“De jure and De facto Government”

By: Harold L. Oro

• De facto. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.

• De facto government. A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.

De Facto

• De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.

• De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact". The term de facto as of governments was created after the Argentine Constitution referred to illegal governments (governing bodies which Argentina did not acknowledge as individual nations) as de facto governments. The term de facto may also be used when there is no relevant law or standard, but a common and well established practice that is considered the accepted norm

• The Second Republic of the Philippines was a de facto government of paramount force, having been established by the Japanese belligerents. On the other hand, in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court it declared that the government under Corazon Aquino was a de jure government as the people have already accepted it and the community of nations have recognized its legitimacy.

• A DE FACTO STANDARD IS A STANDARD (FORMAL OR INFORMAL) THAT HAS ACHIEVED A DOMINANT POSITION, BY TRADITION, ENFORCEMENT, OR MARKET DOMINANCE. IT HAS NOT NECESSARILY RECEIVED FORMAL APPROVAL BY WAY OF A STANDARDIZATION PROCESS, AND MAY NOT BE AN OFFICIAL STANDARD DOCUMENT.

• FOR EXAMPLE: BAND-AID, KLEENEX, HI-LITER, WHITE-OUT, JEEP, ETC., ARE ALL PRODUCT BRAND NAMES USED TO DESCRIBE THE ITEM IN A GENERAL WAY.

De jure Government

• De jure government. government de jure, but not de facto, is one deemed lawful, which has been supplanted; a government de jure and also de facto is one deemed lawful, which is present or established; a government de facto is one deemed unlawful, but which is present or established. Any established government, be it deemed lawful or not, is a government de facto. Austin, Jur. sec. vi. 336. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume I, page 768.

• De Jure government Of right; legitimate, lawful; by right and just title. In this sense contrary of de facto, (which see.) It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means “as a matter of right,” as de gratia means “by grace or favor.” Again it may be contrasted with de æquitate; here meaning “by law,” as the latter means “by equity.” See Government. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 481.

• A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state. For example, a government that has been overthrown and has moved to another state will attain de jure status if other nations refuse to accept the legitimacy of the revolutionary government.

• De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in principle" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations. In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

• [Latin, In law.] Legitimate; lawful, as a Matter of Law. Having complied with all the requirements imposed by law. De jure is commonly paired with de facto, which means "in fact." In the course of ordinary events, the term de jure is superfluous. For example, in everyday discourse, when one speaks of a corporation or a government, the understood meaning is a de jure corporation or a de jure government. A de jure corporation is one that has completely fulfilled the statutory formalities imposed by state corporation law in order to be granted corporate existence. In comparison, a de facto corporation is one that has acted in Good Faith and would be an ordinary corporation but for failure to comply with some technical requirements.

Consolidated city-county

What is a Cosolidated City or Country?

Act of Consolidation, 1854

• The Act of Consolidation, more formally known as the act of February 2, 1854 (P.L. 21, No. 16), was enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniaand approved February 2, 1854 by Governor William Bigler. This act consolidated all remaining townships, districts, and boroughs within the County of Philadelphia, dissolving their governmental structures and bringing all municipal authority within the county under the auspices of the Philadelphia government. Additionally, any other unincorporated communities were included in the consolidation. The consolidation was drafted to help combat lawlessness that the many local governments could not handle separately and to bring in much-needed tax revenue for the city.

• In United States local government, a consolidated city-county is a city and county that have been merged into one unified jurisdiction. As such it is simultaneously a city, which is a municipal corporation, and a county, which is an administrative division of a state. It has the powers and responsibilities of both types of entities.

• A consolidated city-county is different from an independent city, although the latter may result from consolidation of a city and a county and may also have the same powers as a consolidated city-county. An independent city is a city not deemed by its state to be located within the boundary of any county, and recognized by its state as a legal territorial entity separate from surrounding or adjoining counties. Not considering Hawaii, which has no independent cities, the Midwest and Upper South have the highest concentration of large consolidated city-county governments in the United States, including Indianapolis, Indiana; Nashville, Tennessee; Jacksonville, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; Kansas City, Kansas; and Lexington, Kentucky. Currently, the largest consolidated city-county in the United States by population is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while the largest by land-area is Jacksonville, Florida.

