The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 101
VOTING METHODS AND PROCEDURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 101.65

101.65 Instructions to absent electors.—The supervisor shall enclose with each vote-by-mail ballot separate printed instructions in substantially the following form; however, where the instructions appear in capitalized text, the text of the printed instructions must be in bold font:

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY
BEFORE MARKING BALLOT.

1. VERY IMPORTANT. In order to ensure that your vote-by-mail ballot will be counted, it should be completed and returned as soon as possible so that it can reach the supervisor of elections of the county in which your precinct is located no later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election. However, if you are an overseas voter casting a ballot in a presidential preference primary or general election, your vote-by-mail ballot must be postmarked or dated no later than the date of the election and received by the supervisor of elections of the county in which you are registered to vote no later than 10 days after the date of the election. Note that the later you return your ballot, the less time you will have to cure any signature deficiencies, which is authorized until 5 p.m. on the 2nd day after the election.

2. Mark your ballot in secret as instructed on the ballot. You must mark your own ballot unless you are unable to do so because of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write.

3. Mark only the number of candidates or issue choices for a race as indicated on the ballot. If you are allowed to “Vote for One” candidate and you vote for more than one candidate, your vote in that race will not be counted.

4. Place your marked ballot in the enclosed secrecy envelope.

5. Insert the secrecy envelope into the enclosed mailing envelope which is addressed to the supervisor.

6. Seal the mailing envelope and completely fill out the Voter’s Certificate on the back of the mailing envelope.

7. VERY IMPORTANT. In order for your vote-by-mail ballot to be counted, you must sign your name on the line above (Voter’s Signature). A vote-by-mail ballot will be considered illegal and not be counted if the signature on the voter’s certificate does not match the signature on record. The signature on file at the time the supervisor of elections in the county in which your precinct is located receives your vote-by-mail ballot is the signature that will be used to verify your signature on the voter’s certificate. If you need to update your signature for this election, send your signature update on a voter registration application to your supervisor of elections so that it is received before your vote-by-mail ballot is received.

8. VERY IMPORTANT. If you are an overseas voter, you must include the date you signed the Voter’s Certificate on the line above (Date) or your ballot may not be counted.

9. Mail, deliver, or have delivered the completed mailing envelope. Be sure there is sufficient postage if mailed. THE COMPLETED MAILING ENVELOPE CAN BE DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH YOUR PRECINCT IS LOCATED OR DROPPED OFF AT AN AUTHORIZED SECURE BALLOT INTAKE STATION, AVAILABLE AT EACH EARLY VOTING LOCATION.

10. FELONY NOTICE. It is a felony under Florida law to accept any gift, payment, or gratuity in exchange for your vote for a candidate. It is also a felony under Florida law to vote in an election using a false identity or false address, or under any other circumstances making your ballot false or fraudulent.

History.—s. 5, ch. 7380, 1917; RGS 372; CGL 433; s. 1, ch. 25385, 1949; s. 5, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 35, ch. 28156, 1953; s. 23, ch. 29934, 1955; s. 34, ch. 65-380; s. 4, ch. 71-149; s. 9, ch. 72-63; s. 2, ch. 73-105; s. 7, ch. 73-157; ss. 3, 4, ch. 75-174; s. 23, ch. 77-175; s. 2, ch. 81-106; s. 10, ch. 81-304; s. 11, ch. 82-143; s. 7, ch. 83-251; s. 3, ch. 85-226; s. 2, ch. 86-33; s. 589, ch. 95-147; s. 5, ch. 96-57; s. 16, ch. 98-129; s. 33, ch. 99-2; s. 54, ch. 2001-40; s. 20, ch. 2003-415; s. 2, ch. 2004-232; s. 38, ch. 2011-40; s. 12, ch. 2013-57; s. 18, ch. 2016-37; s. 17, ch. 2019-162; s. 20, ch. 2022-73.

Note.—Former s. 101.05.

F.S. 101.65 on Google Scholar

F.S. 101.65 on Casetext

Amendments to 101.65

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 101.65

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 101.65.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF FLORIDA, US v. M. LEE, In, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 101.65.] . . . Stat. §§ 101.65, 101.67(2). . . . Id. § 101.65. . . . . § 101.65 (2016). . . .

DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF FLORIDA, U. S. v. DETZNER,, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 101.65 (2016). . . .

HADLEY, v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY,, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . . §§ 101.14 and 101.65 regulate when nutrient content claims or health claims can be made in the presence . . . Similarly, § 101.65 prohibits any nutrient content claim using the term “healthy” if fats, saturated . . . See 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d)(2). In Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., 2010 WL 2925955 (E.D.N.Y. . . . With respect to implied nutrient content claims governed by § 101.65, the Ackerman court noted that the . . . made in association with an explicit or implicit claim or statement about a nutrient.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .

KROMMENHOCK, v. POST FOODS, LLC,, 255 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . . § 101.65(d)(2). Mot. 14. . . . . § 101.65(d)(1). . . . Oats — with - Almonds, FAC ¶ 165, which Post contends are permissible statements under 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . . information and comments on whether and how to amend the current guidelines (specifically) 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .

HADLEY, v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY,, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . . §§ 101.13 (addressing express and implied nutrient content claims), 101.65 (implied nutrient content . . . “nutritious,” and "healthy" violates 2Í C.F.R. § 101.65 as im-' proper implied nutrient content claims . . . However, the FAC does not specifically allege a violation of § 101.65, and Plaintiff did not address . . .

