Opinion ID: 1129047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: brown price king

Text: Respondents Brown, Price and King presently hold offices as set out supra, footnote 2, whose terms run concurrently, in part, with the terms of the offices which they seek. Members of the House of Representatives take office upon election. [4] Election Day is November 7, 1972. Their present offices terminate by virtue of new Article V, Fla. Const., F.S.A., on January 1, 1973. These three respondents contend that it is unnecessary for them to resign, maintaining that: (1) The reasons for resigning are not present in their cases, particularly in that no successors to their present posts (which are terminating) are to be elected, so that they need not step aside to make way for the election of successors; (2) Their present offices are not those which might be used to advance their candidacy for the Legislature; (3) It would be a useless and unnecessary act to resign in these circumstances; (4) It would be an economic loss to the taxpayers and result in confusion to have successors appointed for the 54 days remaining from election on Nov. 7 to Jan. 1, if successful in their bids for office. Additionally, Constable Price DID in fact timely resign on June 30. Respondents Brown and King have not resigned. Relator Shevin concedes Price's tender of a letter of resignation but contends that the fact that the resignation was delivered to the Clerk of Circuit Court in Constable Price's district in St. Petersburg (who in turn forwarded it on July 5 to the Governor and Secretary) did not comply literally with the requirements of the statute. We view the resignation as sufficient in these circumstances to satisfy the statute, particularly in view of the further admitted fact that later copies of the resignation WERE received and the Governor accepted the resignation without complaint or objection. Accordingly, Constable Price should remain on the ballot. As to Brown and King, the reasons above recited by them for not resigning where they understood the law not to apply, are cogent and persuasive as to why the resign to run law should not apply in these unusual circumstances, where their offices are terminating by virtue of a new constitutional amendment (Article V) voted upon favorably by the people subsequent to the resign to run law. This superceding action by the people's vote changes the circumstances applying to these terminating offices of Brown and King. These respondents acted in good faith and with good cause in not timely entering resignations in these particular instances with the doubt which existed in their cases. They still offer to resign if deemed necessary. We accordingly hold as to Brown and King that they may continue as candidates upon forthwith tendering their resignations which (in accordance with the statute) shall be effective not later than the date upon which he would assume office, if elected to the office to which he seeks to qualify. The other contingent effective times in the statute do not apply in these new circumstances brought about by Article V. These officers (respondents) could not, of course, hold more than one elective office and thus must submit resignations as outlined. [5]