Filed Date: June 22, 2018
Closed Date: Aug. 3, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved multiple challenges to Florida election law, including allegations that the state’s closed primary elections and certain filing and fee deadlines for petitions to place independent candidates on primary and general election ballots violate both a prospective candidate’s and voter’s constitutional rights of free speech and association.
Plaintiff, an attorney and a registered voter in Florida interested in running for United States Congress in the 2018 election cycle as an independent candidate, filed a lawsuit pro se against the Supervisor of Elections for Pinellas County, Florida and the Secretary of the State of the State of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 22, 2018. In his complaint, plaintiff first alleged that, notwithstanding § 101.021, Fla. Stat. (2017), which required Florida voters to register as either a Democrat or a Republican at least thirty (30) days prior to the state’s primary election to be eligible to vote in that election and made it unlawful to vote for any party other than the party that the voter registered for, there was no compelling state interest in requiring a voter to declare such preference to be eligible to vote in the primary election. Rather, plaintiff asserted that the primary purpose of such law is to keep both the Democratic and Republican Parties in power by making it harder for independent or third party candidates to appear on the primary ballot. Plaintiff’s complaint further argued that the Supervisor of Election’s refusal to count any votes for plaintiff that violate § 101.021, Fla. Stat. (2017) nevertheless violated both plaintiff and such voters their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. Second, plaintiff similarly contended that, notwithstanding § 99.095 (3), Fla. Stat. (2017), which required that petitions with signatures in support of placing an independent or third party candidate must be filed on or prior to May 4, 2018 in order to qualify for the state primary election and on or prior to August 28, 2018 in order to qualify for the state general election, there was no compelling state interest in requiring petitions to be filed so far in advance, in either case. Plaintiff referenced the election cycle of multiple other states to support his contention that these deadlines were too drastic. Relatedly, plaintiff also challenged the constitutionality of § 105.031 Fla. Stat. (2017), which required that certain fees be paid together with each petition by the same filing deadline. Plaintiff’s complaint requested that the District Court declare § 101.021, Fla. Stat. (2017) and other state laws requiring a closed primary election unconstitutional and that the court require a universal ballot allowing independent voters to vote for plaintiff or someone other than the candidate listed on the respective Democratic Party or Republican Party ballot. Plaintiff also requested that the District Court declare both § 99.095 (3), Fla. Stat. (2017) and § 105.031 Fla. Stat. (2017) and other state laws requiring petitions to be filed and certain related fees to be paid by the May 4, 2018 and August 28, 2018 deadlines unconstitutional. The case was assigned to Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.
On June 22, 2018, plaintiff also filed a motion for temporary restraining order to change the primary election petition filing and fee deadlines from May 4, 2018 to July 31, 2018. Judge Honeywell denied this motion on June 26, 2018 for failure to comply with Rule 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of Florida Local Rules requiring that certain and adequate notice be provided to the adverse party.
On July 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the same election laws at issue, including the enforcement of the filing and fee deadlines, and to require that any votes cast in violation of these laws be counted and that Plaintiff’s requested universal ballot (or a similar equivalent) be required for upcoming state elections. The District Court never ruled on this motion.
On August 3, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice.
Summary Authors
Brian Beaulieu (5/14/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7255985/parties/marshall-v-clark/
Honeywell, Charlene Vanessa Edwards (Florida)
Marshall, Larry R. (Florida)
Vicari, Kelly Lynn (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7255985/marshall-v-clark/
Last updated May 15, 2024, 11:09 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 22, 2018
Closing Date: Aug. 3, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Prospective independent candidate for United States Congress
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Supervisor of Elections, Pinellas County, Florida (Pinellas), County
Secretary of State of the State of Florida, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Voting: