DAVIS
v.
ADAMS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reversed a trial court's ruling that Section 463.08, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional due to vagueness, finding the statute sufficiently defined and applicable.
The appellate court held that Section 463.08, Florida Statutes, is constitutional and not vague or ambiguous, reversing the trial court's judgment.
The trial court found Section 463.08, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional for vagueness and ambiguity, dismissing charges against the respondent for pr…
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.
Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice.
The State of Florida has enacted a law that requires the incumbent of a state elective office to resign before he can become a candidate for another office. Fla. Laws 1970, c. 70-80. The validity of this enactment is challenged because the Florida Secretary of State has applied it to bar the candidacies for the United States House of Representatives of William E. Davis, currently sheriff •of Escambia County, Florida, and James J. Ward, Jr., currently mayor of the city of Plantation, Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida has upheld the actions of the Secretary of State.1 On the other hand, a three-judge federal district court in the Northern District of Florida has invalidated Florida’s law as applied to another sheriff seeking to qualify as a candidate for Congress.2 Ultimately , the question presented by these disputes is whether Florida can constitutionally add to or subtract from the qualifications established by federal law for candidates for federal office. Because the primary election in these cases will be held on September 8, 1970, however, time will not permit a final resolution of these constitutional controversies before the voters go to the polls.
I' must decide, then, whether these two candidates must be permitted to run for the United States House of Representatives. The decision necessarily requires a forecast of this Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Florida statute, should the Court decide to hear these cases. On balance, \ am inclined to think the Court would hold that Florida has exceeded its constitutional powers. Beyond that judgment, these applications require me to consider the possibility of injury to one of the parties should my forecast on the merits be wrong. If I were to deny these applications and the Court were later to invalidate the Florida statutes, these men would have been unconstitutionally deprived of their right to run for office. If, on the other hand, I grant relief and the Court should later sustain the. Florida statute, little damage would have been done. The applicants might lose at the polls, and even if they were to be elected, Florida could challenge them as having failed to qualify. The risk of injury to the applicants from striking their names from the ballot outweighs the risk of injury to Florida from permitting them to run.
The applications for stays are granted.
Florida ex rel. Davis v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1970), aff’d on rehearing, id., at 418.
Stack v. Adams, 315 F. Supp. 1295 (ND Fla. 1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General-Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offs., 592 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991)…’s decision in Stack, to temporarily stay another congressional election and expressed our concerns for comity, equity, and fairness. Justice Black, in considering that stay, agreed with the United States District Court and found, in Davis v. Adams, 400 U.S. 1203, 91 S.Ct. 1, 27 L.Ed.2d 20 (1970), that Florida’s resign-to-run statute violated the federal constitution and that, under those circumstances, the election should not be held until all the parties were given an opportunity to qualify and run for tha…
-
Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523 (9th Cir. 1983)…ng a candidate for Congress). Joyner argues, however, that the Signo-relli line of cases applies only to judges, and not to nonjudicial officeholders. He also contends that Article 22, § 18 is unconstitutional under the authority of Davis v. Adams, 400 U.S. 1203, 91 S.Ct. 1, 27 L.Ed.2d 20 (Black, Circuit Justice, 1970). These arguments are not convincing. First, Signorelli does not stand for the proposition that the only acceptable “resign to run” statutes are those that apply to judges. Instead, the Signo…
-
Am. Party of Tex. v. Bullock, 409 U.S. 803 (U.S. 1972)…reached and we affirm the three-judge court, holding the Texas scheme constitutional, the ballots will not be counted. That was the way Justice Black avoided the dilemma in a Florida case;* and I would follow his course here. * See Davis v. Adams, 400 U. S. 1203.…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. on the Relation of William Davis v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1970)