Michael Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State
131 F.4th 1201
11th Cir.2025Background
- Michael J. Polelle, a Sarasota County voter registered as “No Party Affiliation,” sued Florida officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being excluded from partisan primaries under Florida’s closed-primary law (Fla. Stat. § 101.021).
- Florida allows party registration changes up to 29 days before a primary; Polelle declined to switch and alleges exclusion from primaries that are often outcome-determinative in Sarasota County (Republican primaries have frequently decided local races).
- Polelle sued Secretary of State Cord Byrd and Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections Ron Turner seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to permit participation in primaries (or to require the State to adopt an alternative primary scheme).
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Polelle appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit held Polelle had Article III standing to sue Supervisor Turner (traceable and redressable by injunction against the local official) but not Secretary Byrd; on the merits the court applied Anderson–Burdick balancing and rejected Polelle’s claims, affirming dismissal of Turner with prejudice and directing dismissal of Byrd without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury in fact) | Polelle: exclusion from outcome-determinative primaries injures his right to a meaningful vote and to refrain from associating with parties. | Defendants: non‑affiliates have no constitutional interest in voting in a party primary; this is a mere desire. | Held: Polelle alleged a concrete, particularized, imminent injury sufficient for standing as to Supervisor Turner. |
| Standing (traceability/redressability) | Polelle: Supervisor Turner enforces elections so injunctive relief against him will redress exclusion; Secretary Byrd also implicated. | Byrd: supervisors are independent; Secretary lacks control; relief against Byrd would not redress. | Held: Traceable and redressable as to Turner; not traceable/redressable as to Byrd—claims against Byrd dismissed without prejudice. |
| First Amendment (compelled association/speech) | Polelle: closed primary coerces affiliation or forfeiture of effective vote—burden on associational and anti‑compulsion rights. | Florida: minimal burden; state interests in protecting parties, party labels, and electioneering justify closed primaries. | Held: Under Anderson–Burdick, burdens are minimal and state interests outweigh them; claim fails. |
| Fourteenth Amendment / Right to vote & equal protection | Polelle: exclusion from an outcome‑determinative stage reduces the effectiveness of his vote and denies equal opportunity. | Florida: registration requirement is a modest, administrable rule serving legitimate interests in party integrity and campaign organization. | Held: The minimal burdens do not trigger strict scrutiny; balancing favors the State—claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing for election‑regulation burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refining Anderson and articulating sliding‑scale scrutiny for election rules)
- Nader v. Schaffer, 417 F. Supp. 837 (D. Conn. 1976), aff'd mem., 429 U.S. 989 (1976) (upholding closed primaries against similar independent‑voter challenges; treated as controlling on comparable claims)
- Jones v. California Democratic Party, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (striking down blanket primary; distinguished open/closed regimes and parties’ associational rights)
- Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005) (discussing semi‑closed primary burdens and voter/party interests)
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (recognizing primaries can be the decisive stage and interfering with primaries can abridge voting rights)
- Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020) (standing and traceability principles regarding state election officials)