Case ID: so2d_196/html/0916-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ROBERTS, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard Kirk DRIVER, and C. W. (Dub) Palmore, Jr., Petitioners, v. Tom ADAMS, as Secretary of the State of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 36176.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 22, 1967.
    .Dale & Stevens, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
    Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wilson W. Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

By their petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners question the validity of various provisions of Florida’s so-called “political party loyalty oath” prescribed by Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

In effect we are asked to recede from our prior decisions in Mairs v. Peters, Fla., 52 So.2d 793 and Crowells v. Petersen, Fla., 118 So.2d 539. Petitioners insist that the rule of these cases has been superseded by principles announced in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 and Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235. We find the federal cases inapposite. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any justification for overruling the Florida cases cited. On the authority of those cases, the alternative writ of mandamus is quashed and the petition dismissed.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with Opinion.

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially):

I agree with the judgment quashing the alternative writ of mandamus for the reason that, in my opinion, the petitioners are guilty of laches. Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., has been in existence for a number of years, yet petitioners come here on the very eve of an election seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. It is “too little and too late.”