THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF FLORIDA, RICHARD VAJS, SYLVIA WILSON, ROY GLATT, MICHAEL KERNER, DANIEL T. SAVADEL, MIKE SHUBERT AND DAVID MOON, APPELLANTS,
v.
JIM SMITH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE, DOROTHY JOYCE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, APPELLEES
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.
The Libertarian Party of Florida and its candidates challenged the constitutionality of a Florida statute requiring minor party candidates to obtain petition signatures from 3% of registered electors for ballot access, while major party candidates faced no such requirement. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality, holding that differential treatment of major and minor parties is not invidious discrimination.
The court held that section 99.096(2) is constitutional both on its face and as applied. The statute's differential treatment of major and minor parties does not constitute invidious discrimination, as there are obvious differences in the needs and potentials of established major parties versus new or small political organizations.
[1] A statute is presumed constitutional.
[2] Different ballot access requirements for minor political parties and major political parties do not, in themselves, constitute invidious discrimination.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The fact is that there are obvious differences in kind between the needs and potentials of a political party with historically broad support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other. [A state is not] guilty of invidious discrimination in recognizing these differences and providing different routes to the printed ballot. Sometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike.”
Establishes the legal standard that differential ballot access requirements for major versus minor parties do not constitute unconstitutional discrimination.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Libertarian Party of Florida, four Libertarian candidates for various offices, and three registered voters challenged Florida Statutes section 99.…
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 Ballot Access Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, the Libertarian Party of Florida, four Libertarian candidates for various offices, and three registered voters, seek reversal of a final judgment ruling against their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which challenged the constitutionality of section 99.096(2), Florida Statutes (1993). The challenged statute provides that “minor political party” candidates for local and regional office may appear on the ballot only if the sponsoring party has obtained a petition signed by 3 per cent of the registered electors of the district, county or geographical entity represented by the office sought. The appellants claim that the lower court erred when it (i) refused to declare section 99.096(2) unconstitutional because the provision imposes upon minor party candidates a more stringent means of ballot access than is imposed upon candidates of the two major parties, the Republican and Democratic Parties, and (ii) refused to enjoin application of this statutory provision prior to the 1992 general election. Because we agree with the trial court that the statute is constitutional both on its face and as applied, we affirm.
A statute is presumed constitutional. State v. Slaughter, 574 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Further, in finding section 99.096(2) and its predecessors constitutional, the Florida Supreme Court and the federal courts have consistently rejected arguments similar’ to those raised here by appellants. Danciu v. Glisson, 302 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1974); Libertarian Party of Florida v. Florida, 710 F. 2d 790 (11th Cir.1983); Beller v. Kirk, 328 F.Supp. 485 (S.D.Fla.1970), aff'd mem., 403 U.S. 925, 91 S.Ct. 2248, 29 L.Ed.2d 705 (1971). The fact that minor and independent political parties are treated differently from the major political parties is not a sufficient basis for disregarding the presumption of constitutionality. As observed by the Court:
The fact is that there are obvious differences in kind between the needs and po tentials of a political party with historically broad support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other. [A state is not] guilty of invidious discrimination in recognizing these differences and providing different routes to the printed ballot. Sometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike....”
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 441—442, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).
Rather than attempting to relitigate established constitutional principals, Appellants’ policy arguments against the 3% signature requirement would be more appropriately addressed to the legislature.
AFFIRMED.
MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Keys Title & Abstract Co., Inc., 741 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…of the trial court. Although trial court decisions are presumed to be correct, there is also a presumption in the law that a statute is constitutionally valid. In re Estate of Caldwell 247 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971); Libertarian Party of Florida v. Smith, 660 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Florida appellate courts have resolved these conflicting presumptions by deferring to the legislature. When a trial court has declared a statute unconstitutional, the reviewing court must begin the process of appellate review wi…
-
Dickerson v. State, 783 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…o., 741 So. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So. 2d 158 (Fla.2000). There is a strong presumption that statutes are constitutionally valid. In re Estate of Caldwell, 247 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1971); Libertarian Party of Florida v. Smith, 660 So. 2d 807, 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, we are obligated to interpret statutes in such a manner as to uphold their constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so. Capital City Country Club v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla.1993). When inter…
-
Zapo v. Morgan Gilreath, 779 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…o. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So. 2d 158 (Fla.2000). However, there is a strong presumption that statutes are constitutionally valid. In re Estate of Caldwell, 247 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1971); Libertarian Party of Florida v. Smith, 660 So. 2d 807, 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We are obligated to interpret statutes in such a manner as to uphold their constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so. Capital City Country Club v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla.1993). ARTICLE I, SECTION 2…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971)
- Libertarian Party OF Florida v. State, 710 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Brady v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Slaughter, 574 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Emil F. Danciu v. Glisson, 302 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1974)