Fort v. Dekle

Decision Date30 May 1939
Citation138 Fla. 871,190 So. 542
PartiesFORT v. DEKLE, Supervisor of Registration, et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Suit by A. M. Fort against John C. Dekle, as Supervisor of Registration, and others to enjoin compliance with statute relating to the registration of voters. From a decree for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

TERRELL C.J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, judge.

COUNSEL

Mabry Reaves, Carlton & White, of Tampa, for appellant.

John W Cone, Henry C. Tillman, and John J. Twoney, all of Tampa, for appellees.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

By Chapter 19128, Acts of the Legislature of 1937, re-registration of voters is required for all elections to be held in 1938 and subsequent years in the counties having a population of 150,000 or over according to the State census of 1935.

The appellant here was complainant in the court below and sought to enjoin compliance with this Act by the appellees.

The Bill of Complaint was dismissed and he prosecuted appeal from that decree.

It is the contention of the appellant here and it was in the lower court that chapter 18128, was enacted in violation of Section 21, Article III of Constitution of Florida as amended in 1928, and for that reason is void and non-enforceable. Section 21, Article III of the Constitution is, inter alia, as follows:

'In all cases enumerated in the preceding section all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State, but in all cases not enumerated or excepted in that section, the Legislature may pass special or local laws except as now or hereafter otherwise provided in the Constitution; Provided, that no local or special bill shall be passed, unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published in the locality where the matter or thing to be affected may be situated, which notice shall state the substance of the contemplated law, and shall be published at least thirty days prior to the introduction, into the Legislature of such bill, and in the manner to be provided by law. The evidence that such notice has been published shall be established in the Legislature before such bill shall be passed by having affidavit of proof of publication attached to the proposed bill when the same is introduced in either branch of the legislature, and which such affidavit constituting proof of publication shall be entered in full upon the journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which entries shall immediately follow the journal entry showing the introduction of the bill.' * * *

Section 1 of Chapter 18128, supra, provides as follows:

'In all Counties of the State of Florida having a population of 150,000 or over, according to the State Census A. D. 1935, the County Commissioners shall provide for a complete re-registration in the Year A. D. 1938, and each General Election Year thereafter, of all Voters who intend to qualify and vote in any Primary, General or Special
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Walker v. Pendarvis, 40041
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1961
    ...obligate themselves for expending, for such designated purposes.'14 Crandon v. Hazlett, 1946, 157 Fla. 574, 26 So.2d 638; Fort v. Dekle, 1939, 138 Fla. 871, 190 So. 542; State ex rel. Coleman v. York, 1939, 139 Fla. 300, 190 So. ...
  • City of Miami v. McGrath
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 11, 2002
    ...the statute is no different than if it had identified by name the three particular cities to which it relates. See Fort v. Dekle, 138 Fla. 871, 190 So. 542 (1939); Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So.2d 186 (Fla.1961); Ocala Breeders' Sales Company, Inc. v. Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., 731 So.2d 2......
  • McGRATH III v. City of Miami
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 11, 2001
    ...the statute is no different than if it had identified by name the three particular cities to which it relates. See Fort v. Dekle, 138 Fla. 871, 190 So. 542 (1939); Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1961); Ocala Breeders' Sales Company, Inc. v. Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., 731 So.2d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT