In the case of Cipriano v. City of Houma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a Louisiana law was unconstitutional because it allowed only property taxpayers to vote on bond issues related to revenue-producing utilities owned by municipalities. The court held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it excluded non-property owners from voting on public matters which they were equally subject to and could be affected by. This decision expanded upon previous rulings regarding voter discrimination based on wealth or tax status, further establishing equal voting rights for all citizens regardless of their economic standing.

In the dissenting opinion for CIPriano v. City of Houma, Justice Harlan argued that the Court's decision to invalidate a Louisiana statute was an overreach of judicial power and a violation of states' rights. He contended that it is not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to interfere with state decisions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles or infringe on individual liberties. In this case, he believed there was no such infringement as only property taxpayers were allowed to vote in bond elections because they are directly affected by changes in tax rates resulting from these elections. The majority’s ruling, according to him, disregarded long-standing traditions and practices regarding local government finance without sufficient justification or evidence demonstrating their unconstitutionality.