MORRIS W. MILTON, CHARLES SHORTER, S. CURTIS KISER, LORRAINE QUINN AND PAMELA A. MEACOMES, PETITIONERS,
v.
BRUCE M. SMATHERS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CHARLES J. KANISS, AS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.
In an original proceeding, petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Florida's redistricting scheme under Senate Joint Resolution 1305. The court dismissed the general challenge previously decided, but retained count one raising a specific challenge to the district's application and appointed a commissioner to conduct factual proceedings.
The court rejected count two, having previously decided the general redistricting challenge in a prior proceeding, and declined to reconsider that decision. The court retained count one as raising sufficient allegations to invoke the court's retained jurisdiction and appointed a commissioner to investigate factual findings and recommendations.
[1] A court may decline to reconsider its prior decision on a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan.
[2] A court may retain jurisdiction over a matter concerning the application of a redistricting plan to specific individuals, even after dismissing a general challenge to the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This Court has already decided count two against the petitioners in In re Apportionment Law Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution 1305, 1972 Regular Session, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1972), and we decline to reconsider our position therein.”
The court refused to revisit its prior decision dismissing the general redistricting challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Morris Milton, Charles Shorter, S. Curtis Kiser, Lorraine Quinn, and Pamela Meacomes filed a two-count petition challenging Florida's redi…
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 Original Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
KARL, Justice.
In an original proceeding, we have a two count petition for supplementary relief and for appointment of a commissioner. The first count, in which petitioners are Morris Milton and Charles Shorter, challenges the constitutional validity of Senate Joint Resolution 1305 as it applied to petitioners in multi-member House District 57-61 on its effective date. Count two of the petition, in which Morris Milton, Charles Shorter, Curtis Kiser, Lorraine Quinn and Pamela Meacomes are petitioners, makes a general attack as to the constitutionality of the total multi-districting scheme in Florida.
This Court has already decided count two against the petitioners in In re Apportionment Law Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution 1305, 1972 Regular Session, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1972),1 and we decline to reconsider our position therein.
Count one of this petition does state sufficient allegations to come within the retained jurisdiction of this Court as set out in In re Apportionment Law, S.J.R. 1305, supra, and explained by this Court in Cardenas et al. v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1977).
This matter raised in count one requires appointment of a commissioner for factual findings and recommendation.
The commissioner shall forthwith conduct a prehearing conference for the purpose of establishing procedural guidelines for the proceedings contemplated hereunder. These proposed guidelines should then be submitted to this Court for approval before further hearings are held.
Accordingly, count two is dismissed and the Court, by separate order, will appoint a Commissioner to proceed as to count one.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur. HATCHETT, J., concurs in part, dissents in part with an opinion, with which ADKINS, J., concurs.
HATCHETT, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that count two “has already [been] . . . decided against the petitioners.” The petitioners have alleged that the multi-member district plan of 1972, in application, is unconstitutional. This issue has not been decided. All that has been heretofore decided is that facially multi-member districts are constitutional. An apportionment plan must be subject to attack as to its continuing constitutionality, as applied, between the constitutionally required extraordinary apportionment sessions.
I would direct the commissioner to take evidence on both counts one and two.
ADKINS, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Senate Joint Resolution OF Legis. Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012)…l findings on lethal injection and to then file those findings with this Court so this Court could make the ultimate determination). . See, e.g., State ex rel. Clark v. Klingensmith, 126 Fla. 124, 170 So. 616, 618 (1936). . See Milton v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1977). . After the deadline for the submission of briefs and alternative plans had passed, the Coalition sought to file a supplemental appendix, including a revised alternative House plan. The Court denied that request, and the supplemental ap…
-
In re Constitutionality of Senate Joint Resolution 2G, 597 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1992)…ing a petition in this Court alleging how the plan violates the Voting Rights [*286] Act. In such event, this Court will provide for an expedited disposition through the appointment of a commissioner to make findings of fact. See Milton v. Smothers, 351 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1977). Thus, we retain exclusive state jurisdiction to consider any and all future proceedings relating to the validity of this apportionment plan. No motion for rehearing will be entertained. It is so ordered. McDonald, BARKETT, KOGAN and HA…
-
In re Apportionment LAW Appearing AS Senate Joint Resolution 1 E, 414 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1982)…plan as applied in appropriate proceedings, and we retain exclusive state jurisdiction to consider any and all future proceeding relating to the validity of this apportionment plan. Milton v. Smathers, 389 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1980); Milton v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1977); Cardinas v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1977); In re Apportionment Law Senate Joint Resolution 1305. We approve the plan. All senators must run for election from the newly-apportioned districts in 1982, with the terms for the senators…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Apportionment LAW Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1972)
- Cardenas v. Smathers, 351 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1977)