10-27-03 Answer Brief in Sup Ct FORMATTED for FL SUP
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SCO3-128 L.T. Case No.’s: 4D02-2353 AND 4D02-2401 (consolidated) Glenda E. Hood, Secretary of v. Rep. Corrine Brown, State of the State of Florida, Rep. Alcee Hastings, Rep. Carrie Meek, and Sallie Stephens, Petitioner Respondents ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS ON JURISDICTION Filed on behalf of the Respondents by: Colleen Kathryn O’Loughlin, Attorney at Law Ephraim R. Hess, Attorney at Law J. Gerald Hebert, Attorney at Law Paul M. Smith, Attorney at Law Sam Hirsch, Attorney at Law Katherine A. Fallow, Attorney at Law TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………...iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………...…..1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS.................................................1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT........................................................................3 ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION BELOW DID NOT EXPRESSLY CONSTRUE A PROVISION OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; THUS, THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER FLA. CONST. ART. V, §3(b)(3) TO REVIEW THIS CASE………………………………………...4 II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CERTIFY A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE; THUS, THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER FLA. CONST. ART. V, §3(b)(4) TO REVIEW THIS CASE…………………8 III. THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THIS CASE…………………..8 IV. THERE IS NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY FOR THIS COURT TO ADJUDICATE, AND THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED…………………………………………………...9 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................12 SERVICE LIST…………………………………………………………………...13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995)……………….…………...8 Armstrong v. Tampa, 106 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1958)……….…………………………5 Brown v. Butterworth, Case Nos. 4D02-2353 and 4D02-2401, Slip Op. (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)………………………………2 Department of Revenue v. David Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1994)................10 Florida Senate v. Forman, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S733 (Fla. 2002)…………………..6 Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1976)..................10 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Brautigam, 121 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1960)………….5 Ogle v. Pepin, 273 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1973)………………...…………………5 and 9 United States v. Dahlberg, 120 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1960)………………………8 and 9 STATUTES Fla. Const. Art. III §16……………………………………..………………………6 Fla. Const. Art. IV, §1 (c)………………………….………………..……………10 Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3)………………....………..……ii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(4)………...………………….…..….……ii, 3, 8, 9 and 10 RULES Fla. R. App. P. 9.030…………….............................................................................4 Fla. R. App. P. 9.120…………………..……………………………………..8 and 9 Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(a)(2)……………………………………………………..…12 iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court does not have discretionary jurisdiction to hear this matter because the Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeals does not expressly construe a provision of the state or federal constitution1 nor did the Fourth District Court of Appeals certify any question or issue of great public importance for review by this Court. Furthermore, there is no case or controversy upon which this Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Congressman Alcee Hastings, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, and Sallie Stephens, a qualified voter (Respondents in this case and Appellants/Plaintiffs below), brought an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal (hereinafter “Fourth District”), challenging the Trial Court’s sua sponte dismissal of their claims, on the basis that there was no jurisdiction for the Circuit Court to adjudicate a Florida constitutional challenge to a Florida law apportioning congressional districts. The then President of the Florida Senate, John McKay, (Appellant/Intervenor below) also appealed the Trial 1 The Secretary of State only asserts the constitutional construction provision of Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3) as the basis for discretionary jurisdiction in this case; hence, the Respondents will focus on that provision of Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3) herein. As for the other bases for discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3), Respondents simply assert that the Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal does not expressly declare a state statute valid, expressly affect a class of constitutional or state officers, nor expressly and directly conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of this Court. 1 Court’s denial of his request to intervene in the Circuit Court. Although the Plaintiffs and Intervenor separately appealed below, the Fourth District consolidated the appeals for review: Representative Corrine Brown; Representative Alcee Hastings; Representative Carrie Meek; Sallie Stephens; and Senator John McKay, President of the Florida Senate v. Robert a. Butterworth; Attorney General; Jim Smith, Secretary of State; Tom Feeney, Speaker of the House of Representativses; State of Florida, Case Nos. 4D02-2353 & 4D02-2401. The Fourth District rendered its decision in Case Nos. 4D02-2353 and 4D02-2401 on October 11, 2002 reversing the two rulings of the Circuit Court. See Brown v. Butterworth, 831 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The Fourth District held that the Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ claims. This ruling is the subject of this appeal. (Id.) The Fourth District also held that the President of the Florida Senate was a proper, but not indispensable party to intervene in this case before the Circuit Court. 2 (Id.) The Fourth District denied all motions for rehearing and/or certification on December 20, 2002. The Fourth District did not certify any question or issue of great public importance. 2 In Case No. SC03-23, the AG seeks to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction on the issue of whether or not the AG is an indispensable party to all actions challenging the constitutionality of all Florida legislation, which issue was not raised on appeal to the Fourth District. 2 Neither the Attorney General (hereinafter “AG”) nor the Secretary of State (hereinafter “Secretary”) moved to stay issuance of the Mandate in this case. On January 10, 2002 the Fourth District issued the Mandate. On January 16, 2003, the Respondents filed in the Circuit Court Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to State Of Florida, Charlie Crist (as Attorney General) and Ken Detzner (as Secretary of State). The Secretary served his Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction of Supreme Court on January 21, 2003. On January 22, 2003, Respondents filed in the Circuit Court Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Jim King, President of the Florida Senate. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This Court does not have discretionary jurisdiction to review this case pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V, § 3(b)(3). The Fourth District’s Decision does not expressly construe a provision of the state or federal constitution. This Court does not have discretionary jurisdiction to review this case pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(4). The Fourth District did not certify any question or issue of great public importance for review. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court may not be invoked merely because the Secretary deems there to be an issue of great public importance Since there is no basis for jurisdiction, the Secretary argues the merits of this case. Arguing the merits of the case in a brief on jurisdiction is improper. This 3 Court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of this case. Additionally, there is no case or controversy for this Court to review since the Respondents voluntarily dismissed all adverse parties after the issuance of the Mandate. If this Court were to issue an opinion in this case, it would merely be an advisory opinion. This Court should dismiss this case. ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION BELOW DID NOT EXPRESSLY CONSTRUE A PROVISION OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; THUS, THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER FLA. CONST. ART. V, §3(b)(3) TO REVIEW THIS CASE In order to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3), the Fourth District’s Decision must expressly construe a provision of the state or federal constitution. The Fourth District’s decision does not expressly construe any provision of the state or federal constitution. In 1980, Article V §3(b) of the Florida Constitution was amended to limit this Court’s caseload and preserve appellate resources. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030, 1980 Committee Notes. Fla. Const. Art.V, §3(b) sets forth the sole bases for this Court’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3) this Court may review a decision of a district court of appeal that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution. When Fla. Const. Art. V, §3(b)(3) was revised in 1980, the language of this section became more restrictive by the inclusion of 4 the term “expressly”. To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under this provision, the construction of a state or federal constitution must be express and actual. To be an actual construction, the district court must “explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision.” Armstrong v. Tampa, 106 So. 2d 407, 409 (Fla. 1958). Decisions which merely apply state or constitutional principles to the facts of a case cannot be deemed to construe a constitutional provision. (Id.) The inherency doctrine does not apply to jurisdiction based on construction. See Ogle v. Pepin, 273 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1973). This Court does not have discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision which has the mere effect of construing a provision of the state or federal constitution. See Miami Herald Publishing Co.