THE CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
FREDERICK STAATS, 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 City of Miami appealed a trial court order declaring unconstitutional a city resolution placing a nonbinding straw ballot question on a special election ballot. The court affirmed, finding the ballot language was misleading and failed to adequately disclose that the question was nonbinding, countywide in nature, and contained an incorrect officer title.
The court affirmed the trial court's declaration that the resolution was unconstitutional and void. The ballot language was defective because it failed to disclose that the question was nonbinding, failed to adequately inform voters that the issue was countywide rather than solely within the City's control, and contained misleading language regarding the correct title of the county officer responsible for property valuation.
[1] A ballot question must be phrased in clear and unambiguous language that provides voters with fair notice of the measure's purpose and prevents them from being misled.
[2] A ballot question is defective if it fails to inform the public that their response has no official effect.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 ballot title and summary cannot either 'fly under false colors' or 'hide the ball' as to [its] true effect”
Establishes the constitutional standard for ballot language clarity and the prohibition against misleading voters about a measure's actual effects.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami passed Resolution R-05-0043 authorizing a nonbinding poll question on a special county-wide election scheduled for March 8, 2005. Th…
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 Summary cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
The City of Miami appeals from an order declaring unconstitutional a city resolution placing a nonbinding or “straw ballot” question on the ballot of a special county-wide election. Because we agree with the trial court that the ballot is misleading, we affirm.
City of Miami Resolution R-05-0043 called for a special municipal election which in effect authorized the placing of a nonbinding poll question on the ballot of a special election which was scheduled to be held on another matter county-wide on March 8, 2005. The proposed ballot provides:
“Straw Ballot Question No. 1 Shall the voters of Miami-Dade elect the Tax Assessor instead of the County Manager of Miami-Dade County appointing the Tax Assessor?”
Prior to the election date, Frederick Staats filed an action against the City of Miami and the county’s supervisor of elections. Staats sought a declaration that the resolution was unconstitutional and unlawful, and asked for injunctive relief preventing the electorate from voting on the question. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion declaring the resolution null and void. However, because of the impossibility of removing the question from the ballot at that time, the trial court ordered that any votes cast on the question not be counted. The City immediately appealed these rulings.
Florida law requires:
“Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot.... [T]he substance of the amendment or public measure shall be an explanatory statement ... of the chief purpose of the measure.”
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). The purpose of this requirement is to provide the voter with fair notice of the content of the proposed measure so that he or she will not be misled as to its purpose and may intelligently cast his or her vote. E.g., Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla.2000); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1998); Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla.1982). As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the “ballot title and summary cannot either ‘fly under false colors’ or ‘hide the ball’ as to [its] true effect.” Armstrong at 16.
Under these guidelines, we find the question proposed by the City herein to be defective in several respects. For example, it fails to adequately inform the voting public that their response has no official effect, i.e., that the ballot question is simply a nonbinding opinion poll. It keeps the public in the dark as to the fact that the issue involved is not one within the .sole dominion and control of the citizens of the City, but instead one which must be addressed by the electorate of the entire county. And, finally, it is misleading and confusing with respect to the correct title of the county officer who values or appraises property within Miami-Dade County.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LET Miami Beach Decide v. City OF Miami Beach, 120 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…contractor's discretion”). . Even if the City intended the lease approval question as a straw vote on a deal that was in process, the language does not clearly indicate such. This defect would make the ballot confusing. See City of Miami v. Staats, 919 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (striking ballot question where "it fails to adequately inform the voting public that their response has no official effect, i.e., that the ballot question is simply a nonbinding opinion poll”). . The City and SBACE successf…
-
Gretna Racing, LLC v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ly allows for voters to express their sentiments on a matter. Voter sentiment falls short of voter approval; sentiment is mere opinion akin to a straw vote that is non-binding; approval is authorization, .which, is "binding. City of Miami v. Stoats, 919 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (non-binding straw ballot defective because “it fails to adequately inform the voting public that their response has no official effect, i.e., that the ballot question is simply a. nonbinding opinion poll.”); 5 McQuillin Mun.…
-
Matheson v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 187 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…enter for public park and tennis tournament use” and “modifications and extension of agreements” with IPC, in reality it is nothing more than a conditional or non-binding straw ballot with no binding official effect. Compare City of Miami v. Staats, 919 So. 2d 485, 486-87 (Fla. 3d DCA-2005) (finding a City of Miami ballot question which clearly stated that it was a. “Straw Ballot” and asked “Shall the voters of Miami-Dade elect the Tax Assessor instead. of the County Manager of .Miami-Dade County, appointing…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reubin Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982)
- Rev. Dr. James Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000)
- Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1998)