Reitman v. Mulkey (p. 1168)

 The California Constitution was amended by the voters to provide private landowners the right to discriminate in their "absolute discretion."

Here is what the amendment provided: "“Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.” (casebook p. 1168-1169)

Does this amendment, which authorizes private owners of residential real property to discriminate on the basis of race or any other basis, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Although the state is not required to enact laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing, is a constitutional amendment that was intended to authorize private racial discrimination unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court says yes, the amendment is unconstitutional because, by making the "right to discriminate one of the basic policies of the State," it "will significantly encourage and involve the state in private discrimination." Casebook p. 1171.