Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, 49937
| Decision Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 49937,49937 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 805 |
| Parties | DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Bruce SMATHERS, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Larry Levy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arnold L. Greenfield, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Jack Shreve, Gen. Counsel, David E. Cardwell, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jack W. Pierce and S. Sherman Weiss, Tallahassee, for respondents.
Donald M. Middlebrooks, Orlando, for Reubin O'D. Askew, as Governor of the State of Florida, intervening petitioner.
We have before us an original proceeding in mandamus brought by the Division of Bond Finance of the Department of General Services, the Governor, as the Chairman of the Governing Board of the Division of Bond Finance and the State Treasurer, as Treasurer of the Governing Board of the Division of Bond Finance, against the Secretary of State, the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Natural Resources, questioning the constitutional validity of the following proviso which appears after Item 853 in Section 1 of the General Appropriations Act, Chapter 76--285, Laws of Florida:
'Provided that any future sales of general obligation bonds for environmentally endangered lands shall have as the first priority the repayment of monies expended for debt service from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund.'
On June 30, 1976, the Governor vetoed the above proviso because he had been advised through a 'Letter of Intent' from the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the House Appropriations Committee that it had been mistakenly included in the General Appropriations Act as the result of a drafting error and because he questioned the constitutional validity of the proviso. Article III, Section 8(a) of the Florida Constitution gives the Governor veto power over specific appropriations in general appropriations bills, but prohibits him from vetoing any qualification or restriction without vetoing the specific appriation to which it relates. Fearing that the proviso could be construed as a 'qualification' or 'restriction' which would raise an issue of the validity of the veto, in turn casting doubt over the legality of the Act's appropriations for debt service to which the proviso relates and concerned that such doubt would adversely affect the Environmentally Endangered Lands Bond Program and agreements with the federal government for cooperative acquisition of environmentally endangered lands, the Governor and Cabinet authorized the Division of Bond Finnce to initiate proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the proviso or to declare valid the Governor's veto. Because a proceeding in circuit court followed by appellate litigation might entail harmful delay, the Division brought an original action for mandamus in this Court.
The petition for mandamus requests this Court to command the Secretary of State to expunge the proviso from the 'official acts of the legislative department' because it is invalid under the Florida Constitution, or, in the alternative, to determine that the Governor's veto of the proviso is constitutionally effective, under either alternative, thereby preventing the Department of Natural Resources and its Director from applying proceeds of State bonds in the manner of the proviso.
Ordinarily the initial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute should be made before a trial court. However, the remedy of mandamus has been awarded by this Court in original actions before in order to expunge unconstitutional language from a General Appropriations Act. Dickinson v. Stone, 251 So.2d 268 (Fla.1971). Dickinson provides that the standard for such an award is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Butterworth
...This Court has previously addressed the constitutionality of legislative acts through its mandamus authority. See Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, 337 So.2d 805 (Fla.1976). Accordingly, we treat all of the petitions filed here as petitions for writs of mandamus. While this Court has en......
-
Fine v. Firestone
...the functions of government would be adversely affected without an immediate determination of the issue. E.g., Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, 337 So.2d 805 (Fla.1976); Dickinson v. Stone, 251 So.2d 268 (Fla.1971); also cf. Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla.1980). However, such c......
-
Brown v. Firestone
...expenditure of the money appropriated. As noted previously, Governor Graham claims in part, as did Governor Askew in Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, supra, that he has power to veto an unconstitutional qualification or restriction in an appropriations bill without vetoing the specific......
-
Harvard v. Singletary
...surrounding the governor's vetoes to be an important issue justifying the Court's exercise of discretion), and Division of Bond Fin. v. Smathers, 337 So.2d 805, 807 (Fla.1976)(exercising writ jurisdiction due to the importance of immediately determining the constitutionality of the current ......
-
Evaluating proviso in the state budget: is the Florida Legislature complying with the Constitution?
...See id. (41) See id. (42) See id. (43) See Brown, 382 So. 2d at 662; Dickinson, 251 So. 2d at 270; Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, 337 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. (44) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.040(c). (45) See Dickinson, 251 So. 2d at 270. (46) See id at 271. (47 See id. (48) See id.; Florida ......