Gray v. Winthrop
| Decision Date | 07 July 1934 |
| Citation | 115 Fla. 721,156 So. 270 |
| Parties | GRAY, Secretary of State v. WINTHROP et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Suit by Francis B. Winthrop and another against R. A. Gray, and Secretary of State of the State of Florida. From a decree denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and granting complainants a temporary injunction, respondent appeals.
Reversed.
BUFORD J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; J. B. Johnson, Judge.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Pleus, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellant.
Watson & Pasco & Brown, of Pensacola, for appellees.
W. H Poe, of Orlando, as amicus curiae.
This suit was brought by citizen taxpayers, one of whom owns homestead real estate in Tallahassee, while both complainants own nonhomestead real estate in, but they do not reside in, Special Tax School District No. 3 in Leon County, Fla.
The object of the suit is to enjoin the secretary of state from performing a ministerial duty prescribed by law as a part of the procedure in submitting to the electors of the state a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, under article 17 of the Constitution of Florida (section 1).
The appeal is from a decree denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and temporarily enjoining the secretary of state from publishing and furnishing copies for use in submitting to the voters at the next general election for adoption or rejection the following amendment to the state Constitution, which was proposed by the Legislature at its 1933 session:
'House Joint Resolution No. 20. A joint resolution proposing an Amendment to Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Florida by adding thereto an additional section to be known as 'Section 7' relating to Homestead and Exemptions.
'Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
If adopted, this amendment will modify section 1, art. 9, as well as section 1, art. 10, if not also other sections of the state Constitution. See Board v. Board, 58 Fla. 391, 50 So. 574. It cannot modify, but will be subject to applicable provisions of, the Federal Constitution.
Section 16, art. 3, Florida Constitution, relates to the title of 'each law enacted in the Legislature,' and has no application to legislative proposals of amendments to the Constitution. The title to a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the state Constitution is not controlled by section 16, art. 3. See 12 C.J. 693.
Section 1, art. 17, Constitution, provides that: 'Either branch of the Legislature, at a regular session thereof, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and if the same be agreed to by three-fifths of all the members elected to each House, such proposed amendments shall be entered upon their respective journals with the yeas and nays, and published,' etc. This is the specific organic provision which controls, and it is not claimed that this requirement was not complied with.
It is not charged that the contemplated amendment to the Constitution has not been duly proposed by the requisite vote of each House of the Legislature, as in Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 916; but it is contended that the contents of the proposed amendment violate stated provisions of the paramount Federal Constitution, and that consequently the ministerial acts of the secretary of state with reference to the submission of the proposed amendment to the electors of the state for adoption or rejection were properly enjoined by the circuit judge.
For the appellant it is argued that the court had no authority to enjoin the submission of the amendment to the electors as required by the Constitution because the amendment was duly proposed by the Legislature and it does not violate federal law.
Section 1, art. 10 of the present Constitution provides for a homestead exemption in real estate 'owned by the head of a family residing in this State,' but expressly provides that such property shall not 'be exempt from sale for taxes or assessments.'
The resolution here considered proposes to amend the Constitution by adding a section 7 to article 10 providing for a general organic exemption from all taxation, other than special assessments for benefits, of homestead real estate as defined by article 10, up to the valuation of $5,000, when the title to such homestead real estate is vested in the 'head of a family who is a citizen of and resides in the State of Florida,' or when such title is vested in his lawful wife residing upon such homestead or in both husband and wife.
The language of the amendment does not express or imply an intent that such general exemption of homesteads from taxation shall operate to violate any provision of the paramount Federal Constitution, and it must be assumed, in the absence of express terms to the contrary, that the exemption amendment was intended to be operative in accord with such dominant federal law, to be made effective whenever its operation does not violate the supreme law of the land. See section 2, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution; paragraphs 2 and 3, art. 6, Federal Constitution; section 2, art. 16; and section 3, art. 6, Florida Constitution. 12 C.J. 800. See Davis v. Florida Power Co., 64 Fla. 246, 60 So. 759, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 965.
If a proposed amendment to the state Constitution by its terms specifically and necessarily violates a command or limitation of the Federal Constitution, a ministerial duty of an administrative officer, that is a part of the prescribed legal procedure for submitting such proposed amendment to the electorate of the state for adoption or rejection, may be enjoined at the suit of proper parties in order to avoid the expense of submission, when the amendment, if adopted, would palpably violate the paramount law and would inevitably be futile and nugatory and incapable of being made operative under any conditions or circumstances. But if a duly proposed amendment to the Constitution may, if adopted, conceivably be valid in part or as applied to some conditions, its submission to the voters should not be enjoined, because in such a case the State has a right to the submission and, if it is adopted, to the operation of the amendment as far as it may legally be made effective.
If it is not clearly shown that by its terms the proposed amendment to the state Constitution, as an entirety, expressly and specifically violates some command or limitation of the Federal Constitution so as to render it wholly void, or that the proposed amendment is otherwise wholly incapable of operation, its submission to the electorate of the state for adoption or rejection as required by the Constitution should not be enjoined. even though, if adopted, it may in appropriate procedure by proper parties, allegations of facts, and proof or admissions, be shown that the amendment violates paramount federal law and is therefore inoperative to the extent that it is duly shown to be invalid.
Subject only to applicable and controlling federal law, state taxation is authorized, limited, and regulated by the state Constitution and by statutes enacted thereunder. The state Constitution may itself designate or may authorize statutory designations of classes of property that shall be taxed or that shall be exempt from taxation when organic property rights secured by the Federal Constitution are not thereby violated. See 61 C.J. 384; Arkansas Sou. R. Co. v. Louisiana & A. R. Co., 218 U.S. 431 31 S.Ct. 56, 54 L.Ed. 1097; Gilman v. City of Sheboygan, 2 Black (67 U. S.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaulden v. Kirk
...is not a grant of authority to tax but rather it is a limitation upon the exercise of this innate sovereign power, Gray v. Winthrop, 115 Fla. 721, 156 So. 270, 94 A.L.R. 804; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 83 Fla. 344, 91 So. 182; Cheney v. Jones, 14 Fla. 587; every presumption is in favor of t......
-
Boatright v. City of Jacksonville
......New Orleans. Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & Heat Producing & Mfg. Co., 115 U.S. 650, 6 S.Ct. 252, 29 L.Ed. 516; Gray,. Secretary of State, v. Moss (Fla.) 156 So. 262. . . The. Federal Constitution is the 'Supreme Law of the Land'. and the judges in ... which is the dominant law in the premises. See Gray v. Moss (Fla.) 156 So. 262; Gray v. Winthrop. (Fla.) 156 So. 270; Osborne v. State of. Florida, 33 Fla. 162, 14 So. 588, 25 L. R. A. 120, 39. Am. St. Rep. 99;. [158 So. 51] . Id., 164 ......
-
State Ex Rel. Woman's Ben. Ass'n v. Port of Palm Beach Dist.
...of decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or our own court and of the highest courts of many other jurisdictions. We said in Gray v. Winthrop, supra: provisions of Federal Constitution within their proper sphere of operation are dominant authority in interpretation and enforcement of......
-
Wyoming Nat. Abortion Rights Action League v. Karpan
...as 1934, the Supreme Court of Florida, addressing a constitutional amendment, succinctly articulated this rationale: Gray v. Winthrop, 115 Fla. 721, 156 So. 270, 272 (1934). We acknowledge the political pragmatism of the majority view. In part, that hinges upon a recognition that the issue ......