Nichols v. State ex rel. Bolon
1965 Fla. LEXIS 3015, 177 So. 2d 467 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state legislature has plenary power to prescribe reasonable qualifications for statutory municipal offices, and this power is not limited by the state constitution's mandate to exclude certain individuals from public office.
Facts:
- A Florida statute required that candidates for City Commissioner of the City of Melbourne be freeholder electors of the city for at least one year before qualifying for office.
- Ted Nichols and Leslie Bolon were opposing candidates for the office of City Commissioner.
- Nichols was elected to the position.
- Nichols had not been a freeholder elector of the City for one year prior to qualifying for the office.
Procedural Posture:
- Leslie Bolon filed a suit in the circuit court (trial court) challenging the qualifications of Ted Nichols.
- The circuit court issued a temporary injunction preventing the City of Melbourne from administering the oath of office to Nichols.
- Nichols filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, arguing the freeholder requirement in the city charter was unconstitutional.
- The chancellor (the circuit court judge) denied the motion and held the statute to be valid.
- Nichols, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal of that 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 requiring candidates for city commissioner to be freeholders for at least one year violate the Florida Constitution, which only explicitly directs the legislature to exclude persons convicted of certain crimes from office?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Connell, J.
No. The state law requiring a candidate for city commissioner to be a freeholder does not violate the Florida Constitution. The legislature's power to create and regulate municipal corporations includes the authority to establish reasonable qualifications for municipal offices. The constitutional provision directing the legislature to exclude certain criminals from office imposes a duty but does not prohibit the legislature from setting other qualifications for statutory offices. The court reasoned that the maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusio alterius' (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) does not apply here to limit the legislature's power. Citing State ex rel. Moodie v. Bryan, the court affirmed that the legislature has plenary power over municipalities, which are creatures of statute. It distinguished this case from those involving constitutional offices, for which the legislature may not add qualifications unless the constitution specifically authorizes it. The court found the freeholder requirement to be a reasonable qualification for a municipal office.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of legislative supremacy over municipal corporations, treating them as creations of the state subject to its control. It clarifies the critical distinction between constitutional offices, whose qualifications are fixed by the constitution, and statutory offices, for which the legislature may prescribe additional reasonable qualifications. The ruling solidifies the precedent that constitutional lists of disqualifications act as a minimum standard (a floor), not an exhaustive list (a ceiling), thereby granting the legislature significant discretion in regulating eligibility for offices it creates.
