Metropolitan Dade County v. Lehtinen
This text of 528 So. 2d 394 (Metropolitan Dade County v. Lehtinen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellant,
v.
Dexter LEHTINEN, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., for appellant.
Dexter Lehtinen, Mitchell Katz, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We agree with the trial court that the proposed ballot question in issue here[1] is both affirmatively misleading in critical respects,[2] see Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982), and, even more clearly, does not satisfy the requirement of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1987), that the "substance of ... [the] measure ... be printed in clear and unambiguous language," nor that of Article 7, Section 7.01(4)(b) of the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter that a proposition be *395 submitted "in such manner as provides a clear understanding of the proposal."
We find no merit in the county's argument that the action is barred by laches.
Affirmed.[3]
NOTES
[1] The question provides:
HOME RULE CHARTER REVISIONS
SHALL THE DADE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REVISIONS TO: THE CITIZENS' BILL OF RIGHTS; THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S POWERS, PROCEDURES AND ELECTIONS; THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATION; THE TRANSFER OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; THE PROCEDURES FOR CREATION AND ABOLITION OF MUNICIPALITIES; THE PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL; THE PROCEDURES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CHARTER; AND VARIOUS TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS?
YES ____ NO ____[2] For example, the question refers to revisions of "the procedures for initiative, referendum
and recall" [e.s.], while the actual proposal involves extensive substantive changes in the grounds and availability of the recall process.
[3] Rehearing is dispensed with.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
528 So. 2d 394, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 612, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 910, 1988 WL 18575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-dade-county-v-lehtinen-fladistctapp-1988.