HERMAN W. GOLDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
TOM ADAMS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's denial of an injunction, allowing a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to the electorate. The court held that it would not interfere with the right of the electorate to vote on amendments unless there was a clear showing that the proposal violated existing constitutional provisions.
No, the court should not intervene by injunction to prohibit the submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electorate unless there is a clear and conclusive defect demonstrating that the proposal contravenes existing controlling organic prescriptions.
“Historically, this Court has declined to interfere with the right of the electorate to act upon a proposed constitutional amendment absent a clear showing that the proposal contravenes existing controlling organic prescriptions.”
Establishes the court's general reluctance to interfere with the electoral process regarding constitutional amendments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Chancellor below denied an injunction that would have prohibited the submission of House Joint Resolution No. 5-X-63 to the Florida electorate in …
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 Constitutional Amendment Process cases and more on FLexlaw
The Chancellor below denied an injunction prohibiting the submission of House Joint Resolution No. 5-X-63 to the electorate of Florida in the General Election to be held November 3, 1964. Historically, this Court has declined to interfere with the right of the electorate to act upon a proposed constitutional amendment absent a clear showing that the proposal contravenes existing controlling organic prescriptions. Gray v. Moss, 115 Fla. 701, 156 So. 262 (1934).
It is our view that it has not been demonstrated in this record that the instant proposal is so clearly and conclusively defective as to justify the intervention of this Court by the exercise of the extreme power of injunction. Being so persuaded, we are led to conclude that the decree of the Chancellor must be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, CALDWELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
*576DREW, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.
SEBRING (Ret.), J., dissents.
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the conclusion reached to affirm the action of the able chancellor in this case and the reasons stated for doing so. Even if I agreed with dissenting retired Justice Sebring that the constitutionality of the proposed amendment to the Constitution had been completely and finally determined, I would not be inclined at this late date to disturb the chancellor’s declination to remove this proposed amendment from the ballot. This Court is presumed to know what everybody knows. There are 13 proposed constitutional amendments to be voted •on in the general election; thousands of qualified electors of this State have already cast absentee ballots on which the proposed amendment appears;1 many state and county officials have unquestionably already printed ballots for use and have probably set up their voting machines or are in the process of doing so in this election. All of said 13 proposed amendments have been ■duly advertised in the newspapers of this State as required by law. Accepted judicial processes would require us, as noted in the dissent of retired Justice Sebring, to send this case back to the chancellor for the entry of an appropriate order. In view of .all of these things and the fact that the election is only a little more than one month away, I think the conclusion is obvious that any benefit which might accrue to the appellants in this action would be inconsequential compared to the damage, confusion and expense which the public would suffer. Long ago this Court said in Bronson, etc. v. Board of Public Instruction of Osceola County et al., 108 Fla. 1, text p. 10, 145 So. 833, p. 836, “This court is committed to the doctrine that extraordinary relief [injunction] will not be granted in cases where it plainly appears that although the complaining party may be ordinarily entitled to it, that the granting of such relief in the particular case would result in confusion and disorder, and would produce an injury to the public which outweighs the individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks.” I can visualize no situation which fits the above quoted language of this Court more than that which is made to appear from this record.
For the above reasons as well as those stated above I conclude that the chancellor’s judgment was eminently correct.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
(dissenting):
I am of the opinion that the case in which this appeal was taken is controlled by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as the same is construed in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L. Ed.2d 595; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620, and Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632; filed June 15, 1964. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority judgment entered by this Court, because I think that the final decree appealed from should be reversed with directions that a final decree be entered in the court below granting the relief prayed for by the appellant.
DREW, Chief Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the conclusion reached to affirm the action of the able chancellor in this case and the reasons stated for doing so. Even if I agreed with dissenting retired Justice Sebring that the constitutionality of the proposed amendment to the Constitution had been completely and finally determined, I would not be inclined at this late date to disturb the chancellor’s declination to remove this proposed amendment from the ballot. This Court is presumed to know what everybody knows. There are 13 proposed constitutional amendments to be voted •on in the general election; thousands of qualified electors of this State have already cast absentee ballots on which the proposed amendment appears;1 many state and county officials have unquestionably already printed ballots for use and have probably set up their voting machines or are in the process of doing so in this election. All of said 13 proposed amendments have been duly advertised in the newspapers of this State as required by law. Accepted judicial processes would require us, as noted in the dissent of retired Justice Sebring, to send this case back to the chancellor for the entry of an appropriate order. In view of .all of these things and the fact that the election is only a little more than one month away, I think the conclusion is obvious that any benefit which might accrue to the appellants in this action would be inconsequential compared to the damage, confusion and expense which the public would suffer. Long ago this Court said in Bronson, etc. v. Board of Public Instruction of Osceola County et al., 108 Fla. 1, text p. 10, 145 So. 833, p. 836, “This court is committed to the doctrine that extraordinary relief [injunction] will not be granted in cases where it plainly appears that although the complaining party may be ordinarily entitled to it, that the granting of such relief in the particular case would result in confusion and disorder, and would produce an injury to the public which outweighs the individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks.” I can visualize no situation which fits the above quoted language of this Court more than that which is made to appear from this record.
For the above reasons as well as those stated above I conclude that the chancellor’s judgment was eminently correct.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur. . See. 101.62, Florida Statutes 1963, F.S.A., provides for absentee voting “at any time during the forty-five days preceding any election,”
SEBRING, Justice, Ret.
(dissenting):
I am of the opinion that the case in which this appeal was taken is controlled by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as the same is construed in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L. Ed.2d 595; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620, and Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632; filed June 15, 1964. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority judgment entered by this Court, because I think that the final decree appealed from should be reversed with directions that a final decree be entered in the court below granting the relief prayed for by the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1978)…revent. The trial court correctly stated that in the face of such a challenge a court’s duty is to uphold the proposal unless it can be shown to be “clearly and conclusively defective.” Weber v. Smathers, 338 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1976); Goldner v. Adams, 167 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1964). This Court has recognized previously that the evil sought to be avoided by requirements such as the one we deal with here is “logrolling.” In Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1970), the opinion of this Court quoted extensively from…
-
Weber v. Smathers, 338 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1976)…rom the ballot,3 but we have historically declined to interfere with the right of the people to vote upon a proposed constitutional amendment absent a showing in the record that the proposal is “clearly and conclusively defective.” Goldner v. Adams, 167 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1964). We must keep in mind the words of Mr. Justice Terrell in Gray v. Golden, 89 So. 2d 785, 790 (Fla.1956), wherein he stated: “. . . [W]e are dealing with a constitutional democracy in which sovereignty resides in the people. It is their C…1 / 2
-
Advisory Opinion TO the Attorney Gen. RE 1.35% Prop. TAX CAP, 2 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 2009)…re with the right of the people to vote upon a proposed constitutional amendment absent a showing in the record that the proposal is ‘clearly and conclusively defective.’ ” Weber v. Smathers, 338 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla.1976) (quoting Goldner v. Adams, 167 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1964)). As the majority also acknowledges, “[t]he Court must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people.” Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982). This highl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964)
- Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1964)
- Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1964)
- Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1964)
- Md. Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1964)
- Gray v. Moss, 115 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1934)
- Wmca, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (U.S. 1964)
- Bronson v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Osceola, 108 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1933)