• According to information compiled by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk, 105 referendums were held in the United States between 1902 and 2010 to consider proposals to consolidate cities and counties. Only 27 of these proposals were approved by voters. Wyandotte County, Kansas, uses the term "unified government" to refer to its consolidation with Kansas City, Kansas, and most of the towns within the county boundaries in which some cities and towns remain separate jurisdictions within the county. Individual sections of a metropolitan or regional municipality may retain some autonomous jurisdiction apart from the city-wide government

• Often, in place of another level of government, local governments form councils of governments – essentially governmental organizations which are not empowered with any law-making or law enforcement powers. This is the case in the Atlanta metropolitan area, where the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) studies and makes recommendations on the impact of all major construction and development projects on the region, but generally cannot stop them. The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) is a true government agency of the state of Georgia, and does control some state transportation monies to the cities and counties, but otherwise has very little authority beyond this small power of the purse.

• The case of New York City is unique, in that the city consists of five boroughs, each of which is co-extensive with a county. Each borough, being coterminous with a county, has its own district attorney; however, county-level government is essentially non-existent as all executive and legislative power is exercised by the city government throughout the five boroughs. The city, as currently constituted, was created in 1898 when the city of New York (then comprising what would become the boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx) annexed Kings County, Queens County, and Richmond County as the boroughs ofBrooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, respectively

• Similar arrangements also exist in other countries. England has six "metropolitan counties" created in 1974: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire. From 1986, these metropolitan counties do not have county councils but rather joint boards for certain functions. Modern unitary authorities are similar, and are known as county boroughs in Wales. In Scotland, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow are functionally "independent cities", though the term is not used.

• In the Canadian province of Ontario, there exist several single-tier municipalities which serve the same sort of functions as American consolidated city-counties. One example of this is the City of Toronto, which was created in 1998 from the

• amalgamation of the central government and the six constituent municipalities of the Metropolitan Municipality of Toronto (a type of regional municipality) which was originally created in 1954.

• In Germany, Berlin and Hamburg are both cities and states (the state of Bremen consists of the cities of Bremen and Bremerhaven). Nearly every larger city in Germany is a consolidated city-county, like Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich or Dresden; Austria, where the capital of Vienna is both a city and state; France, where the capital city of Paris has been coterminous with the département of Paris since 1968; and South Korea, where Seoul is a special city, while six other cities (Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, Gwangju, Incheon, and Ulsan) are metropolitan cities. Additionally, the Australian Capital Territory government inAustralia performs all municipal functions of the city of Canberra, and thus functions as an integrated city-territory. Similarly, the City of Tokyo merged with the prefecture to form Tokyo metropolis in 1943.

• In seven consolidated city-county governments in the United States, the formerly independent incorporated places maintain some governmental powers. In these cities, which the Bureau of the Census calls "consolidated cities", statistics are recorded both for the entire consolidated government and for the component municipalities. A part of the consolidated government is called the "balance", which the Census Bureau defines as "the consolidated city minus the semi-independent incorporated places located within the consolidated city".

These consolidated cities are:

• Athens-Clarke County, Georgia• Augusta–Richmond County, Georgia• Butte-Silver Bow, Montana• Indianapolis, Indiana• Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida• Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky• Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

Consolidated since their creation

• Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (City and Borough are consolidated forming a unified government)

• City and County of Broomfield, Colorado (Town of Broomfield incorporated June 1, 1961. Consolidated City and County of Broomfield created November 15, 2001, from the incorporated City of Broomfield in portions of Boulder, Adams, Jefferson, and Weld Counties.)

• City and County of Denver, Colorado (Denver City, Colorado Territory, incorporated November 7, 1861. Denver served as the Arapahoe County Seat until November 15, 1902, when Arapahoe County was split into the new consolidated City and County of Denver, the new Adams County, and the renamed South Arapahoe County

• City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii• City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska• Los Alamos County, New Mexico[7] (Note that the townsite

known as Los Alamos is not an incorporated place.)• City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish, Louisiana (The

City of New Orleans has always served as Orleans Parish's government, though they initially were not coterminous. The city and parish have also annexed parts of neighboring Jefferson Parish.)

• City and County of San Francisco, California (The City of San Francisco was the seat of San Francisco County until 1856, when the county was split into the consolidated City and County of San Francisco in the north, with the remainder of old San Francisco County becoming the new County of San Mateo.)

• City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska• City and Borough of Yakutat, Alaska• Town and County of Nantucket, Massachusetts

(one and the same since it was separated from Dukes County, New York to join the colony of Massachusetts). It should be noted that in New England atown serves the same municipal functions as a city. Contrary to city–county consolidation, eight of Massachusetts' 14 county governments have been abolished

Merged• Anaconda and Deer Lodge County, Montana• Butte and Silver Bow County, Montana• Columbus and Muscogee County, Georgia• Cusseta and Chattahoochee County, Georgia• Georgetown and Quitman County, Georgia• Hartsville and Trousdale County, Tennessee (Despite the

consolidated city-county government, Hartsville is not coterminous with Trousdale County; Hartsville remains a geographically distinct municipality within the county.)

