Crowells v. Petersen
| Decision Date | 04 March 1960 |
| Citation | 118 So.2d 539 |
| Parties | E. J. CROWELLS, Appellant, v. George C. PETERSEN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ralph R. Quillian, Hollywood, for appellant.
John U. Lloyd, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Wilson W. Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen., amicus curiae.
The sole question presented on this appeal is the validity of that portion of F.S. § 99.021, F.S.A. requiring every candidate for nomination to any office to take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing stating that he did not register as a member of any other political party during the two years immediately preceding the date of said oath.
Appellant, a prospective candidate who registered within the two year period, urges that such requirement is capricious, arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to any object within the competency of the State of effect and that it places an unconstitutional requirement upon his right to become a candidate for public office. The trial court upheld the validity of the statute, thereby vesting this Court with jurisdiction to review such matter on direct appeal. 1
No useful purpose would be served by an extended opinion in this case. The principles involved are identical to and are controlled by those which were considered by this Court in Mairs v. Peters, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 793. In that case this Court held that the requirement of the party loyalty oath under the then existing statute was a reasonable legislative regulation and did not contravene any requirements of the Federal or State Constitution. The requirement of two years' registration within the party as a condition precedent to becoming a candidate of that party is, in our judgment, a reasonable regulation. It contributes directly to the maintenance of party loyalty and a perpetuation of the party system which the courts have universally held to be essential to the preservation and perpetuation of our political life.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Billings v. City of Point Pleasant
...prevent voter confusion. See, e.g., American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Crowells v. Petersen, 118 So.2d 539 (Fla.1960); State ex rel. Thatcher v. Brodigan, 37 Nev. 458, 142 P. 520 The interest of the State "in the stability of its political ......
-
Wright v. City of Miami Gardens
...orderly and effective elections; it does not serve to maintain party loyalty and perpetuate the party system, cf. Crowells v. Petersen, 118 So.2d 539 (Fla.1960). The barrier it erects is an unnecessary restraint on one's right to seek elective office. Noteworthy is the fact that this restri......
-
Jones v. Schiller
...v. Petersen , which rejected another constitutional challenge by a prospective candidate who objected to executing the oath. 118 So. 2d 539, 539 (Fla. 1960). And in Driver v. Adams , the Court rebuffed yet another attempt to invalidate the oath requirement. 196 So. 2d 916, 916 (Fla. 1967). ......
-
Bodner v. Gray, 30883
...conclusions as to the necessity of party regulations in the democratic society in which we live. In the later case of Crowells v. Petersen, Fla.1960, 118 So.2d 539, where we were confronted with an attack upon the constitutionality of 99.021, Florida Statutes (1957), requiring every candida......