A Florida court has ruled that Volusia County must comply with a 2018 constitutional amendment that changes how county officers are elected. This decision affects the governance structure of the county and clarifies the roles of state officials in such disputes. The ruling could impact how local governments across Florida operate in the future.
The case, County of Volusia, Philip T. Fleuchaus, and T. Wayne Bailey v. Ron DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida; Laurel M. Lee, Secretary of State of the State of Florida; Florida Tax Collectors Association; and Florida Association of Court Clerks, Inc., was filed on August 17, 2020, under docket number 1D19-1089. It centers around a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in November 2018 that eliminated the power of home-rule counties to change the selection and duties of their constitutional officers. This ruling has implications for local governance and the authority of state officials.
The parties involved in the case include Volusia County and its officials, who sought to maintain their existing governance structure established in 1970. The county had adopted charter provisions that allowed it to appoint heads of certain offices, including the tax collector. After the 2018 amendment passed, the county filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that it could continue its existing practices. The county named Florida’s Governor and Secretary of State as defendants, arguing that they had a legal duty to sign the commissions of county constitutional officers.
The dispute arose after the 2018 amendment to the Florida Constitution, which mandated that all counties elect their sheriffs, tax collectors, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, and clerks of circuit court. This amendment removed the ability of counties to change the manner in which these officers are selected or to abolish their offices altogether. Volusia County argued that its 1970 charter amendments were “grandfathered in” and should remain effective despite the new amendment.
The trial court ruled against Volusia County, stating that the county must comply with the 2018 amendment. The court affirmed that the Secretary of State was a proper defendant in the case but reversed the determination that the Governor was a proper party. The court explained that the amendment was not retroactive and required only prospective compliance from the county.
The court ruled, "This amendment effected a prospective change, giving the County a deadline of January 5, 2021 to comply..."
The ruling clarifies that the Secretary of State has a role in ensuring that the elections for county constitutional officers are conducted in accordance with the new amendment. The court stated that the Secretary of State is responsible for maintaining uniformity in election laws and ensuring that local supervisors of elections include all county constitutional officers on the ballot.
In contrast, the court found that the Governor did not have a direct interest in the case and, therefore, was not a proper defendant. The court noted that the Governor's general executive powers were insufficient to establish him as a proper party in this dispute.
This ruling has significant implications for local governance in Florida. It reinforces the authority of the state constitution over local charters and clarifies the roles of state officials in disputes regarding local governance. The decision may influence how other counties in Florida approach their governance structures and the selection of constitutional officers.
The court's decision means that Volusia County must alter its governance structure to comply with the 2018 amendment. This change will affect how local elections are conducted and how county officers are selected in the future. The ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the authority of the Florida Constitution over local charters and clarifies the responsibilities of state officials in enforcing these constitutional provisions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Volusia County will appeal this ruling. The county has the option to seek further review, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. There may also be related cases pending that address similar issues of local governance and the authority of state officials.