Equal Protection Clause Pros And Cons

Overall the proposed ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection through the use of a rigid quota system for hiring and the lack of past discrimination to remedy. Each clause in the ordinance gives a strict quota based on either race, gender, religion or wealth and education. By only allowing a specific designated number of seats for a non-preferred groups is a violation of the equal protection clause because it gives those in the preferred group unfair advantage. This principle was established in the Bakke majority opinion that states those who do not meet the quota requirements are, “never afforded the chance to compete with applicants from the preferred groups for special admission seats.” The reserved seat are off limits to those outside
Generally class based discrimination is allowed in the Equal protection clause, the state must first prove that their is “some rational relationship to a permissible object sought to be obtained by the statute.” The Equal Protection clause is meant to protect any classes from any unfair treatment. There cannot be any clearly denied benefits without a substantial reason. Typically, this is a protection for the lower class that is often seen as suspect class that is not given equal opportunities as someone in the upper class. The ordinance gives a very specific quota that can be seen as a disadvantage to those with a higher income, since there are three seats that they are not able to obtain. This may count as invidious discrimination, though is unlikely because the primary goal of the ordinance is to achieve a diversity which can be a permissible objective. By capping the number of upper class members on the zoning board it gives greater opportunity to those who are underrepresented and under usual circumstances are not afforded the chance to participate on the Zoning