On February 4, the Florida Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Brinkmann v Francois, SC14-1899. It agrees with the Florida State Court of Appeals that write-in candidates in general elections are “real” candidates.
The case arose because Florida has closed primaries, except in instances when all the candidates who file are members of the same party and the winner of that one party’s primary will be be the only candidate in November. At the 2014 election for Broward County Commissioner, district 2, all the candidates who filed for any primary filed for the Democratic primary. But, one person also filed to be a declared write-in at the general election.
The trial court said that the primary should be open to all voters, because it ruled that the general election write-in candidate was ineligible because he didn’t live in district 2. But the Appeals Court, and now the State Supreme Court, ruled that the write-in candidate was eligible. Although the election law says candidates for County Commission must live in the district when they file, the State Constitution says candidates for that office merely must live in that district on election day. The Florida Supreme Court said that the Constitution trumps the election law, and since no one knew where the write-in candidate would be living on election day (at the time the ballots were being printed), the write-in candidate was eligible.
The people who wanted an open primary for that seat argued that even if the write-in candidate was eligible, that his presence should be ignored because it was obvious that he was not a strong candidate and that he had no chance of winning. But the Supreme Court said those considerations don’t matter; a declared write-in candidate is a genuine candidate, regardless of his or her likelihood of winning or even polling a large vote.
If all candidates are real, let’s charge new fees for precious ballot lines which are now mere advertising that the public needs to recoup for the state endorsement facility.
In Florida, write-in candidates for the general election must file in advance of the primary, since their presence or absence may determine whether a primary will be open. Florida does not permit write-ins unless there is an actual write-in candidate.
Write-in candidates are also subject to campaign finance laws, and ethics reporting.
Florida statutes made a distinction between write-in and on-ballot candidates as far as place of residence. Primary on-ballot candidates could live outside the district when they filed, and when they were voted on at the primary; while write-in candidates were subject to a separate statute.
The courts should have tossed the lawsuit as frivolous.
The fundamental problem is partisan nominations. Top 2 is the real solution.
I like Top Two as a small step towards voting reform of plurality single-winner districts that rewards candidates interested in unity.
I am an independent write-in candidate for president. I hold the view in the event you cannot learn how to write-in my name you don’t deserve to have me. The real issue is access to media to deliver a substantive speech.
A political campaign without mass media is not a campaign. It is undisputed, “(f)or presidential and senatorial candidates, television is a necessity.” C.B.S. INC. v. F.C.C., 629 F2d 1, (1981) at Page 18.
In 2004, when I ran against Republican Congressman Ander Crenshaw as a write-in candidate because no Democrat was going to file (none did, so I was his only opponent on the ballot), a supporter of his Republican primary opponent accused me of being paid off by Crenshaw so I could “close” the Republican primary to only Republicans. (This made no sense coming from a far-right candidate: why would she think she’d do better if Democrats and independents could vote in the Republican primary — but then a lot of things from far-right people say make sense.)
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/diary-of-a-congressional-candidate-in-floridas-fourth-congressional-district
So is the bottom line that one in Escambia County can write-in a candidates name in the November Presidential election?
If there are any declared write-in candidates for President.
Florida does not provide a write-in line for an office unless there are declared write-in candidates.
I am not sure about how to vote fora write-up candidate in a presedential election. Please advise. Can I write in anyone’s name and have it counted as long as he/she has met the minimum obligatory requirements?
If there are declared write-in candidates in Florida, then one may write in any name and it will be counted? Yes or No?
Wouldn’t Approval voting be more prudent and practical?
Approval based upon a simple yes for each nomination they approve of and then we would get the individual with the most votes of approval?
I am honored and humble to be a write in candidate for united States senator for Florida. Thanks supreme court of florida recognizing me and other candidates as real candidates. Respectfully robert samuel Kaplan write in candidate for Florida u.s.senate.
Robert samuel Kaplan write in candidate for Florida u.s senate general elections. November 8th 2016.
