Greene v. Clemens
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18195
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- After machine and manual recount, Clemens defeats Bernard by 17 votes in the Democratic primary for State Senate District 27.
- Canvassing of absentee ballots required signature comparison to determine registration and legality; 40 ballots were rejected for signature mismatch; results certified by the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.
- Bernard and two electors filed a contest under section 102.168 alleging the circuit court was required to review affidavits and accept testimony from voters whose ballots were rejected.
- Section 102.168(8) limits the circuit court’s review to the elector’s signature on the certificate and the signature in the registration records to determine abuse of discretion.
- The circuit court reviewed only authorized evidence and found no abuse of discretion; the issue pertained to statutory interpretation and the scope of review; the appeal is affirmed.
- The opinion notes the presumption that certified election returns are correct and that no rehearing will be entertained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court erred by reviewing evidence beyond signatures | Bernard argues court must review affidavits and voter testimony on rejected ballots. | Clemens argues §102.168(8) limits review to signatures and registration signatures. | No error; statute unambiguously limits review to signatures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1975) (presumption of correctness for certified election returns)
- Burke v. Beasley, 75 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1954) (certified election returns presumed correct)
- McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1981) (statutory grants must be construed to rights explicitly set)
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2006) (legislative intent as guiding principle in statutory interpretation)
- State v. J.M., 824 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2002) (statutory interpretation principles in Florida courts)
- Reynolds v. State, 842 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2002) (interpretation of statutes in criminal context)
- White v. Pepsico, Inc., 568 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1990) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2000) (textual clarity governs statutory interpretation)
- Daniels v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 898 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2005) (when statute clear, attach no extrinsic construction)