Title: In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

150 So. 2d 721 (1963)
In re ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 31, 1963.
PER CURIAM.
Dear Governor:
We have the honor to acknowledge your communication of January 29, 1963, requesting our advice pursuant to Article IV, Section 13, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., regarding certain executive powers and duties under the Constitution.
Omitting the formal parts, your letter reads as follows:
Implicit in your inquiry is your justifiable executive concern regarding your duties under the Florida Constitution as affected by the Constitution of the United States and the interlocutory decrees of the United States District Court in Sobel v. Adams and Swann v. Adams.
We understand that you are seeking advice as to your executive responsibilities under Article IV, Section 6, Florida Constitution, which directs that "[t]he Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and under Section 3, Article VII, Florida Constitution, relating to the calling of extraordinary reapportionment sessions of the Legislature. In view of the decisions of the United States District Court in the cases mentioned, you have considered it to be your duty to call the Legislature into extra session pursuant to Article IV, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and to Section 3, Article VII, Florida Constitution, and have done so. By the decrees above mentioned, the United States Court has imposed upon the State of Florida the obligation to reapportion the Legislature "in compliance with the requirement of the United States Constitution," which the Federal Court held prohibits State action denying equal protection of the laws under the Constitution of the United States. That Court decreed that the obligation of the State was of such urgency that it should be performed with dispatch. We have concluded that, in view of the pronounced urgency, that you, the Chief Executive, are justified in seeking advice regarding the executive powers and duties set forth in your question hereinabove presented.
We take note that the aforementioned Federal Court, with reference to the provisions of the Florida Constitution relating to reapportionment said:
The opinion of the Federal Court, on which the above judgment rests, said, among other things:
It therefore appears that the controlling question giving you concern is whether or not the judgment of the aforementioned Federal Court dated July 23, 1962, has eliminated from the Constitution of Florida the State organic limitation on the House and Senate. We think the language is clear and unequivocal wherein the Federal Court said, "Said provisions are hereby found and declared to be prospectively null, void and inoperative." The only doubt might rest with whether or not the Court had jurisdiction to so order. Without conceding the right, we must concede the power, of the Federal judicial system to enforce its judgment in this cause. The jurisdiction is settled in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663. And so it is that the decision of the Federal Court, supra, in this cause has eliminated the limitations provided in the Florida Constitution on the size of the House and Senate, and you have the power to continue to call recurring extra sessions under Section 8, Article IV, Florida Constitution, until such time as a reapportionment bill is enacted by the Legislature in conformity with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding the aforesaid limitations as they were prior to the decision of the Federal Court, supra, on July 23, 1962, and which have been by virtue of that decree invalidated.
Respectfully submitted,
[1]  See 208 F. Supp. 316.
[2]  See 208 F. Supp. 319.