Hill v. Milander

• Decision Date: 11 May 1954
• Citation: 72 So.2d 796
• Parties: HILL v. MILANDER, Mayor, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 796

72 So.2d 796

HILL v. MILANDER, Mayor, et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc.

May 11, 1954.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1954.

Franklin Parson, Miami, for appellants.

Arthur Primm and Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for Henry Milander.

E. F. P. Brigham, Phillip Goldman, and Burton M. Michaels, Miami, for James H. Goodlet, A. H. Caswell, William Lockward, Roy F. Woodruff, Charles E. Brady, J. H. Smith, Milton Thompson and City of Hialeah.

DREW, Justice.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether Chapter 29113, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1953, has become a law pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act providing, 'This Bill shall not become effective until approved by a majority vote of those electors voting on this Bill at the election to be held in the City of Hialeah on September 8, 1953.'

It is clear from the record that an election was held on September 8, 1953 in the City of Hialeah; that voting machines were required to be used and were used in conducting said election; that there appeared on the ballot at said election on said date the following proposition: 'Shall the Hialeah Council appoint a Board to prepare a proposed new City Charter as provided by Chapter 29113, Laws of Florida, 1953'; and that on said proposition 4,331 electors voted, 2,892 voting yes and 1,439 voting no.

Appellants contend here that said Section 2 of the Special Act mandatorily required the entire bill to be printed on the ballot and that the failure of those charged with the responsibility of conducting said election to do so constituted a fatal defect in the election and rendered the same invalid.

Pursuant to appropriate proceedings in the court below and after evidence had been taken, the lower court held, inter alia: 'that the election held on September 8, 1953 pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 29113, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1953, at which election said Chapter 29113 was approved by a majority vote of the electors voting on said law at said election, was a valid and lawful election, making and rendering the said Chapter 29113, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1953, effective and operative.'

Under the provisions of the Florida Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21 F.S.A., special or local laws affecting cities and towns may be enacted by the Legislature after notice of the intention to seek the passage of such act has been duly published or posted as provided by law, or where the bill so passed contains a provision for submitting such act to the qualified electors of the city or town to be affected thereby. In this instance the Legislature chose to provide that the act should be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Hialeah for their approval or rejection.

The lower court before whom the evidence in this case was taken, decreed that the election held September 8, 1953 was a valid and lawful election and that as a result thereof Chapter 29113, supra, was approved by the qualified electors of the City of Hialeah. Inherent in this result is a finding that the phraseology of the ballot above quoted together with such other information as was made available to the electors of the City of Hialeah in the weeks preceding said election, was sufficient to advise each of those participating in said election as to the content and substance of the act they were voting upon. The evidence which was before the Circuit Judge is not before us. It was not included in the record. Under such circumstances and numerous decisions by this Court, we are bound by his findings in that respect. We must assume, therefore, that the electors had full knowledge of the proposition upon which they were voting.

We cannot agree with the argument advanced by appellants that Section 2 of the Act required the printing of the whole bill on the ballot. In the first place, we take judicial knowledge of the limitations inherent in the use of voting machines so far as the amount of printed material thereon is concerned. In numerous instances we have held that the only requirements in a election of this kind are that the voter should not be misled and that he have an opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote. In the case of Sylvester v. Tindall, 154 Fla. 663, 18 So.2d 892, we passed upon the sufficiency of the ballot used in the general election when the Constitutional Amendment creating and establishing the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was submitted to the electorate of this State. That act is far more involved than the act under discussion here and when approved by the electorate became a part of the organic law in this State. We approved there a proposition on the ballot consisting of thirty-six words. In this connection we take judicial knowledge of the many other Constitutional Amendments of much greater length that have been submitted to and approved by the electorate of this State and which have become a part of our organic law. All that the Constitution requires or that the law comples or ought to compel is that the voter have notice of that which he must...