DANIEL JOHN MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,

v.

MICHAEL STEINBERG, CRAIG LATIMER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEBORAH CLARK, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND KEN DETZNER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, APPELLEES

CLARK, J.

There is one simple fact necessary in this appeal: Daniel John Matthews sought to be a write-in candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, but he did not reside within the district he wished to represent at the time he filed his qualifying paperwork with the Division of Elections. Mr. Matthews contends he is only required to reside in the district at the time of election — not filing. Because the Florida Constitution clearly delineates a residency requirement for legislators, which a statute cannot contravene, we agree.

The Florida Constitution mandates a legislator “shall be at least twenty-one years of age, an elector and resident of the district from which elected and shall have resided in the state for a period of two years prior to election.” Art. Ill, § 15(c), Fla. Const. This mandates residency within the district at the time of election. Norman v. Ambler, 46 So.3d 178, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Miller v. Mendez, 804 So.2d 1243, 1245-46 (Fla.2001)). This constitutional eligibility requirement applies to every legislator — regardless of party affiliation or whether the legislator appeared on the ballot as a write-in or not.

In addition, “[a]t the time of qualification, all write-in candidates must reside within the district represented by the office sought.” § 99.0615, Fla. Stat. (empha*297sis added). Thus, by statute, write-in candidates must reside within the district at an earlier point than other candidates—the time of qualification. § 99.0615, Fla. Stat.

Florida law distinguishes between “constitutional eligibility for office, on the one hand, and, on the other, a constitutionally eligible candidate’s taking the necessary, statutory steps to qualify to run for office.” Norman, 46 So.3d at 182. Eligibility is constitutional, while qualification is statutory and concerns ballot access matters. Id, at 182-83 (citing Levey v. Dijols, 990 So.2d 688, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). The key is that such qualifications “cannot impose additional eligibility requirements beyond those set forth in the constitution.” Norman, 46 So.3d at 183. Statutory qualification may not add to or limit constitutional eligibility requirements. Id. Put another way: “statutes imposing additional qualifications for office are unconstitutional where the basic document of the constitution has already undertaken to set forth those requirements.” State ex rel. Askew v. Thomas, 293 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla.1974). Appellees here claim the statutory residency requirement applicable to only write-in candidates equates to nothing more than a statutory qualification, ballot-access step. We do not agree.

Qualification requirements, mandated by statute, include steps such as making “a full and public disclosure of financial interests,” taking an oath, and paying filing fees or gathering constituent signatures. See § 99.061(5), (7)(a)(l)-(2), Fla. Stat. These qualifications do not appear in the Constitution. See Art. Ill, § 15(c), Fla. Const. Yet as solely qualifications to obtain entry onto the ballot, they are permissible. See Norman, 46 So.3d at 182-83; Levey, 990 So.2d at 692-93.

Here however, the statutory residency obligation is not equivalent to such qualifications as fees, signatures, oaths, and financial disclosures. Importantly, the residency “qualification” addresses a requirement already delineated—and controlled—by express constitutional mandate. The statutory requirement directly contravenes and adds to the constitutional fiat that legislators reside in the district at the time of election. See Francois v. Brinkmann, 147 So.3d 613, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding section 99.0615 facially unconstitutional “because the timing of its residency requirement for write-in candidates conflicts with the timing of the residency requirement for county commission candidates as established by [the Constitution]”).

Appellees maintain the Legislature is permitted to make reasonable restraints on write-in candidates; and they are correct.1 Nevertheless, a statute may not usurp the Constitution’s direct expression of an eligibility requirement. Appellees also contend the requirement is permissible because it only pertains.to write in candidates. See State v. Grassi, 532 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1988) (invalidating residency-at-time-of-filing requirement where it applied to all candidates regardless of how they sought ballot access: payment of. fees, write-in, collecting signatures, or otherwise). We find this to be a distinction without a difference. See also Francois, 147 So.3d at 615-616 (using Grassi to find section 99.0615 facially unconstitutional). The key here, again, is that the statute *298addresses, m a differing manner, a requirement already addressed by the Constitution. The Legislature is free to make its reasonable restraints — -just not those which directly contravene explicit constitutional mandates for eligibility.

We acknowledge statutes pertaining to the conduct of elections carry “an extremely strong presumption of validity.” Id. at 615 (quoting Pasco v. Heggen, 314 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla.1975)). To find an elections statute unconstitutional, a court “must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the act contravenes the superior law.” Id. (quoting Mairs v. Peters, 52 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla.1951)). And as was the Fourth District, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 616.

Accordingly, we find section 99.0615, Florida Statutes, facially unconstitutional.2 We REVERSE the circuit court’s order (i) finding Mr. Matthews is not a qualified candidate for office and (ii) “opening” the primary pursuant to Article VT, section 5(b), of the Florida Constitution. We REMAND for further proceedings and for the circuit court to address the issues of any necessary special elections, including the required “closed” primary and subsequent “general” election between the winner of the primary and Mr. Matthews.

LEWIS, C.J. and MARSTILLER, J., concur.