DANIEL JOHN MATTHEWS v. Michael Steinberg, Craig Latimer, etc.
153 So. 3d 295
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Daniel John Matthews sought to run as a write-in candidate for the Florida House but did not reside in the district when he filed qualifying paperwork with the Division of Elections.
- The Florida Constitution requires a legislator to be a resident of the district "from which elected" and to have resided in the state two years prior to election (Art. III, § 15(c)).
- Florida statute § 99.0615 requires write-in candidates to reside in the district "at the time of qualification," i.e., at filing, earlier than the constitutional "time of election."
- The circuit court ruled Matthews was not a qualified candidate and ordered the primary to be opened; Matthews appealed.
- The First District examined whether the statutory timing for write-in residency adds to or conflicts with the constitutional eligibility requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 99.0615's residency-at-filing requirement for write-in candidates is permissible or unconstitutional because it adds to constitutional eligibility | Matthews: residency is required only at time of election per the Constitution; statute cannot add earlier residency requirement | Appellees: Legislature may reasonably regulate write-in candidates and impose residency-at-qualification as a ballot-access rule | The statute is facially unconstitutional because it conflicts with the Constitution's residency timing; statute cannot impose additional eligibility beyond the Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Norman v. Ambler, 46 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2010) (distinguishes constitutional eligibility from statutory qualifications and holds statutes cannot add eligibility requirements)
- Miller v. Mendez, 804 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2001) (constitutional residency required at time of election)
- Levey v. Dijols, 990 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (statutory qualifications concern ballot access and must not alter constitutional eligibility)
- State ex rel. Askew v. Thomas, 293 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1974) (statutes imposing additional qualifications where the Constitution already speaks are unconstitutional)
- State v. Grassi, 532 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1988) (invalidated a residency-at-filing requirement that applied to all candidates)