STATE, EX REL. MAYNARD H. EVANS, FRANCES L. BLANKNER AND J. R. HOLBROOK, AS TRUSTEES OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
v.
GEO. A. BARKER, SR., AS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ORANGE COUNTY
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 held that a failed bond election that did not produce a majority vote (due to insufficient voter participation) is not an "adverse" election under Section 726 C.G.L., and therefore does not trigger the one-year prohibition on holding another bond election. The court distinguished between an "adverse" election (actively hostile to bond issuance) and an "abortive" or "inchoate" election (constitutionally ineffective).
Section 726 C.G.L.'s one-year prohibition on subsequent bond elections applies only to elections that are "adverse" (actively hostile to bond issuance), not to abortive or inchoate elections that fail to produce any determinative result. An election without sufficient voter participation to achieve constitutional effectiveness is not an adverse election and therefore does not trigger the one-year waiting period.
“Our conclusion is that the statute only prohibits a second election within one year if the first election is adverse. An "adverse" election comprehends something more than an abortive or ineffectual election.”
States the core holding distinguishing adverse elections from abortive ones
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1935, Special Tax School District No. 1 of Orange County held a bond election to authorize $46,500 in bonds for school improvements. A major…
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.
Section 726 C. G. L., 585 R. G. S., is as follows : “If the result of the said election shall be adverse to'the issuance of said bonds, no election shall be held for such purpose within one year thereafter. Except, however, in the event such election shall result or shall have resulted in an equal number of votes being cast for the issuance of said bonds as shall be cast adverse to issuance of said bonds; the board of public instruction are empowered' and author-; ized to call and order another or second election within said district to have determined the question of whether the bonds specified in the original petition and resolution shall be issued by said district, after giving notice as provided for by Section 723; and it shall not be necessary to have presented to said board further petitions to order said second election. (Ch. 6542, Acts 1913, Sec. 7: Ch. 12015, Acts 1927, Sec. 1.)”
In August, 1935, a Special Tax School District bond election was held in Special Tax School District No. 1 of Orange County to determine whether or not $46,500.00 in bonds should be authorized by the district for the purpose of acquiring, building, enlarging,'furnishing and otherwise improving the school buildings and school grounds within the district. At said election (to which amended Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution was applicable as well as Section 17 of Article XII) a majority of the freeholders who were qualified electors residing in the district, did not participate, so the election was abortive of result.
The question now presented to this Court in mandamus proceedings is whether or not Section 726 C. G. L., supra, prohibits the calling and holding of another bond election in the district within one year after' the former election, which, as has been said, was constitutionally ineffective for *352the purpose for which it was held, for the reasons herein-before pointed out.
Our conclusion is that the statute only prohibits a second election within one year if the first election is adverse. An “adverse” election comprehends something more than an abortive or ineffectual election. The word “adverse” has been employed by the Legislature to express its intent and such word must be given its usual and ordinary meaning which is, “Acting in opposition to, actively hostile.” See: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, page 28; New Merriam-Webster International Dictionary, page 38. It follows, therefore, that an election from which no actively hostile result can be ascertained is not an “adverse” election within the meaning and intent of Section 726 C. G. L., supra, but is merely an inchoate or abortive election the result of which is a legal brutum fulmen.
The preparatory writ of mandamus in this case is accordingly awarded.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coon v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Okaloosa Cnty., 203 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967)…ative intent, exhibited by Section 230.23(11) (d), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., supported the conclusion there reached. For the record it should be noted that Justices Roberts, Drew and Ervin dissented on the authority of State ex rel. Evans v. Barker, 121 Fla. 350, 163 So. 695 (1935), and, Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County v. State, 122 Fla. 19, 164 So. 516 (1935). While a petition for rehearing was pending, the Legislature enacted Chapter 67-1809 (H.B. 3296) which became law on July 10, 1967.…
-
Dixon v. City of Miami, 126 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1936)…in the approval of said bonds, then another election for the approval of bonds for the same purpose shall be called for at least a period of six months thereafter.” We hold with the Circuit Court on the authority of State, ex rel. Evans, v. Barker, 121 Fla. 350, 163 Sou. Rep. 695, where a similar statutory provision having a like design, was held not to preclude the holding of the second election when the first election was merely abortive of a final decision in the premises. [*251] Affirmed. . Whitfield,…
-
Special TAX Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Duval Cnty. v. State, 16 Fla. Supp. 110 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…nclusion that the issuance of the bonds was not duly authorized in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements; and that as a majority of the qualified freeholder electors did not participate, the election is abortive. State v. Barker, 121 Fla. 350, 163 So. 695; Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County v. State, 122 Fla. 19, 164 So. 516; Dixon v. City of Miami, 126 Fla. 249, 170 So. 845. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition to validate the $35,000,000 issue…