Why do we bother having city and county governments, if the state dictates the big stuff from Tallahassee?
That’s not exactly the question in a gun case on the Florida Supreme Court docket this week. But the tattered old cliche’ about “the government closest to the people governs best” is being tested by the dispute. It used to be a core principle of conservatism but guns trump principles in our Legislature now.
The fairly mundane argument over home rule and state authority warrants attention in light of the mass murders in Buffalo, Uvalde and Oklahoma, and the current congressional debate on guns. But the issue for the court is whether the state should intimidate duly elected city and county officers for doing what they perceive their constituents want.
In 1987, state legislators pre-empted all firearms regulation would be decreed at the state level. The idea was that, as the right to have guns is in the U.S. Constitution, laws should be uniform from the edge of the Alabama line to the tip of the Florida Keys.
Then in 2011, the state imposed a $5,000 penalty for any city or county commissioners who adopt regulations in violation of statewide rules. Citizens suing their local governments over tighter gun laws can also recover legal costs under the law.
The issue before the Supreme Court this week is not the state takeover of gun laws, but the harsh penalties for local governments and officers.
A coalition of local governments, joined by Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and some civic organizations, contends that the penalties violate legal immunities for the cities and counties, their mayors and council members.
That’s a good point. If a city commission member casts a good-faith vote for something, believing it’s proper policy for the community and doesn’t exceed delegated authority, why should that officer be hit with a fine or even removal from office? Sure, everybody must obey all the laws but if a city attorney or county’s lawyers assure members that a proposed ordinance is lawful, shouldn’t decision-makers be able to vote for or against it as they see fit?
Challengers to the law include Tallahassee, Gainesville and some of Florida’s biggest cities. They argue that the law authorizing the penalties goes beyond the actions of local governments and delves into the motives of those adopting a gun ordinance.
The News Service of Florida recently cited their brief to the high court:
“The state’s argument, if adopted, would undermine core principles of democracy. The Florida Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine preclude the Legislature from expanding the judicial power in Florida to inquire into the motivations of local elected officials … simply because of how they voted on legislation that, at the time, had not yet been determined to be pre-empted.”
More from Bill Cotterell:
More:Charlie Crist has nothing to gain from more debates
More:Do we really have to live with mass shootings?
More:What if a voter-suppression law doesn’t suppress?
More:The plot thickens with cross-over voting in Georgia primaries
A three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal saw it differently, holding that the state has “authority to abrogate legislative immunity” of city and county officials. With regard to guns, the appellate court said, “the Legislature has withdrawn all legislative authority from local governments and agencies to make policy decisions.”
Therefore, local governments have no immunity for acts — however well-intended, or desired by the public — in any matter pre-empted to the state level.
Legalities aside, there’s a certain irony in the state wanting to punish the cities and counties for not remembering their place, and staying in it.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and his hand-maiden Republican Legislature have happily churned out a thick stack of laws of dubious constitutionality. Many of them appeal to a conservative voter base but — like the DeSantis-drafted congressional redistricting map, new abortion restrictions, that “Don’t Say Gay” issue, and his recently rejected social-media meddling — will cost taxpayers a ton of legal fees.
There’s no financial or personal penalty for governors and legislators who adopt unconstitutional laws. And there’s ample reason to question their motives for doing so.
So why whack city and county officers who are elected to use their judgment on matters of local concern — even guns?
Bill Cotterell is a retired Tallahassee Democrat capitol reporter who writes a twice-weekly column. He can be reached at bcotterell@tallahassee.com
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Send letters to the editor (up to 200 words) or Your Turn columns (about 500 words) to letters@tallahassee.com. Please include your address for verification purposes only, and if you send a Your Turn, also include a photo and 1-2 line bio of yourself. You can also submit anonymous Zing!s at Tallahassee.com/Zing. Submissions are published on a space-available basis. All submissions may be edited for content, clarity and length, and may also be published by any part of the USA TODAY NETWORK.