POSTED ON W. KEITH PERRY’S FACEBOOK PAGE
Mr. Perry,
I am deeply troubled by the resolve of our governor and the Florida Elections Committee to exclude Evan McMullin as a candidate for President of the United States from our state ballot. Those who have studied the Florida election laws and how they have been applied have consistently noted that the exclusion of McMullin appears to be arbitrary and inconsistent with other balloting decisions if not indeed capricious and indicative of political gamesmanship. This is exacerbated by the knowledge of our governor’s strong support of and ties to Donald Trump.
At a time when the freedom and liberty of our citizens is being chiseled away by the imposition of the political will our elected politicians, it seems many need to be reminded that their job is NOT to set arbitrary limitations upon our liberty and freedom, but rather to do everything within their power to enhance our free exercise thereof.
As American citizens, our politicians are entitled to support, endorse and vote for any political candidate that they freely choose. Similarly, the citizens of Florida should have the same right, unencumbered by political intrigues. It is unjust, if not illegal, for our elected officials to knowingly and purposefully disenfranchise citizens of this state to further their own political agenda. Yet, it is apparent that this is precisely what is occurring in the decision regarding Evan McMullin’s exclusion from the Florida ballot.
The recent arbitrary and inconsistent application of Florida law to disqualify Evan McMullin from the Florida ballot for President of the United States is egregious. It demonstrates the determination of some to impose their political will upon the people of this state which is antithetical to the very principles upon which this country was founded. It is indicative of Florida’s leanings toward the very tyranny the people now fear.
For the sake of freedom and in recognition our political servants sacred trust to the people of this state, all have an obligation to cease and desist the strong arming of this election and set the people of Florida free to exercise the same freedoms you claim for yourself and you were all elected to protect and secure. And may I respectfully add, WE THE PEOPLE are not here to serve you and your colleagues and promote your agendas, you are here to serve us and promote our agendas. WE THE PEOPLE have asked that Evan McMullin appear on our ballot and you have a fiduciary responsibility to honor that request and not thwart the will of the people through a prejudicial application of the law.
Immediate measures need to be taken to assure the citizens of this state that their will is recognized and honored and that Evan McMullin will appear on our ballot in November as a legitimate and authorized candidate for President of the United States.
Sincerely,
Claudia C. Kalis
Well said claudia. Fiduciary responsibility is the key to freEdom and liberty.
I agree with Claidia.
To spread the power across various responsible entities, we must break this two party system.
I have a right to vote for whomever I want and may change my residency if Florida continues to deny me that right.
J. shaw
May I request clarification on whether write in votes for Evan McMullin would be tallied or not under current law in Florida?
Write in votes in some states are only considered if the name appears on a pre-approved list…state of Georgia is an example, and every voting precinct is suppose to make this list available to voters. Is this the situation in Florida??
Voting for Evan McMullin, but only if I know for certain it will be counted.
I looked into this a little earlier. We have two or three write-in candidates in Florida. They have not included their names on the ballot at all. You have to search for the information. You need to call the Supervisor of elections office and then they will give you a website that has the name of the write-in candidates.
I am Rubin Young a write in candidate for Dade County Clerk of the Circuit Court. I want to know what can be done allegedly when election Clerks tell voters they can’t write my name on their ballots or that the system tabulations can’t count me as a write.
Also do you know what can be done against a SOE who helps a candidate cheat by adding Democrat next to his name in seeking a non partisan but now calling it partisan. Fla. Const. Article 5 Section 16 make the Clerk of Courts a Constitution position for everyone to vote for but there is cheating to keep my opponent in power, please help.
florid is a state.
you lame
U forgot to mention that FL doesn’t even have a space on the ballot. Well you’ll probably say,no one was able to secure enough signatures. OK why can’t you even write your own name in? Because the law says you must do this and that so in and so forth. This practice violates the one man vote verbiage plus it’s down right UN AMERICAN plus it’s Unconditional.
