In Rivera-Cruz v. Gray and Pope v. Gray (hereinafter called the Rivera-Cruz case), opiniоn filed July 25, 1958,
Two other joint resolutiоns were involved in the general scheme of revision. One was House Joint Resolution 106-X and the other House Joint Resolution 32-X. The latter proposed an amendment to Sеction 1 of Article XVII of the Florida Constitution and the former provided for the submission to thе electorate of all fourteen amendments involved in the Rivera-Cruz case and thе amendment provided in House” Joint Resolution 32-X at the general election to bе held in November, 1958. In the Rivera-Cruz case, supra, the validity of the amendment proposed in House Joint Resolution 32-X was not in issue; in that case this Court expressly stated that it madе no decision as to its validity.
The case with which we are here concerned presents the question of whether the amendment of Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution рroposed in House Joint Resolution 32-X is unconstitutional and should be ordered stricken from the ballot in the ensuing election. The question is raised in the motion to quash the alternative writ which we have issued.
House Joint Resolution 32-X is a complete and independent proposed constitutional amendment; it is not an integral part of the interloсking proposed constitutional amendments condemned in the Rivera-Cruz case. This fact becomes self-evident when all fifteen resolutions and House Joint Resolution 106-X, suрra, are considered to
There is no lawful reason why the electors of this State should not have the right to determine the manner in which the Constitution may be amended. This is the most sanctified area in which a court can exercise power. Soverеignty resides in the people and the electors have a right to approve or reject a proposed amendment to the organic law of the State, limited only by those instances where there is an entire failure to comply with a plain and essential requirement of the organic law in proposing the amendment as demonstrated in the Rivera-Cruz case. That this Court has exhibited great caution throughout its history in this arena is evident from the fact that in only a few instances in the history of this State has this Court enjoined the people in the exercise of this sovereignty. That this amendment, if adоpted may conceivably be valid in some respects or under some conditions is manifest on the face of the proposed amendment itself; that is all that is required. Gray v. Moss, 1934,
We have considered the argument with reference to the last paragraph of the proposed amendment in the light of the Court’s opinion in the Rivera-Cruz case. The fact thаt “the proposed amendment constituting Article XII of the revised Constitution” can never become effective under that opinion in no way affects the right of the elеctorate to pass upon all of it.
The motion to quash the alternative writ is granted and the cause is dismissed.