Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County
Citation | 104 So.2d 636 |
Parties | DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellants, and Richard W. Ervin, as Attorney General of the State of Florida; Richard E. Gerstein, as State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida; Thomas Edward Walsh and The Young Republican Club of Miami; and Murray H. Dubbin, Intervening Appellants, v. YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF DADE COUNTY and Gerard Pucci, Appellees, and G. O. P. Campaign Committee of Dade County, Inc., and The Dade County Young Republican Club, Inc., Intervening Appellees. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellants, and Richard W. Ervin, as Attorney General of the State of Florida; Richard E. Gerstein, as State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit; Thomas Edward Walsh and The Young Republican Club of Miami, Intervening Appellants, v. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF DADE COUNTY, By and Through the Dade County Democratic Executive Committee, Appellees. |
Decision Date | 25 July 1958 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Darrey A. Davis, Miami, for Dade County, and its Board of County Com'rs, Supervisor of Registration and Clerk of the Board of County Com'rs, appellants.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, Miami, as State Atty. of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, intervening appellants, pro se.
John C. Whitehouse, Miami, for Thomas Edward Walsh, Miami, and Young Republican Club of Miami, intervening appellant.
Phillip Schiff, Miami, for Murray H. Dubbin, intervening appellant.
Johnson E. Davis, Miami, and Milton Mamber, Miami Beach, for Democratic Party of Dade County, by and through the Dade County Democratic Executive Committee.
Ronald M. Eefting and A. Dan Killian, Jr., Miami, for Young Democratic Club of Dade County, and Gerard Pucci, appellees.
Albert E. Schrader, Jr., Coral Gables, for G. O. P. Campaign Committee of Dade County, Inc., and Dade County Young Republican Club, Inc., intervening appellees.
Appellees filed complaint for declaratory decree in the appropriate court challenging the constitutional validity of §§ 2.03 and 2.04, Home Rule Charter, hereinafter referred to as the Charter, which provide for the non-partisan election of county commissioners of Dade County. The answer of appellants concedes that the non-partisan provisions of the Charter are in conflict with the general election laws but they say that Section 11, Article VIII of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., expressly authorizes the electors of Dade County to adopt a charter providing for a method of electing county commissioners in a manner different from that provided in the general election laws. The answer prayed for final decree adjudicating that all charter provisions relating to the election of county commissioners in Dade County were adopted in accordance with the authority granted by Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution.
The Attorney General of Florida, the State Attorney of Dade County, Thomas Edward Walsh, The Young Republican Club of Miami and Murray H. Dubbin were permitted to intervene as parties defendant. They adopted the answer of Dade County. The G. O. P. Campaign Committee of Dade County, Inc., and the Dade County Republican Club, Inc., were permitted to intervene as parties plaintiff. They adopted the complaint of appellees. The cause was then consolidated with a similar suit brought by the Democratic Party of Dade County for the purpose of trial which was conducted on the issues made by the complaint and answer of Dade County, Its Board of County Commissioners and Supervisor of Registration.
At the conclusion of the trial the Chancellor entered an indentical final decree in both cases wherein he decreed §§ 2.03 and 2.04 of the Charter to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined Dade County and its Board of County Commissioners and Supervisor of Registration from holding or conducting any non-partisan election of county commissioners and from enforcing or attempting to enforce any of the provisions of §§ 2.03 and 2.04 of the Charter. The final decree ordered all candidates for the office of county commissioner to comply with the general election laws governing the qualification and election of county officers. The final decree also decreed all other provisions of the Charter to be valid. Dade County, its Supervisor of Registration and its Board of County Commissioners have appealed from the final decree.
The point for determination is whether or not the Chancellor committed error in decreeing §§ 2.03 and 2.04 of the Charter to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
In addition to paragraphs 2.03 and 2.04 of the Charter, the answer to this question involves consideration of Section 11, Article VIII, Constitution of Florida, better known as Dade County Home Rule Amendment, which provides:
'(a) Shall fix the boundaries of each county commission district, provide a method for changing them from time to time, and fix the number, terms and compensation of the commissioners, and their method of election.'
Sections 2.03 and 2.04 of the Charter provide:
'Section 2.03 Non-Partisan Elections.
'Section 2.04 Qualifications and Filing Fee.
The Charter with said provision was adopted by the electors of Dade County May 21, 1957. It was considered by this court in Chase v. Cowart, Fla., 102 So.2d 147, 150, wherein, among other things, we said:
It follows that in the exercise of legislative power granted by the Charter, the electors of Dade County were prohibited from infringing on the supremacy of the Florida Constitution and the general laws of Florida 'except as expressly authorized' by specific grants of power given them by Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution, relating to home rule in local affairs for Dade County. The 'specific grants' involved here are contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
It is clear that under paragraph (a), above quoted, the electors of Dade County are authorized to fix the boundaries of each commissioner's district, to provide a method for changing the boundaries of such districts, fix the number, terms, and compensation of said commissioners and to provide a 'method of election' of county commissioners.
Interpretation of the 'method of election,' detailed in § 2.03, quoted herein, precipitated this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Cobb
...to have nonpartisan elections to certain offices does not appear to violate equal protection principles. Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, 104 So.2d 636 (Fla.1958); Fisher v. Masters, 59 Idaho 366, 83 P.2d 212 (1938); Koelsch v. Girard, 54 Idaho 452, 33 P.2d 816 (1934); S......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. City of Miami
...to the Governor, 116 So.2d 425 (Fla.1959); Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, 108 So.2d 468 (Fla.1958); Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, 104 So.2d 636 (Fla.1958); City of Sweetwater v. Dade County, 343 So.2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Church v. D......
-
State ex rel. Dade County v. Dickinson
...of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547 (Fla.1959); Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, 108 So.2d 468 (Fla.1958); Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, 104 So.2d 636 (Fla.1958); and Dade County v. Kelly, 99 So.2d 856 (Fla.1957). These cases, when read in conjunction with the constitutio......
-
State v. Dade County
...from their consolidation of errors assigned in the two causes.2 Chase v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 147.3 Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 636.4 Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 108 So.2d 468.5 State v. Dade County, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 881. ......
-
The case for fiscal home rule.
...at 99 (1991). (6) Perhaps as dramatically, the Supreme Court of Florida declared in Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, 104 So. 2d 636, 640 (Fla. "In a democracy like ours, the people are the source of all law. Executives, legislators and judges exist because it is impracti......