H. W. ROBARTS, AS PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, AND J. L. NEWTON, GUS DICKHART, JOHN B. YORK AND DAVID BROWDER AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. S. C. SMITH
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 reversed a circuit court order compelling city council members to canvass referendum election returns despite irregularities. The court held that a properly conducted election is essential, and the city council properly invalidated an election where the mayor unlawfully created an additional polling place that skewed the results.
The judgment is reversed because the city council properly exercised its authority to invalidate an irregularly conducted election. A properly conducted election is essential to the legislative purpose, and the city council did not act arbitrarily in ordering a new election despite the statutory deadline having passed, as the law was directory rather than mandatory as to timing.
“It thus appears that the election was so irregularly conducted as to justify the City Council to order the call of another election.”
Establishes that the irregular procedures (unauthorized additional polling place) justified invalidation of the election.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 11, 1948, the City of Arcadia held a referendum election on consolidation pursuant to a court order. The Mayor, without legal authority, establ…
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 Directory Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus to appellants-respondents requiring them to canvass the returns of a referendum election on the adoption of ch. 24379, Acts 1947, relating to the City of Arcadia, or show cause for' noncompliance.
The appellants answered said writ to the effect that on May 11, 1948, a purported referendum election having to do with “consolidation” was held in the City of Arcadia, pursuant *961to an order of the circuit court on the question of approval of ch. 24379, Special Laws of 1947; that the Mayor of the City of Arcadia announced and had published a proclamation calling said special referendum election and by his proclamation set up an additional polling place in the negro quarters in the City of Arcadia and appointed three additional inspectors of election and one additional clerk to preside at the additional polling place set up by him; that such additional polling place and the appointment of the inspectors and clerk for such polling place were without authority of law; that a majority of the voters at the regular and customary polling place within the City of Arcadia voted to reject said consolidation, but the voters at the additional polling place voted for the consolidation in a sufficient majority to override the majority vote cast at the regular voting place; that on May 21, 1948, the City Council of the City of Arcadia, Florida, met to consider the matter of the canvass of the referendum election returns and, upon motion duly made and carried in open meeting, declared the said referendum election void and directed the calling of a new referendum election to be held in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and Municipal Ordinances.
Upon relator-appelle’s motion for a peremptory writ notwithstanding the answer, the circuit court granted the motion to the effect that the votes at both polls should be canvassed, of which final judgment the respondents now seek review by this appeal.
It affirmatively appears from the answer that the City of Arcadia consists of only one voting precinct and no authority has been shown authorizing the Mayor to create additional precincts. It thus appears that the election was so irregularly conducted as to justify the City Council to order the call of another election. The time for such election as prescribed by the statute has passed, but time was not of the essence of the act. The law was directory as to “time” for holding the election. However, a properly conducted election is of the essence, and the failure to properly conduct an election within the prescribed time will not be allowed to defeat the legislative intent.
*962The judgment appealed is reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ„ concur.
CHAPMAN, and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.