230 So. 3d 639
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2014 Orange County voters approved a charter amendment (proposed by the County Commission) to impose term limits and require nonpartisan elections for six county constitutional officers (clerk, comptroller, property appraiser, sheriff, supervisor of elections, tax collector).
- The charter amendment changed section 703 to state elections for county constitutional offices shall be nonpartisan and established related election procedures; it also imposed term limits (separately upheld).
- Prior to the election, the sheriff, property appraiser, and tax collector sued Orange County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the ordinance and ballot language; they continued the challenge post-election.
- The trial court upheld the term-limits portion but struck the nonpartisan-election provision as inconsistent with general law because election regulation is preempted to the State.
- Orange County appealed; the Fifth District affirmed, holding the county lacked authority to regulate the method/timing/partisan designation of elections for county constitutional officers because the Legislature preempted election regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Orange County could require nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers via charter amendment | Appellees: County cannot impose nonpartisan elections because election regulation is preempted to the State and counties lack authority to change partisan status | Orange County: Art. VIII, §1(d) authorizes charter counties to specify another manner of selecting county officers, so the charter may provide for nonpartisan elections | Held: County may not impose nonpartisan elections; election regulation is preempted to the Legislature, and §1(d) does not authorize regulation of elections |
| Whether the charter amendment was inconsistent with general law (preemption/conflict) | Appellees: The amendment is inconsistent because the Florida Election Code preempts local regulation of elections | Orange County: The charter provision is a valid exercise of home-rule power and not inconsistent with general law | Held: The provision conflicted with general law via preemption (Florida Election Code governs election matters), so it was struck down |
Key Cases Cited
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard Cty., 3 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 2008) (county ordinances are invalid if inconsistent with general law or preempted)
- Grapeland Heights Civic Ass’n v. City of Miami, 267 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1972) (elections must be "regulated by law," i.e., by statute)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 313 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1975) (art. VIII, §1(d) permits alternative selection methods but does not authorize charters to regulate election mechanics)
- Jackson v. Leon Cty. Elections Canvassing Bd., 204 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (Legislature expressly preempted matters involving state and local elections)
- State ex rel. Watson v. Kirkman, 27 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1946) (a public official must show personal adverse effect to challenge a statute; officials may sue individually)