Gordon v. Lance
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 1 (1971)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Lance (defendant) was one of a group of voters who had voted in favor of both a bond measure and a tax levy in Roane County, West Virginia’s 1968 election. Both votes ended with “yes” votes receiving more than 50 percent but less than 60 percent of the vote. West Virginia’s constitution and laws established that West Virginia counties could not increase tax rates or incur bonded indebtedness unless 60 percent of voters supported such measures in a legislative referendum. Lance thus sued Gordon (plaintiff) on behalf of the state, seeking a ruling that the 60 percent requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The trial court dismissed Lance’s complaint, but the West Virginia Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, holding that the 60 percent requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gordon then appealed to the US Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. Lance argued that the heightened vote requirement discriminated against those who supported the measures, while Gordon maintained that the state had the right to shape the required consensus as it had in this matter. Prior cases tended to focus on geographic limitations of voters or on housing cases involving discrimination based on protected classes like race, religion, or ancestry.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.