• Houma and Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana (Despite the consolidated city-county government, Houma is not coterminous with Terrebonne Parish; Houma remains a geographically distinct municipality within the parish.)

• Lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky[11]

• Lynchburg and Moore County, Tennessee• Philadelphia and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

— Their borders have been conterminous since 1854 Act of Consolidation, and the government structures were consolidated in 1952. The county still exists as a separate entity within Pennsylvania, but the functions of the county are generally administered by the city.

• Preston and Webster County, Georgia• Statenville and Echols County, Georgia

• New York City, New York [13] has been coextensive with an amalgamation of five counties since 1898, each of which is also a borough and more generally known as such:– New York County (Manhattan) (New York County alone was coextensive

with New York City until 1898)– Bronx County (The Bronx) (New York County included what is now

Bronx County from 1898 until the latter's creation in 1916)– Kings County (Brooklyn)– Richmond County (Staten Island)– Queens County (Queens)

• Washington, D.C. – While the District of Columbia is a federal district and not a county, the city has had a consolidated municipal government since 1871. Prior thereto, Washington, Georgetown, Uniontown (Anacostia), etc., were cities and towns in the County of Washington. Prior to 1846, when it was retroceded to Virginia, the south bank of the District of Columbia was the County of Alexandria (now the Independent City of Alexandria and the County of Arlington).

Merged with some independent municipalities

• Athens and Clarke County, Georgia (one community entirely within Clarke County and another partially within the county retain a separate government)

• Augusta and Richmond County, Georgia (two communities within Richmond County retain separate governments)

• Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana (City of Baton Rouge retains separate city limits, and official census population only includes this area)

• Camden County, North Carolina (county with no incorporated municipalities, apart from a small portion of Elizabeth City, re-organizing into a single unified government)

• Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana (four communities within Marion County retain separate governments)

• Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida (four incorporated places within Duval County - the cities of Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach, and Atlantic Beach and the town of Baldwin - retain separate governments; all other rural land is incorporated by Jacksonville and so the entire county is incorporated)

• Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kansas (this "Unified Government" contains Kansas City, Edwardsville, most of Bonner Springs, and roughly half of Lake Quivira; a county relationship is maintained with the rest of the communities within the county) as of 1997.

• Macon and Bibb County, Georgia, to be completed January 2014. In 2012, the Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 1171, which authorizes a referendum on July 31, 2012 on the consolidation of the two entities; the referendum passed. Four previous consolidation attempts (in 1933, 1960, 1972, and 1976) failed. The consolidated government, however, excludes the small municipality of Payne City, which was already surrounded by Macon prior to consolidation.

• Miami and Miami-Dade County, Florida operate under a federated two-tier government similar to consolidated city-county relationship where the county government operates as a superseding entity of county affairs and lower-tier incorporated municipalities operate civil and community services

• Lafayette Parish, Louisiana and Lafayette (The status of the current state of consolidation is under review by an independent board. Deconsolidation, reorganization and total incorporation are all being considered as other towns in the parish as well as citizens in the unincorporated areas feel they are being under-represented under the current state of consolidation.)

• Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (all cities in pre-merger Jefferson County, other than Louisville, retain separate identities and some governmental functions, but all participate fully in the county-wide governing body, Louisville Metro Council)

• Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (seven—six as of 2012—communities within Davidson County retain separate governments, although all participate in the metropolitan government in a two-tier system)

• Tribune, Kansas and Greeley County, Kansas (Horace retaining a separate government)

• Five cities in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia were formed by the consolidation of a city with a county: Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach (from Norfolk, Elizabeth City, Warwick, Nansemond, and Princess Anne counties, respectively). However, in each case an independent city was created and as such they are not consolidated city-counties. Instead, the Code of Virginiauses the term "consolidated city." Similarly, Carson City was consolidated with Ormsby County, Nevada in 1969, but the county was simultaneously dissolved. The city is now a municipality independent of any county

Potentially consolidated Cities

• Aurora, Colorado, split between three counties, explored the creation of a new consolidated city-county in 1996; the effort subsequently failed in a referendum. However, five years later nearby Broomfieldwas successful in creating a new city-county from portions of the four counties it had been a part of. Encouraged by Broomfield's experience, an Aurora city councilman has proposed consolidation again in 2006.This was not accomplished in the 2006 or 2007, and no bills to accomplish consolidation were introduced in the 2008 session of the Colorado legislature.

