Case Name: In re APPORTIONMENT LAW APPEARING AS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 E, 1982 SPECIAL APPORTIONMENT SESSION; CONSTITUTIONALITY VEL NON
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-04-26
Citations: 414 So. 2d 1040
Docket Number: No. 61933
Parties: In re APPORTIONMENT LAW APPEARING AS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 E, 1982 SPECIAL APPORTIONMENT SESSION; CONSTITUTIONALITY VEL NON.
Judges: SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 414
Pages: 1040–1063

Head Matter:
In re APPORTIONMENT LAW APPEARING AS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 E, 1982 SPECIAL APPORTIONMENT SESSION; CONSTITUTIONALITY VEL NON.
No. 61933.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 26, 1982.
On the Merits May 12, 1982.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Kendrick Tucker, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Mitchell D. Franks and Gerald B. Curington, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for Atty. Gen. of the State of Fla., petitioner.
Thomas W. McAliley of Beckham & Mc-Aliley, Miami, and Neal P. Rutledge, Washington, D. C., for the Florida Senate; Barry Richard of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser, Tallahassee, and Mark Herron, House Select Committee on Reapportionment, Tallahassee, for Florida House of Representatives, respondents.
Talbot D’Alemberte, L. Martin Reeder, Jr. and Thomas R. Julin of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for Republican Legislators.
Gerald B. Cope, Jr. of Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson & Greer, and Stephen T. Maher, Miami, for Common Cause/Florida.
Tom R. Moore, in pro. per.
Joseph W. Little, University of Florida, College of Law, Gainesville, for Manning J. Dauer, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Florida, and Joseph W. Little, Professor of Law, University of Florida, amici curiae.
Chesterfield Smith and Jacqueline Allee of Holland & Knight, Tampa, and Ruth Ann Bramson, in pro. per., as President of The League of Women Voters of Florida, Tampa, for The League of Women Voters of Florida.
Tony Cunningham of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughn & McLaughlin, Tampa, for Honorable Pat Frank, Senator, District 23 Florida Senate, amicus curiae.
Michael L. Rosen of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, and Paul B. Steinberg, in pro. per., of Steinberg & Wohl, Miami Beach, for Honorable Paul B. Steinberg, Senator, District 36 Florida Senate.
John M. Diaz, in pro, per.
Halley B. Lewis, in pro. per.
Donald A. Dowdell, General Counsel, Dept, of Insurance, Tallahassee, for Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida.
C. Allen Watts, Deland, for William E. Keller, et al., individually and as constituting the West Volusia Legislative Appeals Committee.
Heyward A. Bradman, Miami, for Political Coalition of South Dade.
Cynthia S. Tunnicliff of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly,' Tallahassee, for Robert Altobello and Richard Basringer, residents of City of Miramar, Broward County, Florida.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This Court directed the attorney general and all interested parties to present briefs and oral argument upon the issue raised by the attorney general
that [Senate Joint Resolution] 1 E may not constitute a joint resolution of apportionment because although the Legislature in SJR 1 E did agree as to the number and location of the constitutionally required House and Senate districts, the House and the Senate apparently did not agree concerning the separate requirement for consecutively numbered districts.
In response, the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives entered into a stipulation, which they filed in this cause, stating:
1. On April 7, 1982, both the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives duly passed SJR 1 E including the numbering of Senate districts as shown in Section 3 of the Resolution.
2. The language included in subsection 5(2) of SJR 1 E was intended solely to preserve the right of the House of Representatives to challenge in this Court the constitutional validity of the number pattern.
In argument before this Court, counsel for the House explains that it voted for adoption of the particular designation of senate districts contained in SJR 1 E but that it reserves the right by its policy statement in the joint resolution to question the validity of the numbering scheme. The House asserts the reason for the qualifying language in SJR 1 E was to serve notice that the House would raise the constitutional issue and to prevent any argument being made that it was estopped from presenting that issue before this Court.
We conclude that SJR 1 E is not invalidated because policy language was inserted to protect the House in its desire to contest a portion of the resolution's constitutionality. The resolution reflects that the House properly adopted the senate numbering plan in issue. Applying accepted principles of statutory construction, we find that SJR 1 E constitutes a joint resolution of apportionment within the purview of article III, section 16(a), Florida Constitution. See State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981); Wakulla County v. Davis, 395 So.2d 540 (Fla.1981); Sharer v. Hotel Corp. of America, 144 So.2d 813 (Fla.1962); State ex rel. Church v. Yeats, 74 Fla. 509, 77 So. 262 (Fla.1917). By our action, we have not addressed the merits of the validity of the senate district numbering or the senate terms of office, and leave those and any other issues that may be raised concerning the joint resolution's validity to our consideration on the merits in accordance with the procedure previously established. The time for submission of briefs and oral argument will remain as set in our prior orders.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, J., dissents.