Capella v. City of Gainesville
377 So. 2d 658 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature has plenary power over municipal boundaries and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by enacting an annexation procedure that relies on a single majority vote of the combined electorates of the annexing city and the area to be annexed. Additionally, a statutory two-year ban on re-annexing "the area proposed to be annexed" after a failed referendum applies only to the identical parcel of land, not to a portion of it.
Facts:
- In November 1976, the City of Gainesville held a referendum to annex certain unincorporated land, but the proposal was defeated.
- Joseph A. Capella resided in the area that was the subject of the failed 1976 annexation attempt.
- In 1977, the Florida legislature enacted chapter 77-557, creating the Gainesville Corporate Limits Council and authorizing a new annexation process.
- This new process allowed for annexation if approved by a combined majority of voters from both the City of Gainesville and the area to be annexed.
- In 1978, the Council recommended the annexation of an area that was a portion of the land from the failed 1976 referendum and included Capella's residence.
- A referendum was held on May 2, 1978, for this new, smaller area.
- Although a majority of residents in the area to be annexed voted against it, the measure passed due to the overwhelming affirmative vote from the more numerous electors within the City of Gainesville.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph A. Capella filed suit against the City of Gainesville and the Gainesville Corporate Limits Council in the Circuit Court of Alachua County, the trial court of first instance.
- Capella sought to invalidate the annexation ordinance, arguing it violated a state statute and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the authorizing state law, chapter 77-557, and the validity of the annexation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the City of Gainesville and the Council.
- Capella, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal of the trial court's final order to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law authorizing municipal annexation based on a single majority vote of the combined electorates of the annexing city and the area to be annexed violate the Equal Protection Clause where the voters in the area to be annexed are outnumbered and vote against the measure?
Opinions:
Majority - Alderman, J.
No, the state law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A state legislature possesses broad, plenary power over the creation, modification, and abolition of municipalities. There is no absolute constitutional right for residents to vote on the alteration of municipal boundaries, and the legislature may permit annexation with or without a referendum, or through a single majority vote of all affected persons as it did here. The court reasoned that since the legislature has 'life and death powers over municipalities,' it can set the terms for their expansion. Citing precedent like Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, the court affirmed that the state's power in this area is paramount. The court also addressed a statutory claim, holding that Florida's two-year ban on re-annexation attempts only applied when a city sought to annex the identical area previously rejected, not just a part of it, based on the legislature's deliberate removal of the words 'any part' from a predecessor statute.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the doctrine of legislative supremacy over municipal affairs, particularly annexation. It establishes that equal protection challenges to annexation voting schemes are unlikely to succeed in Florida, as there is no fundamental right to vote on boundary changes. The court's interpretation of the statutory two-year ban also created a significant loophole, allowing municipalities to make repeated annexation attempts on substantially the same territory by making minor modifications to the boundaries. This gives expanding municipalities considerable leverage over the residents of adjacent unincorporated areas.
