District Court of Appeal of Florida

In a dispute over the legality of placing on a ballot a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing certain counties' voters to approve slot machines in parimutuel facilities, the court rules that a failure to comply with mandatory constitutional prerequisites is not automatically cured, as a matter of law, once an election is held, when a lawsuit challenging compliance is brought prior to the election. A party who seeks to amend the Florida Constitution and those employed by that party are not exempt, as a matter of law, from actual compliance with mandatory constitutional prerequisites for amending the constitution if they create the illusion of compliance through fraudulent activities, and the amendment is subsequently approved by the voters.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/30/2006
• Published 12/04/2006

Judges

• PER CURIAM.

Court

• District Court of Appeal of Florida

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John H. Pelzer of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale;  Mark Herron, Thomas M. Findley, and Robert J. Telfer, III, of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee;  and Scott H. Marder, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Wilbur E. Brewton and Tana D. Storey of Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Tallahassee;  Jack M. Skelding, Jr., of Skelding & Cox. P.A., Tallahassee;  Ronald L. Book of Ronald L. Book, P.A., Aventura;  Marc W. Dunbar of Pennington Moore Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A., Tallahassee;  and Harold F.X. Purnell and Gary R. Rutledge of Rutledge, Ecenia, et al., Tallahassee;  Charlie Crist, Attorney General, James A. Peters, Special Counsel, Steven Todd Gold, Deputy Solicitor General, of Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.