• A proposal has been made to merge Johnson County, Kansas and Wyandotte County, Kansas and the cities located in those two into a single consolidated city-county, name to be determined.

• In 2005, The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio published a series of articles exploring the possibility of the city's merging with Cuyahoga County.

• Miami-Dade County, Florida provides city-level police, fire-rescue, sanitation, and other services to many of the municipalities within its borders.

• A report was released in April 2008 recommending the merger of the governments of the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and that of Allegheny County. This plan has been endorsed by the mayor of Pittsburgh and the Chief Executive of Allegheny County, but needs approval by the City and County councils and from the state legislature before a referendum can be put forth for the voters to approve such a merger.

• The independent City of St. Louis, Missouri and that of St. Louis County. The city of St. Louis seceded from St. Louis County in the 1870s and is not part of any county in the state of Missouri. The city has since tried to rejoin the county several times, each time rejected by county voters.

Considered Consolidation

• Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico (1959, 2003)

• Aurora and Arapahoe County, Colorado• Birmingham and Jefferson County, Alabama (1948)• Brunswick and Glynn County, Georgia (1969, 1987)• Buffalo and Erie County, New York• Charleston/North Charleston/Mount Pleasant and

Charleston County, South Carolina (1974)• Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina(1971)• Des Moines and Polk County, Iowa (1994, 2004)• Durham and Durham County, North Carolina (1961, 1974)

• El Paso and El Paso County, Texas• Evansville and Vanderburgh County, Indiana

– Voted four times on consolidation—in 1959, 1974, 2002, and 2012. The most recent vote saw consolidation defeated by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

• Fairbanks and Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska (2001)

• Fayetteville and Lincoln County, Tennessee (2008)• Fort Wayne and Allen County, Indiana• Frankfort and Franklin County, Kentucky• Gainesville and Alachua County, Florida (1990)

• Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee (1959, 1978, 1996)• Little Rock and Pulaski County, Arkansas[citation needed]

• Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee (1962, 1971, 2010)• Miami and Dade County, Florida (1948, 1953)• Montgomery and Montgomery County, Alabama[citation needed]

• Muncie and Delaware County, Indiana• Oakland and Alameda County, California (1921)• Orlando and Orange County, Florida• Paducah and McCracken County, Kentucky• Rejected a proposed consolidation in 2012 by a more than

2-to-1 vote.• Pensacola and Escambia County, Florida (1970)

• Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania– passed referendums in 1925, 1929 and 1939 that were blocked by

technicalities by the state assembly. A partial consolidation of area school districts in 1956. Currently has a task-force researching consolidation since 2005.

• Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon (1927, 1974)• Richmond (independent city) with Henrico County, Virginia

(1961)• Roanoke County, Virginia and the City of Roanoke• held referendums in 1969 and 1990 to consolidate the two

governments. Both times, city voters approved consolidation while county voters were opposed. The independent city of Salem, Virginia, which would have been surrounded by the consolidated entity, did not participate in the referendums. Vinton, Virginia would have retained its status as a town in the 1990 referendum. The consolidation issue has been dormant since 1990.[citation needed

• Sacramento and Sacramento County, California (1974, 1990)• St. Louis (independent city) with St. Louis County, Missouri

(1926, 1962)• Sioux Falls and Minnehaha/Lincoln counties, South Dakota[

citation needed]

• Spokane and Spokane County, Washington (1995)• Tallahassee and Leon County, Florida (1971, 1973, 1976,

1992)[12][27]

• Tampa and Hillsborough County, Florida (1967, 1970, 1972)• Toledo and Lucas County, Ohio• Topeka and Shawnee County, Kansas (2005)• Wilmington and New Hanover County, North Carolina (1933)

Formerly consolidated

• The City of Boston and Suffolk County, Massachusetts operated with a consolidated government for most of the twentieth century with Boston providing office space, auditors, budget, personnel and financial oversight for Suffolk County. This was not a true consolidation because three municipalities – Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop – were never annexed into Boston and remained separate jurisdictions within Suffolk County; however, the City of Boston held complete control of the county by law.

• The special relationship between Boston and Suffolk County ended in 1999 as part of the gradual abolition of county governments through much of the state with all county employees and powers transferred to Commonwealth of Massachusetts control. The only remaining powers and duties for the City of Boston in regards to the county is ceremonial in which the Suffolk County Register of Deeds is issued the oath of office at the start of a term as well as calls for a meeting to hold a special election to fill the office should there be a failure to elect someone to the office or a vacancy occurs.