JUDITH W. FELDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Feldman's challenge to a municipal charter amendment ballot summary failed because the summary was not clearly and conclusively defective under Florida Statutes section 101.161.
A ballot summary for a municipal charter amendment is not clearly and conclusively defective merely because it may be subject to interpretation, and therefore does not warrant invalidation of the amendment.
[1] A ballot summary for a public measure is not clearly and conclusively defective unless it fails to satisfy the statutory requirements in a manner that is manifest and ind…
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 intelligenceJudith Feldman challenged a Municipal Charter Amendment adopted by popular vote in the City of North Miami, arguing that the ballot summary violated 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 Ballot Summary Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Judith Feldman appeals from a final summary judgment in the City of North Miami’s favor, rejecting Feldman’s claim that a Municipal Charter Amendment adopted by popular vote was invalid because the ballot summary violated section 101.161 of the Florida Statutes.1 We agree that the ballot summary language is not clearly and conclusively defective and will not therefore warrant relief. See, e.g., Kainen v. Harris, 769 So. 2d 1029, 1030 (Fla.2000) (citing Florida League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 399 (Fla.1992) for the proposition that “no relief is possible unless the ballot summary is clearly and conclusively defective”).
Affirmed.
. Section 101.161 in pertinent part provides:
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot after the list of candidates, followed by the word "yes” and also by the word "no,” and shall be styled in such a manner that a "yes” vote will indicate approval of the proposal and a "no” vote will indicate rejection.... Except for amendments and ballot language proposed by joint resolution, the substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure.
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elected Cnty. Mayor Political Comm., Inc. v. Shirk, 989 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…rom the Board of County Commissioners to the County Mayor. IV. Analysis First, we note that cases discussing proposed state constitutional amendments are applicable to proposed amendments to county charters. See, e.g., Feldman v. City of N. Miami, 973 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (applying the same standard to a proposed county charter amendment as is applied to proposed constitutional amendments); City of Boca Raton v. Palm Beach County, 546 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (same). Second, neither the…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Castillega, 769 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2000)