Filed Date: June 11, 2008
Closed Date: Sept. 9, 2009
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s amended filing deadline for proposed constitutional amendments by motivated citizens and Florida’s Secretary of State’s application of signature review standards and refusal to include Plaintiffs’ constitutional amendments on the 2008 general election ballot.
On June 11, 2008, Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. and eight individual Plaintiffs, all represented by private counsel, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Florida’s Secretary of State. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Florida’s Secretary of State improperly refused to place their proposed amendment to Florida’s constitution on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the amended deadline of February 1, 2008 for having proposed amendments to the Florida state constitution added to the ballot was unconstitutional because it applied only to amendments via citizen initiatives that involved petition signatures. Further, Plaintiffs alleged that the county supervisors of elections failed to properly validate the signatures on the petitions that were filed with the supervisors of elections, thus resulting in the Secretary of State’s Division of Election undercounting the petitions. Plaintiffs also challenged an amendment to Florida Statute § 100.371(8), which would permit private property owners to exclude from their property persons seeking to engage in activity supporting or opposing initiative amendments. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Specifically, they sought (1) the court’s declaration that Defendant’s refusal to grant Plaintiffs’ initiative access to the November 2008 general election ballot was unconstitutional; (2) the court’s declaration that the February 1 filing deadline for citizens’ initiative petition signatures was unconstitutional; (3) the court’s declaration that the application of inconsistent signature review standards to Plaintiffs’ petition was unconstitutional; (4) the court’s declaration that Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from refusing to grant Plaintiffs’ initiative access to the 2008 general election ballot or, in the alternative, prohibiting Defendant from enforcing the February 1 filing deadline and the signature validation standards; and (6) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra but was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court of the Northern District of Florida and assigned to Judge Stephan P Mickle.
On July 3, 2008, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defendant’s motion alleged that the Complaint contained no ultimate facts to support Plaintiffs’ claim that the February 1 filing deadline contained in the Florida Constitution was unconstitutional. Further, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ allegation that the sponsor would have obtained the required number of signatures but for the alleged improper invalidation of thousands of petition signatures by certain unnamed Supervisors of Elections did not state a cause of action against the Defendant. For this reason, Defendant alleged that the Complaint did not state a claim against him because the Secretary of State did not have the authority to count signatures that had not been verified by the Supervisors of Elections. Lastly, Defendant alleged that the Complaint must be dismissed, or in the alternative the case transferred to the Northern District of Florida, because of improper venue. The Defendant in this case was a state official whose office was located in the state capital, Tallahassee. The Complaint did not allege any actions or omissions by the Defendant specifically in the Southern District of Florida.
On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction specifically requesting that the Court (1)(a) prohibit Defendant from enforcing Florida’s new early filing deadline for citizens’ initiative petitions; (b) prohibit the continued use of disparate signature-verification criteria by the county Supervisors of Elections; and (c) invalidate Florida’s new law granting private property owners the power to selectively permit or prohibit the circulation of citizens’ initiative petitions on their premises; and (2) direct Defendant to place the proposed Hometown Democracy amendment on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot.
On July 18, 2008, Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It claimed that none of the requirements for a preliminary injunction had been met. First, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was not ripe because the issue of venue must first be resolved. Second, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs could not succeed on their constitutional challenge to the February 1 deadline because any right to amend the Florida Constitution by initiative is a state right and not a federal right. Third, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction prohibiting the alleged use of disparate standards by the Supervisors of Elections must be denied because (1) there was no evidence that Secretary Browning had violated any federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and (2) Plaintiffs had failed to join the Supervisors of Elections who were necessary parties. Lastly, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction invalidating Section 100.371(8), Florida Statutes, must be denied because (1) Plaintiffs failed to challenge that statute in their Complaint; (2) Secretary Browning had no authority to enforce the statute and therefore was not the proper Defendant; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to establish that the statute was unconstitutional.
On July 28, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In their Reply, Plaintiffs first alleged that venue was proper in the Southern District of Florida because a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to their claim occurred either in the Southern District or uniformly throughout Florida. Second, Plaintiffs argued that they had met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Third, Plaintiffs argued requiring citizens’ initiative petitions to be filed on February 1 had negative consequences for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech and associational rights identical to the negative consequences of deadlines for filing petitions to qualify candidates and parties for the ballot that had been held unconstitutionally early. Fourth, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant had violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Fifth, Plaintiffs argued that the Supervisors of Election were not a necessary party because Plaintiffs were not seeking any relief from the Supervisors of Election. Sixth, Plaintiffs alleged Fla. Stat. 100.371(8) was unconstitutional. Seventh, Plaintiffs claimed they would suffer irreparable injury unless an injunction was issued. Eighth, Plaintiffs claimed that the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighed any damages an injunction may cause Defendant. Lastly, Plaintiffs claimed that an injunction would advance the public interest.
On August 12, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued its Opinion and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in which it granted Defendant’s motion in part, on the basis of improper venue, and denied without prejudice all other arguments raised in its Motion. The Court denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in order for the motion to be heard in the proper forum. It then transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. All remaining motions were denied as moot. 2008 WL 3540607.
On August 21, 2008, all of the docket entries from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida case were docketed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida case.
On August 29, 2008, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued its Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Dismissing the Complaint. The Court stated that (1) there was no federal right to place the initiative at issue on the ballot; (2) that the February 1 deadline did not violate Plaintiffs’ Due Process or Equal Protection rights; (3) that the Secretary of State was not the appropriate Defendant for claims against the Supervisors of Election; and (4) Plaintiffs did not properly allege claims under Fla. Stat. § 100.371(8). Additionally, the Court stated that Plaintiffs had not stated any valid claims for relief against Defendant and had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal was without prejudice and the Court advised the Plaintiffs that they would have the opportunity to pursue claims they may have against the Supervisors of Elections and the officials responsible for enforcing Fla. Stat. § 100.371(8) in a separate suit. 2008 WL 4081174.
The case was not appealed and is now closed.
Summary Authors
Stephanie Robin (11/28/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4810207/parties/florida-hometown-democracy-inc-v-browning/
Marra, Kenneth A. (Florida)
Mickle, Stephan P. (Florida)
BURNAMAN, ROSS STAFFORD (Florida)
EMMANUEL, STEPHEN C (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4810207/florida-hometown-democracy-inc-v-browning/
Last updated Jan. 31, 2025, 6:17 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 11, 2008
Closing Date: Sept. 9, 2009
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Florida not for profit organization, a registered political action committee, who was denied its proposed constitutional amendment being placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Secretary of State for the State of Florida, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: