268 So. 3d 668
Fla.2019Background
- In 2014 Orange County adopted a charter amendment (voter-approved) imposing term limits and requiring nonpartisan elections for six county constitutional officers (clerk, comptroller, property appraiser, sheriff, supervisor of elections, tax collector).
- Three incumbent county constitutional officers (sheriff, property appraiser, tax collector) sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; they challenged the nonpartisan-election portion and the ballot title/summary.
- The trial court upheld term limits but invalidated the nonpartisan-election provision as preempted by state law.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding section 97.0115 (Florida Election Code preemption) and chapter 105 foreclosed counties from imposing nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review and approved the Fifth District: it held the Florida Election Code expressly preempts and conflicts with Orange County’s ordinance requiring nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county ordinance requiring nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers is preempted by state law | Appellees (county officers) argued the Florida Election Code expressly preempts local regulation of elections and counties cannot alter partisan/nomination rules for county constitutional officers | Orange County argued its home-rule charter authority permits it to set nonpartisan elections for county offices and the Election Code does not expressly preempt that measure | Held: Ordinance is expressly preempted by §97.0115 and conflicts with the Election Code, so invalidated |
| Whether the ordinance conflicts with statutory timing and ballot-placement rules (primary vs general) | Officers argued county provision (primary-based nonpartisan voting) conflicts with statute requiring county constitutional officers appear on the general election ballot and party nomination in primaries | County argued its scheme (primary-runoff/nonpartisan placement) was permissible under local authority | Held: Ordinance conflicts with statutes requiring party nomination in primaries and placement on the general-election ballot; conflict is direct and dispositive |
| Severability of invalid provisions | Officers contended invalid portions can be severed so remaining charter changes (e.g., term limits) stand | County sought to preserve at least nonpartisan scheme or to sever timing provisions only | Held: Court agreed with lower courts that severability analysis left other portions intact (term limits upheld); but nonpartisan-election portion struck as preempted/conflicting |
| Standing and ballot-title challenges | Officers challenged procedural aspects (standing, single-subject, ballot title/summary) | County defended validity of election procedures and ballot language | Held: Court approved Fifth District’s rulings on standing, single-subject, and ballot-title/summary issues (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Grapeland Heights Civic Ass'n v. City of Miami, 267 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1972) (constitution contemplates legislative regulation of elections, not municipal law)
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard County, 3 So.3d 309 (Fla. 2008) (framework for preemption and inconsistency of local ordinances with state law)
- City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2006) (preemption reserves certain topics to legislature)
- Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1972) (local government cannot forbid what legislature expressly licenses)
- Browning v. Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc., 968 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (test for conflict: complying with one provision requires violating the other)
- Orange County v. Singh, 230 So.3d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (appellate decision affirming trial court invalidating nonpartisan-election charter amendment)