E. A. Dee Bogert and Ruth Marion Rogers V‪.‬

This case presents for our consideration the alleged unconstitutionality of provisions of our Constitution and statutes which
authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds by subdivisions of government only upon the assent of two-thirds of the
qualified electors voting at an election held for that purpose. The lower court held, and it is contended here, that such
a requirement is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
that the assent of a simple majority should be sufficient to authorize the issuance of such bonds. It is contended that such
two-thirds majority requirement gives each negative voter greater voting power than an affirmative voter, that it, therefore,
debases the vote of an affirmative voter and is offensive to the principle of "one man, one vote." We hold that the two-thirds
assent requirement is not offensive to the Equal Protective Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and reverse the judgment of the district court. Article 8, § 3, of the Idaho Constitution provides: