MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, PETITIONERS,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD; LAWRENCE D. KING, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD; MYRIAM LEHR, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD; DAVID C. LEAHY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF DADE COUNTY, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 2000-11-22
No. 3D00-3318
Before COPE, GODERICH, and GREEN, JJ.
773 So. 2d 1179 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Democratic Party sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board to continue its manual recount of presidential ballots. The court denied the petition, finding that mandamus cannot compel performance of an act that is impossible to complete within the Florida Supreme Court's imposed deadline.


Holding

Mandamus cannot lie to compel performance of an act that is impossible to perform. Since the Canvassing Board determined a complete manual recount could not be completed within the Supreme Court's deadline, mandamus cannot be granted.


Headnotes

[1] Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of an act that is futile or impossible to perform.

[2] A county canvassing board must manually recount all ballots if a sample manual recount indicates an error in vote tabulation that could affect the outcome of the election…

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

Key Quotes

“Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of an act that is futile or impossible to perform.”

Establishes the legal standard that mandamus cannot require performance of impossible acts

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On November 17, 2000, the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board began a manual recount of ballots from the November 2, 2000 presidential election after a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Miami-Dade County Democratic Party and the Florida Democratic Party seek an emergency writ of mandamus compelling the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board (“Canvassing Board”) to continue the manual recount of ballots in Miami-Dade County for the 2000 Presidential election. For the reasons which follow, we deny the petition.

On Friday, November 17, 2000, the Canvassing Board exercised its discretion to begin a manual recount of all ballots cast in Miami-Dade County in the Presidential election held on November 2, 2000. The Canvassing Board had previously conducted a “sample” manual recount of ballots from three of its precincts pursuant to section 102.166(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). The results of that sample recount showed “an error in the vote tabulation which could effect the outcome of the election[,]” thus triggering the Canvassing Board’s mandatory obligation to recount all of the ballots in the county. See § 102.166(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999).1

The manual recount began on November 20, 2000. On November 21, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion and order in the consolidated case of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.2000). In that decision, the supreme court held that:

amended certifications must be filed with the Elections Canvassing Commission by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 26, 2000 and the Secretary of State and the Elections Canvassing Commission shall accept any such amended certifications .... The certificates made and signed by the Elections Canvassing Commission pursuant to section 102.121 shall include the amended returns accepted through the dates set forth in this opinion.

Harris, at 1240.

The following day, November 22, 2000, the Canvassing Board suspended the manual recount and voted to use the election returns previously compiled.2 The Canvassing Board stated that, in its view, it would be impossible to complete the recount before the deadline set forth by the Supreme Court.

Since the Canvassing Board has determined that a complete manual recount cannot be done within the time frame set in Harris, mandamus cannot lie. See Agency for Health Care Admin, v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, 690 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of an act that is futile or impossible to perform.”).

This ruling is without prejudice to the petitioners to seek relief in the Florida Supreme Court from the court-ordered deadline and to ask the Supreme Court to fashion an equitable remedy tailored to the conditions of Miami-Dade County.

Mandamus denied.

. Section 102.166 provides in pertinent part:

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could effect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(c) Manually recount all ballots.

§ 102.166(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999).

. Earlier that same day, the panel had decided to limit the county recount to 10,750 "un-dervotes” — ballots on which no vote was registered by counting machines.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000)
    …use its discretion in any of its decisions in its review in recounting processes. This statement is incorrect as a matter of law. In fact, as the Third District determined in Miami-Dade County Democratic Party v. Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board, 773 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the results of the sample manual recount and the actual commencement of the full manual recount triggered the Canvassing Board’s “mandatory obligation to recount all of the ballots in the county.” In addition, the circuit court w…
  • Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2000)
    …ded the full recount, stating as its reason that it determined that it could not meet this Court’s certification deadline. See Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243, n. 17; see also Miami-Dade County Democratic Party v. Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board, 773 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).21 This Court ultimately held that the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board had no discretion to stop its full manual recount once it had started. See Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d at 1257-1258. Nonetheless, the end result was that some voter…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw