LUTHER E. (COOTER) WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HOMER L. NEWELL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision that a state statute adding residency qualifications for County Commissioners was unconstitutional. Despite the case becoming moot due to the election having passed and a new constitution being adopted, the court retained jurisdiction due to the public nature of the question.
Yes, a state statute that adds qualifications for County Commissioner beyond those set forth in the Constitution is unconstitutional and invalid.
“the above statute was unconstitutional and invalid because it prescribes qualifications for the office of County Commissioner in addition to those prescribed by the Constitution.”
This quote summarizes the trial court's basis for dismissal, which the Supreme Court affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant challenged a statute that required candidates for County Commissioner to have been a bona fide resident of their district for at least s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court dismissed with prejudice a complaint seeking, inter alia, to enforce Section 99.032, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S. A.,1 pertaining to the election laws. The basis for his holding was that the above statute was unconstitutional and invalid because it prescribes qualifications for the office of County Commissioner in addition to those prescribed by the Constitution.2
While the question has become moot by virtue of the fact the election has been held, the Appellee Newell has been elected to the questioned office in the General Election of 1968, and the constitutional provision involved is no longer a part of the fundamental law of this state,3 we, nevertheless, have determined that the public nature of the question warrants a retention of jurisdiction and a decision in the case.4
The final judgment of the able trial judge clearly and succinctly decides this question in the following pertinent language:
“One of the grounds urged by the Defendant, NEWELL, in his Motion to Dismiss is that Section 99.032, Florida Statutes, the statute upon which Plaintiff’s cause of action is predicated, attempts to add to the constitutional qualifications of candidates for County Commissioner and is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Florida, particularly Article VIII, Section S, of the Constitution. The Court * * * having carefully considered this cause and the provisions of the Constitution and Florida Statutes relating to it, finds that Section 99.032, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional and invalid because it prescribes qualifications for the office of County Commissioner in addition to those prescribed by the Constitution. State ex rel. Attorney General et al v. George, 23 Fla. 585, 3 So. 81; Thomas v. State ex rel. Cobb, et al, Fla., 58 So.2d 173, 34 A.L.R.2d 140; Ervin v. Richardson, Fla., 70 So.2d 585; Nichols v. State ex rel. Bulon, Fla., 177 So.2d 467; Maloney v. Kirk, Fla., 212 So.2d 609, and cases cited therein. Therefore it is, ADJUDGED: (1) Section 99.032, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional, invalid and ineffec*736tive because it prescribes qualifications for the office of County Commissioner in addition to those prescribed by the Constitution. * * * ”
We approve such judgment.
Affirmed.
ERVIN, C. J., and CARLTON and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Article VIII, Section S, of the Constitution of Florida of 1885 provides:
There shall be one County Commissioner in each of the five County Commissioner’s districts in each county, which districts shall be numbered one to five inclusive, and shall be as nearly as possible equal in proportion to population. * * * ”
Historically the quoted provision has been construed to mean that each of the five county commissioners would reside in the district from which he sought election. The constitutional provision is susceptible of this interpretation.1
The holding of the trial court, approved by the majority of this court, is not required by the language construed. The result is to hold Florida Statute § 99.032, F.S.A., enacted in 1959 and requiring six months’ residency, unconstitutional. Without the implementing statute the provision of the Constitution of 1968 that “One commissioner residing in each district shall be elected * * * ” may well be meaningless.
In view of the foregoing it is highly inappropriate at this time to declare Florida Statute § 99.032, F.S.A. unconstitutional and I must dissent.
BOYD, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Article VIII, Section S, of the Constitution of Florida of 1885 provides:
There shall be one County Commissioner in each of the five County Commissioner’s districts in each county, which districts shall be numbered one to five inclusive, and shall be as nearly as possible equal in proportion to population. * * * ”
Historically the quoted provision has been construed to mean that each of the five county commissioners would reside in the district from which he sought election. The constitutional provision is susceptible of this interpretation.1
The holding of the trial court, approved by the majority of this court, is not required by the language construed. The result is to hold Florida Statute § 99.032, F.S.A., enacted in 1959 and requiring six months’ residency, unconstitutional. Without the implementing statute the provision of the Constitution of 1968 that “One commissioner residing in each district shall be elected * * * ” may well be meaningless.
In view of the foregoing it is highly inappropriate at this time to declare Florida Statute § 99.032, F.S.A. unconstitutional and I must dissent.
. Op.Atty.Gen. 055-182 (August 3, 1955).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Joughin v. Parks, 107 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1932)
- Tau Alpha Holding Corp. v. Bd. of Adjustments of the City of Gainesville, 126 Fla. 858 (Fla. 1937)
- Thomas v. State Ex Rel. Cobb, 58 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1952)
- Basil J. Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1961)
- Pitt v. Belote, 108 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Wm. H. H. George, 23 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1887)
- Maloney v. Kirk, 212 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1968)
- Ervin v. Richardson, 70 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1954)
- Nichols v. State of Fla. upon the relation of Leslie Bolon, 177 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1965)