IN RE APPORTIONMENT LAW APPEARING AS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1305, 1972 REGULAR SESSION; CONSTITUTIONALITY VEL NON OF. PETITION OF EDWARD TOHARI
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 court held that the petitioner's allegation of no local candidates in primary elections is insufficient to demonstrate an unconstitutional result from the Apportionment Law.
Edward Tohari petitioned for supplementary relief, challenging Senate Districts 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Apportionment Law, alleging they deprive Lee…
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 Muster cases and more on FLexlaw
In original proceeding, we have the petition for supplementary relief of Edward Tohari seeking review of the Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution 1305, as it affects the voters of Lee County. We have already determined that the Apportionment Law is valid on its face (In Re Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution 1305, 263 So.2d 797 (Fla.1972), and retain jurisdiction to hear this petition pursuant to Fla.Const., art. III, § 16(c), F.S.A., and Fla.Stat. § 86.061, F.S.A.
Tohari challenges the validity of Districts 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Senate of the State of Florida as established by the Apportionment Law, on the basis that the practical effect of Apportionment Law in establishing these Districts is to deprive the citizens of Lee County of meaningful Senatorial representation.
In support of his contention, Tohari points out only that no candidate from Lee County entered any of the primary elections for the seats in the Senate represented by the challenged Districts. In upholding the Apportionment Law, we said that the scheme, in a particular case, might operate to undermine the voting strength of a racial or political group. We added,
“When this is demonstrated, we will consider whether the apportionment plan still passes constitutional muster.” In Re Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 263 So.2d 797, p. 808.
The allegation that Lee County is unrepresented in the Florida Senate because no candidate from Lee County entered the race is totally insufficient to demonstrate an unconstitutional result in the application of the Apportionment Law.
Accordingly, the petition for supplemental relief is denied.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardenas v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1977)…ionment Law Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution Number 1305, 1972 Regular Session, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1972). [*24] Shortly after holding that the apportionment plan of 1972 was constitutional on its face this Court decided In re Apportionment Law, 279 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1973) a suit alleging that the apportionment law was unconstitutional, in its practical effect, on the theory that it deprived citizens of Lee County of meaningful senatorial representation. In that original action in this Court, we addressed t…
Authorities Cited
- In re Apportionment LAW Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1972)