieve legislation that was in their interest.
Dissent
Justice Black dissented, expressing the view that there was no constitutional provision barring a state from repealing a law, and that the equal protection clause did not empower the court to decide that the fair housing ordinance could not be repealed by the city charter amendment.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. It is also "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history."
A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The variations in the pertinent language are as follows: The Thirteenth Amendment leaves out the word "the", the Fourteenth Amendment states "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." In addition to the amendments above, the Eighteenth Amendment states "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is a landmark law in the United States signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots.
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot proposition that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5-2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.
The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights is a consortium of American law firms in Chicago that provides legal services in civil rights cases
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional because there was no proof that "discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the Village's decision."
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Michigan may face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan, as is same-sex marriage. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not explicitly banned within state law. However, a ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and a decision of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission have ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Ohio may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Ohio, and same-sex marriage has been legally recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. Ohio statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal in 2020. In addition, a number of Ohio cities have passed anti-discrimination ordinances providing protections in housing and public accommodations. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities. In December 2020, a federal judge invalidated an unconstitutional law banning sex changes on an individual's birth certificate within Ohio.
Housing discrimination in the United States refers to the historical and current barriers, policies, and biases that prevent equitable access to housing. Housing discrimination became more pronounced after the abolition of slavery, typically as part of Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation. The federal government began to take action against these laws in 1917, when the Supreme Court struck down ordinances prohibiting blacks from occupying or owning buildings in majority-white neighborhoods in Buchanan v. Warley. However, the federal government as well as local governments continued to be directly responsible for housing discrimination through redlining and race-restricted covenants until the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky have most of the same rights as non-LGBT persons have, but still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kentucky. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the ruling was put on hold pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Same sex-marriage is now legal in the state under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and all other same sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.
The Human Rights Commission of Austin (Texas) was established on October 5, 1967, by the City of Austin Ordinance 671005-B. The current version of the ordinance can be found at Section 2-1-148 of The Code of the City of Austin, Texas.
Housing inequalities in Ohio relate to the historic and continuing factors that prevent predominantly people of color from accessing safe and affordable housing. It is self evident that income inequality is the single biggest factor that prevents the purchase of a major asset like a house. Restrictive zoning laws, market forces, job insecurity, lack of savings, and the credit ratings of first home buyers, all play pivotal roles in the overall problem of displacement, exclusion and segregation. Ohio retains a large amount of housing specifically in highly concentrated areas such as Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus, which rate in the top 21 cities of racial segregation in the U.S.
Amendment 2 was a ballot measure approved by Colorado voters on November 3, 1992, simultaneously with the United States presidential election. The amendment prevented municipalities from passing anti-discrimination laws protecting gay, lesbian, or bisexual people.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
