Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...This becomes clear when it is considered that the filing fees do not go to the state to finance the costs of the elections. The filing fees, as well as the assessments themselves made by the party, go to qualified party executive committees. Fla.Stat. § 99.103 (1967), F.S.A....

...to qualify by petition or as a write-in candidate, shall pay a filing fee in the amount of 4.5 percent of the annual salary of the office, with 1.5 percent of the annual salary transferred to the Trust Fund and the remainder distributed pursuant to section 99.103....

...Appellants, the Libertarian Party of Florida, its executive committee, and a Libertarian candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, seek reversal of a final judgment ruling against their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which challenged the constitutionality of section 99.103, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 , 99 S.Ct. 983, 990 , 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979); McLaughlin v. North Carolina Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215 , 1221 (4th Cir.1995). Rather, § 99.103 is merely an appropriation of some portion of the filing fees that both sides concede are lawfully collected from candidates for office. The rigidity of our examination is lessened where, as here, we move further away from impacting voting and associational rights. Consequently, we must determine whether the rule set forth in § 99.103 is reasonably related to an important state interest....

...4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995). In Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736 , 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1282 , 39 L.Ed.2d *1122 714 (1974), the Supreme Court declared that this interest was “not only permissible, but compelling.” As to whether § 99.103 is reasonably related to the state’s interest, the appellants argue that once the minor party candidate qualified to be on the ballot by obtaining the petition signatures of the required number of registered voters, all concerns about factionalism and splinter parties should have been satisfied....

...on ballot access. 4 This does not mean, however, that the interest cannot also be advanced by limited rebates of major party candidates’ filing fees to their respective parties’ executive committees “for the purpose of meeting ... expenses.” § 99.103(1), Fla.Stat....

...U.S. Constitution, and we are aware of no separate analysis applicable to the challenged statute under our state constitution, we agree with the trial court's ultimate assessment of these claims: "Since it passes muster under the U.S. Constitution, § 99.103 also passes muster under the Florida Constitution.” ....

...In this case, the Libertarian Party of Florida, its executive committee, and a Libertarian candidate for the Florida House of Representatives sought reversal in the district court of a final judgment ruling against their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which challenged the constitutionality of section 99.103, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...disadvantage vis-a-vis the two major parties. Petitioners also invoked their rights of political association and participation under article I, sections 1 and 5 of the Florida Constitution. The First District rejected petitioners' claims and upheld section 99.103(1) as valid under both the Florida and federal constitutions because the provision was reasonably related to the state's interest in preventing factionalism. 665 So.2d at 1121. We agree with the First District that section 99.103(1) is subject to a sliding scale of constitutional review. As the district court concludes, section 99.103(1) is not a ballot access provision and, rather than being reviewed under a "strict scrutiny" test, the provision falls at the low end of the spectrum of constitutional review....

...by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979); McLaughlin v. North Carolina Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215, 1221 (4th Cir.1995). Rather, § 99.103 is merely an appropriation of some portion of the filing fees that both sides concede are lawfully collected from candidates for office. The rigidity of our examination is lessened where, as here, we move further away from impacting voting and associational rights. Consequently, we must determine whether the rule set forth in § 99.103 is reasonably related to an important state interest....

...plied to statutes that do not have substantial discriminatory impact upon voting, associational and expressive rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Smith, 665 So.2d at 1121. We also agree with the First District's conclusion that section 99.103(1) is reasonably related to the state's important interest in strengthening and encouraging major parties, and thereby discouraging minor parties, as a means of preventing factionalism and the multiplicity of splinter groups. As the district court correctly explains, even though the section 99.103(1) rebate provision may not be "necessary or essential to the state's interest," the provision is, however, "reasonably related" to it. We also adopt the First District's analysis finding that section 99.103(1) is constitutional: The state interest asserted to support the statute is a desire to strengthen and encourage major parties as a means of preventing factionalism and a multiplicity of splinter parties....

...Winchester, 642 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995). In Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1282, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974), the Supreme Court declared that this interest was "not only permissible, but compelling." As to whether § 99.103 is reasonably related to the state's interest, the appellants argue that once the minor party candidate qualified to be on the ballot by obtaining the petition signatures of the required number of registered voters, all concerns about factionalism and splinter parties should have been satisfied....

...Smith, 660 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This does not mean, however, that the interest cannot also be advanced by limited rebates of major party candidates' filing fees to their respective parties' executive committees "for the purpose of meeting... expenses." § 99.103(1), Fla.Stat....

...In this case, we initially find petitioners' argument—that once a minor party candidate has fulfilled all ballot access requirements *1296 and has his or her name on the ballot, as petitioner did in this case, the state's goal of promoting major parties and preventing factionalism is not effectively achieved through the section 99.103(1) rebate provision—to be an attractive one. Yet, the threshold for the constitutionality of this statute is a low one, and the wisdom behind the State's policy choice in enacting section 99.103 is not subject to our review here....