James Barry Wright v. City of Miami Gardens, etc.
200 So. 3d 765
| Fla. | 2016Background
- James Barry Wright opened a campaign account and timely delivered a $620 qualifying check to the City Clerk one day before qualifying closed; the account had sufficient funds and the check bore identifying campaign information.
- The City’s bank returned the check over a week later stamped “UN LOCATE ACCT,” and Wright was not notified until after the qualifying period ended.
- Section 99.061(7)(a)1. (post-2011 amendment) requires immediate notice and allows a candidate until the end of qualifying to cure a returned check with a cashier’s check; failure to do so disqualifies the candidate.
- Wright attempted to cure after notice but the City ultimately disqualified him; the trial court and Third DCA affirmed under the statute’s plain language and relied on Levey v. Detzner.
- The Third DCA certified the question whether the statute requires disqualification when a check is returned after qualifying due to a banking error beyond the candidate’s control; the Florida Supreme Court accepted review.
- The Supreme Court held the 2011 amendment unconstitutional as an unreasonable and unnecessary restraint on the right to seek office, severed the amendment, revived the prior 48-hour cure provision, and ordered relief enabling Wright to qualify within 48 hours of this opinion (with further proceedings to place his name on the ballot or require a new election).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 99.061(7)(a)1. mandates disqualification when a qualifying check is returned after qualifying due to a bank error beyond candidate's control | Wright: statute should allow cure or be interpreted to permit post-qualifying cure; disqualification is unjust | City: statute's plain text disqualifies any candidate whose check is returned and not cured by end of qualifying | Majority: statute's plain 2011 text would disqualify, but the Court held the 2011 amendment unconstitutional and revived pre-2011 48-hour cure; Wright may cure post-notice |
| Whether the 2011 amendment is ambiguous or subject to statutory construction to avoid harsh result | Wright (and dissenting judges): interpret statute to permit cure after notice or apply constitutional limits | City: rely on clear, unambiguous statutory language and precedent (Levey) | Court: text is unambiguous but facially unconstitutional as unreasonable and unnecessary; severed amendment |
| Whether the statute, as amended, violates constitutional protection of the right to seek office (facial challenge) | Wright: disqualification for bank error is irrational, arbitrary, unnecessary restraint on candidacy | City: statute is a valid, rational regulation to ensure payment of fees; courts cannot rewrite law | Court: majority finds statute irrational and unnecessary under Treiman and other precedents; declares amendment unconstitutional; concurrence criticizes addressing unbriefed constitutional claim; dissent would apply rational-basis and uphold statute |
| Remedy: appropriate relief for Wright and election consequences | Wright: declaratory/mandamus relief or rescheduling election | City: uphold disqualification to preserve election schedule | Court: sever amendment, revive prior 48-hour cure, mandate this opinion serve as notice so Wright may qualify; order remand and potential invalidation/rescheduling of election if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Levey v. Detzner, 146 So.3d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (applied plain statutory language to disqualify candidate when qualifying check was returned)
- Treiman v. Malmquist, 342 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977) (established constitutional limitation that election regulations must be reasonable and necessary)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (statutory interpretation principles; unambiguous statutes control and courts should not rewrite them)
- Bodner v. Gray, 129 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1961) (recognized presumption of validity for election statutes)
- Francois v. Brinkmann, 147 So.3d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (authority on invalidating elections and ordering new elections when ballot access is unconstitutionally restricted)