Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE OF DEPT. OF GEN. SERV.

Supreme Court of Florida
278 So.2d 614 (1973)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A specific constitutional amendment, adopted subsequent to general provisions on the same subject, creates an exception to those general provisions and will prevail in the event of a conflict, as it represents the last expression of the will of the people.


Facts:

  • In 1970, the Florida Constitution was amended to include Article VII, Section 14.
  • This amendment specifically authorized the state to issue full faith and credit bonds to finance air and water pollution control and solid waste disposal facilities.
  • The amendment explicitly stated that these state bonds could be issued 'without an election.'
  • The amendment also allowed local governmental agencies to pledge their full faith and credit and taxing power to secure loans or leases for these facilities, also 'without any election.'
  • Pursuant to this authority, the Division of Bond Finance of the Department of General Services proposed to issue up to $58,900,000 in State of Florida Full Faith and Credit Pollution Control Bonds.
  • The proceeds of these bonds were intended to be loaned to various local governmental agencies to construct pollution control facilities.
  • The repayment of the bonds was to be secured by revenues from the facilities, the full faith and credit of the local agencies, and additionally by the full faith and credit of the State of Florida.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Division of Bond Finance of the Department of General Services initiated a proceeding in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, to validate the issuance of state pollution control bonds.
  • The State Attorney, representing the State of Florida, appeared in the Circuit Court to show cause why the bonds should not be validated.
  • The Circuit Court entered a final judgment validating and confirming the issuance of the bonds.
  • The State of Florida, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of the Circuit Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

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 Article VII, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution, which expressly authorizes the issuance of state and local full faith and credit bonds for pollution control facilities without an election, create a valid exception to the general requirements for elector approval for such bonds found in Article VII, Sections 11(a) and 12(a)?


Opinions:

Majority - Roberts, Acting Chief Justice

Yes. Article VII, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution creates a valid exception to the general constitutional requirements for elector approval. A specific constitutional provision enacted subsequent to a more general one prevails in case of a conflict. The court reasoned that while Article VII, Sections 11(a) and 12(a) generally require a vote of the electors to pledge the full faith and credit of the state or local governments, Article VII, Section 14 is a later, more specific amendment dealing exclusively with pollution control bonds. Citing established rules of constitutional construction from cases like Advisory Opinion to Governor, the court held that a duly adopted amendment is the last expression of the will of the people and supersedes any prior inconsistent provisions. The court found that the people of Florida, by adopting Article VII, Section 14, clearly intended to create a specific, alternative method for financing these particular projects without a referendum. This situation was analogous to State v. Division of Bond Finance, where a similar specific exception for highway bonds was upheld against the same general requirement for an election.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies a key principle of constitutional interpretation: a later, specific amendment carves out a controlling exception to an earlier, general rule. By validating this financing mechanism, the court enabled the state to expedite funding for critical environmental infrastructure projects without the potential delays and costs of referenda. This precedent strengthens the power of targeted constitutional amendments to alter the state's governing framework and provides a clear legal pathway for similar financing schemes authorized by specific constitutional exceptions in the future.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE OF DEPT. OF GEN. SERV. (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"