DONALD SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Donald Sanders, a 1980 candidate for Coral Springs City Commission, was fined $500 by the Florida Elections Commission for distributing sample ballots without required paid-political-advertisement disclaimers. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that negligent failure to comply with the disclaimer requirement does not constitute the "willful" violation required by statute.
A careless and negligent failure to comply with § 106.143 Fla.Stat. does not constitute a "willful" violation as required by the statute. The Florida Elections Commission's order imposing a $500 fine was therefore reversed.
[1] A "willful" violation of election laws requires more than mere negligence or carelessness; it necessitates some degree of conscious wrongdoing or culpable carelessness.
[2] A candidate's failure to ensure that sample ballots contain the required "Paid political advertisement" disclaimer, absent conscious wrongdoing, does not constitute a wil…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Every voluntary act of a person is intentional, and therefore in a sense willful, but generally speaking, and usually when considering statutes of the character mentioned, a voluntary act becomes "willful" in law only when it involves some degree of conscious wrong on the part of the actor, or at least culpable carelessness on his part, something more than a mere omission to perform a previously imposed duty.”
Establishes the legal standard for "willfulness" under Florida law, distinguishing it from mere negligence or carelessness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, Sanders was a candidate for City Commission and ordered sample ballots printed. Without opening the wrapped package, he asked his wife to del…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Florida Elections Commission finding the appellant guilty of violating § 106.143 Fla. Stat. and fining him $500.
In 1980, appellant was a candidate for the City Commission of Coral Springs. He ordered sample ballots printed. The ballots were delivered to his office in a wrapped package. The appellant, without opening the package, asked his wife to deliver them to a campaign worker for distribution later in the week. The ballots were distributed without the language required by § 106.143 Fla.Stat., “Paid political advertisement paid for by .... ”
§ 106.143(4) Fla.Stat. states:
“Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this section is subject to the civil penalties prescribed in § 106.143.” (Emphasis added.)
The Florida Elections Commission found: “Based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter the Commission believes that had the Respondent exercised reasonable diligence and due care as required of candidates, and possible public officials, such oversight would not have occurred. Voluntary actions and inac-tions in allowing the distribution of materials without the disclaimer, without any review prior thereto, considered in conjunction with all other circumstances herein was a careless and negligent disregard by the Respondent of his responsibilities. It is the Florida Elections Commission’s view that such constitutes a willful violation s. 106.143(1), F.S., (1979), in this instance.”
The court held in County Canvassing Board v. Lester, 96 Fla. 484, 118 So. 201, 202 (1928) that Every voluntary act of a person is intentional, and therefore in a sense willful, but generally speaking, and usually when considering statutes of the character mentioned, a voluntary act becomes “willful” in law only when it involves some degree of conscious wrong on the part of the actor, or at least culpable carelessness on his part, something more than a mere omission to perform a previously imposed duty.
A careless and negligent failure to comply with § 106.143 Fla.Stat. does not constitute a “willful” violation as required by the statute. Therefore, the Order of the Florida Elections Commission is reversed.
REVERSED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Toles, 442 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1983)…EHRLICH, Justice. Petitioner is before this Court appealing denial by the circuit court of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the subsequent action of the district court of appeal affirming that denial. Miller v. Toles, 407 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The district court cited its own earlier decision, State v. Sylvester, 401 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and acknowledged the conflict created with Carson v. Bishop, 378 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d…
-
Fulton v. Division OF Elections, 689 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…the evidence in this case, we conclude that the order fixing responsibility for violation of election laws on both Ms. Fulton and BROOM was error.1 The Commission concedes that under the standard set forth in Sanders v. Florida Elections Commission, 407 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Ms. Fulton was negligent merely in failing to insure that the appropriate disclaimers were placed on the BROOM literature at issue here. Thus, the Commission, by its own admission, could not have found Ms. Fulton in willful viol…
Authorities Cited
- Cnty. Canvassing Bd. of Primary Elections of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lester, 96 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1928)