Jackson v. Leon County Elections Canvassing Board
204 So. 3d 571
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jackson timely filed an election-contest under §102.168 after Tallahassee certified Maddox’s election, alleging Maddox was not a city elector (resident) and therefore ineligible for city commission.
- The City intervened, arguing the City Charter vests the City Commission with authority to judge the election and qualifications of its members and thus the municipal commission was the proper initial forum.
- The circuit court stayed Jackson’s §102.168 proceeding and ordered the City to report on Maddox’s residency, prompting Jackson to seek mandamus in the appellate court to compel an “immediate hearing.”
- The appellate court granted mandamus, holding Jackson had a clear right to an immediate circuit-court hearing under §102.168 and the trial court had a duty to hold it instead of deferring to the City Commission.
- After remand, the trial court held an unexpected final evidentiary hearing the next day (over Jackson’s objections), denied discovery, and entered a final order for Maddox; the appellate court vacated that order for due-process and procedural errors and remanded for proper expedited discovery and a §102.168(7) hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for challenging candidate eligibility | Jackson: circuit court under §102.168 is exclusive forum for election contests | City/Maddox: City Charter makes City Commission the initial, exclusive forum for member qualifications | Held: §102.168 governs municipal election contests; City Charter does not displace the statute for eligibility challenges; circuit court is proper forum |
| Whether §102.168 applies to municipal elections | Jackson: statute expressly applies to local elections and canvassing boards are indispensable parties | City/Maddox: statute does not expressly apply to municipalities or is displaced by charter | Held: §102.168 expressly applies to local elections; canvassing board provision confirms municipal application |
| Immediate hearing requirement and mandamus relief | Jackson: entitled to immediate hearing; mandamus appropriate because no other adequate remedy | City/Maddox: City Charter procedure should be allowed to run first | Held: Jackson had clear legal right to immediate hearing under §102.168(7); mandamus was warranted to compel trial court to proceed |
| Due process, notice, and discovery at evidentiary hearing | Jackson: was not given proper notice, denied discovery, and court failed to resolve pending motions — deprived of due process | Maddox: proceeded to final hearing; argued discovery not available under §102.168 | Held: Trial court abused discretion — insufficient notice; wrongful blanket denial of discovery; must follow Rules of Civil Procedure and provide expedited discovery and fair opportunity to be heard |
Key Cases Cited
- Norman v. Ambler, 46 So.3d 178 (Fla. 2010) (distinguishes eligibility to hold office from qualifications to run)
- Burns v. Tondreau, 139 So.3d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (municipal charter as primary municipal law; eligibility determined by constitution)
- Plymel v. Moore, 770 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (mandamus requires clear legal right, clear legal duty, and no other remedy)
- Gore v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2000) (examples of election-contest proceedings and evidentiary hearings)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (context for election-contest appellate treatment)
- Keys Citizens For Responsible Gov’t, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth, 795 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2001) (procedural due process requires fair notice and real opportunity to be heard)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (primary purpose of discovery is preventing trials in the dark)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must reasonably convey required information for due process)