Francois v. Brinkmann
147 So. 3d 613
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Tyron Francois qualified as a write-in candidate for Broward County Commissioner District 2 for the 2014 election but did not reside in the district at time of qualification.
- Five other Democrats had their names printed on the primary ballot; no Republican or Independent candidates qualified.
- Appellee Brinkmann challenged Francois’s write-in status under § 99.0615, Fla. Stat. (2014), which requires write-in candidates to reside in the district at time of qualification.
- The circuit court found § 99.0615 constitutional, disqualified Francois as a write-in candidate, and enjoined the primary to be opened to all District 2 voters under the Universal Primary Amendment (UPA).
- On appeal the court reviewed constitutional interpretation de novo and focused on whether the statute’s timing requirement conflicts with the Florida Constitution’s residency requirement for county commissioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 99.0615’s residency-timing requirement for write-in candidates conflicts with the Florida Constitution’s residency requirement for county commissioners | Francois: statute imposes residency at qualification, conflicting with the Constitution’s residency-at-election rule and is facially unconstitutional | Brinkmann: statute is a valid regulation requiring district residency at time of qualification for write-ins | Court: § 99.0615 is facially unconstitutional because timing conflicts with Article VIII, § 1(e) as interpreted in Grassi; statute invalidated |
| Whether the trial court properly disqualified Francois as a write-in candidate | Francois: disqualification rests on unconstitutional statute so is improper | Brinkmann: disqualification was proper under § 99.0615 | Court: disqualification reversed; Francois remains a valid write-in candidate |
| Whether the trial court properly opened the primary to all voters under the UPA based on Francois’s disqualification | Francois: injunction flowed from improper disqualification and is therefore improper | Brinkmann: opening was necessary because Francois was disqualified and there would be no opposition in general election | Court: injunction opening the primary was improper and reversed (it was predicated on the erroneous disqualification) |
| Whether equal protection independently invalidates § 99.0615 | Francois: also argued equal protection violation | Brinkmann: disputed (court did not adopt) | Court: did not reach equal protection because statute was facially invalid on supremacy/constitutional conflict grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Telli v. Snipes, 98 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (write-in access can constitute “opposition” under UPA)
- Browning v. Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. PAC, 29 So.3d 1053 (Fla. 2010) (standard of review for constitutional interpretation: de novo)
- Pasco v. Heggen, 314 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1975) (statutes regulating elections carry strong presumption of validity)
- Bodner v. Gray, 129 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1961) (presumption of validity for election statutes)
- Mairs v. Peters, 52 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1951) (court must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an act contravenes superior law to declare it unconstitutional)
- State v. Grassi, 532 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1988) (Florida Constitution requires residency at the time of election for county commissioners; statutes requiring residency at qualification unconstitutional)
- Norman v. Ambler, 46 So.3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (no statute may add to or subtract from constitutional qualifications for office)
- Wilson v. Newell, 223 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1969) (statute imposing additional residency qualification for county commission invalid)