Article VI, 30, of the Missouri Constitution (hereafter 30) provides that the governments of the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County may be reorganized by a vote of the electorate upon a plan of reorganization drafted by a "board of freeholders." The State Circuit Court interpreted "freeholder" as not entailing a condition of property ownership and, with only a tentative discussion of the Equal Protection Clause, entered a declaratory judgment that 30 is valid both on its face and as applied to the present board of freeholders. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, but relied exclusively on its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and held that that Clause had no relevancy because the board does not exercise general governmental powers.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Pp. 101-104.

2. The Missouri Supreme Courts ruling that the Equal Protection Clause had no relevancy to the case because the board of freeholders exercises no general governmental power reflects a significant misreading of this Courts precedents. The fact that the board serves only to recommend a plan of reorganization to the voters and does not enact any laws of its own cannot immunize it from equal protection scrutiny. Pp. 104-106.

3. A land-ownership requirement for appointment to the board of freeholders violates the Equal Protection Clause, Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346; Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport District, 431 U.S. 159; it is a form of invidious discrimination to require land ownership of all appointees to a body authorized to propose reorganization of local government. Pp. 106-109.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Kevin M. OKeefe argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Charles W. Bobinette, Jess W. Ullom, and Murk D. Mittleman.

Simon B. Buckner, Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief [491 U.S. 95, 96] were William L. Webster, Attorney General, Thomas W. Wehrle, Andrew J. Minardi, and Eugene P. Freeman.*

[Footnote *] Stanley E. Goldstein, Kathleen L. Wilde, Laughlin McDonald, and Neil Bradley filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Constitution of the State of Missouri provides that the governments of the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County may be reorganized by a vote of the electorate of the city and county upon a plan of reorganization drafted by a "board of freeholders." Appellants contend that this provision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it requires that every member of this official board own real property. The Supreme Court of Missouri, without disputing appellants premise that ownership of real property is a prerequisite for appointment to the board of freeholders, ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause has no relevancy here" because the board "exercises no general governmental powers." 757 S. W. 2d 591, 595 (1988). This ruling reflects a significant misreading of our precedents, and, accordingly, we reverse.

In 1987, pursuant to Art. VI, 30, of the Missouri Constitution,1 a sufficient number of voters signed petitions "to [491 U.S. 95, 97] establish a board of St. Louis area property owners (freeholders)" to consider the reorganization of "governmental structures and responsibilities" for the city and county. App. 20, 30. As a result, under 30, the citys mayor and the county executive were required each to appoint nine members to this board, and the Governor was required to appoint one.2

After the mayor had chosen nine individuals based on several criteria, including a history of community service and demonstrated leadership ability, he was infor