Norman v. Ambler
46 So. 3d 178
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Ambler challenged Norman's nomination after primary based on alleged failures to disclose assets from a $500,000 gift to Norman's wife; circuit court ruled Norman ineligible and removed him from ballot; Norman and Ambler both certified for primary, Norman won 55.95% to 44.05%; Ambler filed suit in Leon County after the primary; court conducted expedited bench trial; court found the gift to Mrs. Norman reflected an intent to deceive and voided Norman's nomination; court ordered removal from ballot under §112.317(1)(c)1.; on appeal, court reversed and dismissed Ambler's complaint as moot; proceedings concerned post-election challenge to nomination in the 2010 Florida Senate race, District 12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misdisclosure of assets renders a candidate ineligible under §102.168(3)(b). | Ambler asserts ineligibility due to false disclosure. | Norman argues constitutional eligibility remains intact; disclosure issues do not negate eligibility. | No; cannot ground ineligibility under §102.168(3)(b) for disclosure omissions. |
| Whether constitutional eligibility for office can be defeated by statutory financial-disclosure deficiencies. | Ambler contends disclosure defects affect qualification. | Disclosures are statutory; do not alter constitutional eligibility. | Constitutional eligibility controls; disclosures cannot modify qualifications. |
| Whether post-election challenges require exhausting administrative remedies before court relief. | Ambler sought judicial relief after election; remedy via Commission on Ethics argued insufficient. | Administrative avenues exist; court need not intervene. | Court indicated exhaustion was not decisive to disposition; nonetheless reversed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1981) (limits on judicial election challenges; political nature of contests)
- Levey v. Dijols, 990 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (eligibility for office is constitutional rather than administrative)
- Miller v. Mendez, 804 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2001) (constitutional qualifications to hold office; statutorily added requirements cannot change)
- State v. Grassi, 532 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1988) (statutes cannot add to constitutional qualifications)
- Jackson v. Consol. Gov't of City of Jacksonville, 225 So.2d 497 (Fla.1969) (interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions; concurrent operation)