December 16, 2019
RE: Director Maria Matthews
Florida Division Of Elections
Dear Florida Legislature:
Would you clarify for the Integrity of our State your position on whether you will support to run the Write-In Candidate Identification Bill for the upcoming 2020 Florida Legislative Session; for the behalves of the Write-In Candidates who are being Unduly Burdened to afford the Overly Harsh Florida Ballot Assessment Fees ($10,440 for Party Affiliation or 5471 Valid Petition Signatures;) then not being Fairly Identified to the Voters under the present “Interpretation” of FS 99.061(4)(b).
And keeping in mind that it is clearly defined in our DOE Director Maria Matthew’s “Job Description” for her “To Interpret” the FS 99.061 (4)(b) Florida Election Statute. And in that Director Matthews is already “Interpreting” the Statute in “Listing” who the Write-In Candidates are on the Official DOE Website and as well as on the County Supervisor of Election Websites; and that the DOE Director Matthews can also “Interpret that Identifying” (to provide a listing of “All Available Candidates” to be voted on,) included in the Sample Ballots, Absentee Ballots, and to be Posted Conspicuously at the Polls during Early Voting and on Election Day.
Would you please contact with Director Matthews to clarify her position with this, or otherwise the Legislature needs to proceed with the WRI Identification Bill.
So far no one of the Florida Legislature, of the House and Senate, has responded either way or “at all” to my repeated inquiries for Representation to run this Bill.
Certain main points of LEGAL CONTENTIONS are: that are either to be resolved here at this point, or to be returned to the Florida Supreme Court for judgment:
1. That The United States Supreme Court in Bullock v. Carter (1972); and Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974), as a Federal Discrimination Case, has already ruled that it is a Discriminatory Violation of the Equal Rights Protections of the 14th Amendment to unduly Assess Candidates to have their names placed on the Ballot.
2. That the issue of “Extorting” $10,440 for the coffers of a Private Political Party from each candidates seeking to run to Federal Office is a RICO VIOLATION (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Coercive Crime against the aspiring Candidates in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise.
3. And that in this light: the DOE Director Maria Mathews, and the Florida Legislature are guilty of Co-Conspiracy to this RICO Ballot Assessment Fee Extortion.
4. There is as well that point to be made: that if our formally elected State Government FAILS TO RESPOND TO OUR REQUESTS FOR REPRESENTATION ON IMPORTANT MATTERS OF STATE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED AND REMEDIED, then it ceases to be a REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT TO US.
Thank you so very much for your time to help resolve this issue, and for all that you do to ensure a fair and ethically run election process in the year after year of it.
Respectfully,
Gary L. Koniz, J.D.
Journalist Correspondent
Veterans of the Vietnam War
Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
4th Congressional District, Florida
Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida
9480 Princeton Square Blvd. S., #815
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Office (904) 730-2055
Can ANYONE please post here an explanation for the rule where a write-in candidate CLOSES a primary, thereby excluding all but the registered party members. This is completely counter-intuitive and bass-ackwards! It seems like something the parties would dream up to limit participation, and thats what its doing.
The state constitution says that if only one major-party candidate is fielded to run, and that candidate has no opposition, the election becomes open to all voters, because what the hell, why not? Obviously, hes gonna win.
BUT if a no hopes, no money, not-a-chance write in candidate qualifies, suddenly the primary is closed again. WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR THIS EXCEPTION? I can find nothing that explains it and it STINKS of party tinkering.
Why would the addition of an unaffiliated candidate or a minor party candidate close the election to everyone EXCEPT major party voters.
Please tell me how this irrational, illogical loophole got into the law in the first place. I know WHY, that is perfectly obvious. I want to know HOW, who argued for this stupidity in the first place? What explanation was given for this mischief, no doubt with a straight face. NO ONE benefits but the two big parties. No one.
It must have been added as a way to prevent the accidentally open primary prescribed by the state constitution, probably in some hush-hush agreement between the parties, because it makes no sense and benefits no one but thE party power structures, AND I cant find an explanation for it anywhere.
Please help.