Summary
In Ryan v. State ex rel. Ford, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 188, 190, we held that the dominant purpose of the constitutional provision under discussion is "equality of representation as near as can be attained within a reasonable range of discretion."
Summary of this case from Singletary v. StateOpinion
August 8, 1952. Rehearing Denied August 29, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, H.B. Frederick, J.
Charles W. Luther, Daytona Beach, and Caldwell, Parker, Foster Wigginton, Tallahassee, for appellants.
J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, for appellee.
February 21, 1952, the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County adopted a resolution dividing the County into five County Commissioners Districts, population as follows:District Population
1 19,259 2 13,257 3 12,686 4 15,501 5 13,011 February 29, 1952, on petition of appellee, alternative writ of mandamus was directed to the Board of County Commissioners, directing them to meet and rescind their resolution of February 21, and fix the boundaries of the County Commissioners Districts of Volusia County so that each of said districts shall be as nearly as possible equal in proportion to population, as required by Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, F.S.A., or to show cause why they refuse to do so. A motion to quash or dismiss the alternative writ was overruled, a return was filed and on final hearing motion of relators for peremptory writ, notwithstanding the amended return, was granted. This appeal was prosecuted.Appellants urge two points for our determination, but in our view both are comprehended in the sole question of whether or not the resolution of February 21, dividing the county into five County Commissioners Districts with population as stated, met the requirements of Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.
In so far as pertinent to this case, Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that the Board of County Commissioners in the respective counties, shall from time to time fix the boundaries of the County Commissioners Districts. "There shall be one County Commissioner in each of the five County Commissioners Districts in each county, which districts shall be numbered one to five, inclusive, and shall be as nearly as possible equal in proportion to population."
We were confronted with questions similar to this in Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. State ex rel. Hunter, 150 Fla. 213, 7 So.2d 105, and in Prince v. State ex rel. Williams, 157 Fla. 103, 25 So.2d 5. The gist of our holding in these cases was that Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution was the governing law for fixing the boundaries of County Commissioners Districts, but that the Board of County Commissioners may exercise a reasonable discretion within the terms of the Constitution in the performance of this duty. So, in its final analysis the real question in this case is whether or not the County Commissioners abused their discretion when they fixed the boundaries of the County Commissioners Districts of Volusia County February 21, 1951, with population as heretofore stated.
The mandate of the Constitution is that the Commissioners Districts "shall be as nearly as possible equal in proportion to population." The qualification "as nearly equal as possible," necessarily implies a reasonable range of discretion to be exercised in the performance of this responsibility. In other words, mathematical exactitude is not required. Did the County Commissioners abuse the range of discretion accorded them by the Constitution?
The population of Volusia County as revealed by the 1950 census was 72,229. This would give each County Commissioners District 14,846 population if each district was divided equally. In his final decree, the trial court found that this figure was a variation of 30 per cent from the population of 19,259, allocated to District 1, that on same basis it was a variation of 49 per cent from the population allocated to District 3 and that taking an average of all the districts except number 1, the variance would be 41 per cent. These and other averages are the basis on which the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the alternative writ and granted the motion of relators for peremptory writ, notwithstanding the amended return. This was equivalent to holding that the County Commissioners abused their discretion.
Our examination of the map of the five districts shows that the West side of the County is embraced in District 1, which is primarily agricultural and that Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 embrace the East side of the County, the dominant interest of which is tourists. It was also shown that the East side or coastal area had a much larger population and that its population was increasing much more rapidly. These considerations no doubt influenced the County Commissioners largely in their division of the county into County Commissioners Districts. In doing this, however, Districts two, three, four and five do not reveal a material variance from the constitutional requirement, but District one on its face shows considerable variance.
This is accounted for by the fact of much more rapid growth on the East side of the County than on the West side. It is also accounted for in the similarity of interests dominant on the East side and their difference from those on the West side.
We think the County Commissioners may place some emphasis on these and other practical considerations, provided they do not lead to a result too far at variance from the constitutional requirement.
The dominant purpose of Section 5, Article VIII, is equality of representation as near as can be attained within a reasonable range of discretion. It is not required that the Districts must be equal in population. After consideration of the elements shown to have been brought into play in this case, we cannot say that the County Commissioners abused their discretion. There was approximate equality of representation in four of the districts and, while there is variance as to the other, some good reasons are shown for it.
It follows that the decree appealed from must be and is hereby reversed with directions to approve the resolution of the County Commissioners of February 21, 1952.
It is so ordered.
SEBRING, C.J., THOMAS and MATHEWS, JJ., and GORDON, Associate Justice, concur.
HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., dissent.