City of Long Beach Resort v. Collins
261 So. 2d 498 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state legislature possesses plenary power to create, modify, and abolish municipalities, and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by conditioning an act of municipal consolidation on a referendum offered only to a certain class of affected citizens while denying the referendum to other affected citizens.
Facts:
- The Florida Legislature created four separate municipalities along the Gulf coast west of Panama City: Town of Edgewater Gulf Beach, City of West Panama City Beach, City of Long Beach Resort, and City of Panama City Beach.
- In 1970, the Legislature passed a series of special acts, culminating in House Bill No. 5288, to consolidate these four municipalities and five adjoining unincorporated areas into a single new city.
- The legislation granted the right to vote in a referendum on the consolidation to the residents of the five unincorporated areas.
- The legislation did not grant the right to vote in a referendum to the residents of the four existing municipalities that were being consolidated into the new city.
- The residents of the unincorporated areas who were permitted to vote approved the consolidation.
Procedural Posture:
- Milton C. Buckley and other petitioners filed suit in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, seeking a declaratory decree and a writ of quo warranto challenging the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5288.
- The City of Long Beach Resort intervened as a petitioner, raising additional claims concerning its water revenue bonds.
- The trial court judge dismissed the complaints for failure to state a cause of action, an order which inherently passed on the constitutionality of the state statute.
- Buckley and the City of Long Beach Resort (Appellants) filed a direct appeal 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 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions when it provides for the consolidation of several municipalities and adjoining unincorporated areas but allows only the residents of the unincorporated areas to vote on the consolidation, while denying the right to vote to residents of the existing municipalities?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The state law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the Legislature has plenary power over municipalities, including their creation, modification, and abolition. The court reasoned that the Legislature has "life and death powers over municipalities" and can alter or abolish them at its prerogative. Because the Legislature could have mandated the consolidation without any referendum at all, its decision to make the act's effectiveness contingent upon the approval of a specific class of citizens—in this case, residents of the unincorporated areas—is a valid exercise of its power. The court found no constitutional infirmity in this legislative choice.
Dissenting - Dekle, J.
Yes. The state law violates the Equal Protection Clause because once the Legislature decides to provide for a referendum, it must meet constitutional standards by extending the franchise to all affected citizens alike, not to an unreasonable and arbitrary classification. The dissent argued that denying the right to vote to the majority of affected persons—the residents of the existing cities—while granting it to a limited number of residents in the unincorporated areas is a clear denial of equal protection. Citing principles from U.S. Supreme Court cases like Reynolds v. Sims, the dissent contended that the weight of a citizen's vote cannot depend on where they live, and that entirely denying the franchise to one affected group while granting it to another is a more egregious harm than merely diluting a vote.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the traditional doctrine of the state legislature's plenary power over its political subdivisions, such as municipalities. It establishes that if the legislature has the absolute power to act unilaterally, its choice to grant a limited franchise does not trigger a successful equal protection challenge from those excluded. The dissent, however, reflects a growing jurisprudential trend influenced by modern voting rights cases, suggesting that once the right to vote is extended, it must be applied equitably among all substantially affected citizens. The case highlights the tension between the state's structural power over local governments and individual constitutional rights to equal participation.
