Jennifer Brinkmann v. Tyron Francois, etc.
184 So. 3d 504
Fla.2016Background
- Tyron Francois, a Democrat, qualified as a write-in candidate for Broward County Commissioner District 2 in 2014; he conceded he did not reside in the district when he qualified.
- Jennifer Brinkmann sued, claiming Francois failed to meet section 99.0615, Fla. Stat., which requires write-in candidates to reside in the district at time of qualification, and sought to open the Democratic primary under the Universal Primary Amendment (UPA).
- The trial court disqualified Francois under section 99.0615 and ordered the primary opened; the Fourth District reversed, holding section 99.0615 facially unconstitutional because it imposes a residency deadline earlier than the Florida Constitution requires.
- The Fourth District also held that a qualified write-in constitutes “opposition” under article VI, § 5(b) (UPA), meaning the primary should remain closed to nonparty voters.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed preservation, the constitutionality of section 99.0615 vis-à-vis article VIII, § 1(e) (county commissioner residency), and whether write-in candidates count as “opposition” under the UPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice/Preservation of facial challenge | Brinkmann: Francois failed to give proper notice under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.071; claim not preserved | Francois: proper notice provided to state attorney; challenge was ripe | Court: preservation satisfied; State received notice and could have intervened; argument rejected |
| Constitutionality of § 99.0615 residency timing | Brinkmann: § 99.0615 regulates ballot placement procedure, not add qualifications | Francois: statute imposes additional residency qualification at time of qualification, conflicting with Constitution | Court: § 99.0615 facially unconstitutional because art. VIII, § 1(e) requires residency at time of election, not at qualification |
| Meaning of “opposition” in UPA (art. VI, § 5(b)) | Brinkmann: write-in candidates are not the kind of opposition intended by UPA; UPA meant to open primaries only when general winner would be unopposed | Francois: write-in candidates are candidates and can oppose; UPA plain text includes them | Court: “opposition” includes write-in candidates; plain meaning and precedent support inclusion |
| Whether primary should be opened here | Brinkmann: if § 99.0615 invalid and Francois thus qualified, primary still should be opened because write-in is not intended opposition | Francois: with § 99.0615 invalid, Francois is a duly qualified opponent and primary should remain closed | Court: Primary remains closed — both UPA prongs satisfied (all candidates same party and winner will have opposition in general election) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grassi, 532 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1988) (constitutional residency for county commissioners required at time of election)
- Telli v. Snipes, 98 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (write-in candidates count as "candidates" and may constitute "opposition" under UPA)
- Lacasa v. Townsley, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (write-in candidates can constitute opposition; closing primaries serves party and election interests)
- Crist v. Florida Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 978 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2008) (statutes are presumed constitutional and construction should avoid invalidity when possible)