METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEXTER LEHTINEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a ballot question proposing charter revisions was affirmatively misleading and failed to satisfy statutory and charter requirements for clear, unambiguous language.
A ballot question proposing multiple charter revisions is invalid when it is affirmatively misleading in critical respects and fails to present the substance of the measure in clear and unambiguous language as required by statute and charter.
[1] A ballot question proposing charter amendments must present the substance of the measure in clear and unambiguous language and must not be affirmatively misleading in cri…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the substance of ... [the] measure ... be printed in clear and unambiguous language”
Statutory requirement under section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1987)
Metropolitan Dade County sought to place a ballot question before voters proposing amendments to the Dade County Charter involving revisions to the Ci…
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 Misleading Ballot Language cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We agree with the trial court that the proposed ballot question in issue here1 is both affirmatively misleading in critical respects,2 see Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla.1982), and, even more clearly, does not satisfy the requirement of section 101.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1987), that the “substance of ... [the] measure ... be printed in clear and unambiguous language,” nor that of Article 7, Section 7.01(4)(b) of the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter that a proposition be submitted “in such manner as provides a clear understanding of the proposal.”
We find no merit in the county’s argument that the action is barred by laches.
Affirmed.3
. The question provides:
HOME RULE CHARTER REVISIONS SHALL THE DADE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REVISIONS TO: THE CITIZENS’ BILL OF RIGHTS: THE COUNTY COMMISSION’S POWERS, PROCEDURES AND ELECTIONS; THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTY’S ADMINISTRATION; THE TRANSFER OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; THE PROCEDURES FOR CREATION AND ABOLITION OF MUNICIPALITIES; THE PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL; THE PROCEDURES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CHARTER; AND VARIOUS TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS?
YES_
NO_
. For example, the question refers to revisions of "the procedures for initiative, referendum and recall” [e.s.], while the actual proposal involves extensive substantive changes in the grounds and availability of the recall process.
. Rehearing is dispensed with.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Heat Ltd. P'ship v. Leahy, 682 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ection ballot is violative of section 7.01 of the Home Rule Charter and section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1995). See, e.g., Kobrin v. Leahy, 528 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988); Metropolitan Dade County v. Lektinen, 528 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1988). Section 7.01(4) of the Charter provides that a proposal submitted to the electors must be “in such a manner as provides a clear understanding of the proposal.” Likewise, section 101.161 require…
-
LET Miami Beach Decide v. City OF Miami Beach, 120 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…e-sensitive nature of this matter, rehearing is dispensed with. See Miranda v. Ortega, 117 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Patterson v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 548 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Lehtinen, 528 So. 2d 394, 395 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kobrin, 528 So. 2d at 393 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
-
Falk v. The City OF Miami Beach & The City Comm'n of the City of Miami Beach, 538 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…6) (voters must be able to comprehend the sweep of each proposal from a fair notification that is neither less nor more extensive than it appears to be); see also Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla.1954); Metropolitan Dade County v. Lehtinen, 528 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1988); Kobrin v. Leahy, 528 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 523 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988). The ballot question and the proposed amendment2 both address the subject of projects which the city u…
Authorities Cited
- Reubin Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982)