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., 235 F. Supp. 3d 226 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . § 101.65(d)(2) (establishing parameters for use of the term “healthy” “as an implied nutrient content . . . (Resp. at 12 (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d)(2) and 81 Fed. . . . R. § 101.65(d)(2). . . . for different food categories (e.g., fruits and vegetables, or seafood and game meat) (21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .

IN RE KIND LLC HEALTHY AND ALL NATURAL LITIGATION., 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . . § 101.65, and that certain KIND products did not meet the FDA’s saturated fat content requirements . . . almonds, avocados, or salmon contain saturated-fat levels exceeding the limits prescribed by 21 C.F.R. § 101.65 . . .

HUGHES v. ESTER C COMPANY, NBTY, LLC,, 99 F. Supp. 3d 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . §§ 101.14(e) (6); 101.65(d)(2). . . .

BRUTON, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY U. S. A., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . . §§ 101.2, 101.13, 101.54, and 101.65, which have been adopted by reference into the Sherman Law. . . . The circumstances under which “healthy” claims are permitted are defined in 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d), but . . . [the] circumstances under which such claims are permitted are defined in 21 CFR 101.65(d), 21 CFR 101.54 . . .

THEME PROMOTIONS, INC. a d b a Co- Op v. NEWS AMERICA MARKETING FSI, INC. a, 731 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . $260.00 $278.20 4-7 years $210.00 $224.70 1-3 years $170.00 $181.90 Paralegals & Law Clerks $ 95.00 $101.65 . . . $258.50 $104,578.76 D Bunim 105.04 $385.20 $40,461.41 37.92 $445.50 $57,354.77 Legal Assistants 539.22 $101.65 . . .

GOLDSMITH, v. McDONALD,, 32 So. 3d 713 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 101.65, Fla. Stat. (2008) (¶ 1). . How close would be enough to be substantial? . . .

In ZWERN, SSN XXX- XX- XXXX In HALLBERG, SSN XXX- XX- XXXX, 181 B.R. 80 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1995)

. . . The Application requests allowance of $1,814.00 in fees and $101.65 in expenses, but the proposed order . . . provides for allowance of $1,500.00 in fees and $101.65 in expenses. . . . Berken & Associates, counsel for the Debtor, is allowed a fee for services of $1,315.00 and expenses of $101.65 . . .

W. LUCAS v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT COMPANY, a, 765 F.2d 1039 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . was considering refinancing $63.7 million of 10x/8% bonds due 3/1/05 at a special redemption price of 101.65 . . . twelve month period ending the last day of February, 1976 111.79 101.67 1977 111.89 101.66 1978 110.98 101.65 . . .

LUCAS, v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT COMPANY, a, 575 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Fla. 1983)

. . . .: 1977 — 101.56 1978 — 101.65 ...”. (DX-33) 65. . . .

L. McLEAN, Jr. v. BELLAMY, R. W. W., 437 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Also, Section 101.65, Florida Statutes (1981), provides for an instruction sheet for absentee electors . . . responsibilities in the manner in which the absentee ballot was to be completed including following the Section 101.65 . . . And so, although the statutes in existence in 1982 (Sections 101.64 and 101.65) did provide for the election . . . “Upon the receipt of the absentee ballot and printed instructions as provided in § 101.65, the absent . . .

In FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 98 F.R.D. 48 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . After a careful review of the time records submitted, I find that only 101.65 of the total hours claimed . . . Thus, Schneider’s total compensable time is 101.65 hours; the total compensable paralegal time is 37.65 . . . (C) Total Lodestar Schneider: 101.65 hours X $50/hour = $5,082.50 Paralegals: 37.65 hours X $25/hour . . . to under Lindy: Attorney’s Name Hours Hourly Rate Lodestar Total Total Awarded Requested Schneider 101.65 . . .

WAKULLA COUNTY ABSENTEE VOTER INTERVENORS J. v. R. FLACK,, 419 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . statute itself in conjunction with inquiry arguably invited by the specific instructions prescribed by § 101.65 . . .

In SKYE MARKETING CORP., 11 B.R. 891 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . On the date of the petition herein, the sums of $101.65 and $138.59 were due and owing by the alleged . . .

ESTEVA, v. HINDMAN, 299 So. 2d 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . § 101.65, F.S.A., sets forth the substantial form of instructions to be sent with each absentee ballot . . .

UNITED STATES SMART, v. J. PATE,, 318 F.2d 559 (7th Cir. 1963)

. . . Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, the Illinois Supreme Court promulgated rule 65-1, § 101.65 . . .

NORVELL v. ILLINOIS, 373 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1963)

. . . Stat., c. 110, § 101.65-1) by which the State provides a free trial transcript to every indigent person . . .

BURNS, v. STATE, 84 Ohio Law Abs. 570 (U.S. 1959)

. . . A. ch. 110, §101.65-1, which provides in part that any person sentenced to imprisonment who is “without . . .

MEDBERRY, v. K. PATTERSON, C., 174 F. Supp. 720 (D. Colo. 1959)

. . . Rule 65-2, S.H.A. ch. 110, Sec. 101.65-2. . . .

UNITED STATES WESTBROOK, v. V. RANDOLPH,, 259 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1958)

. . . H.A. ch. 110, § 101.65-1, adopted June 19, 1956, effective September 26, 1956, and following in the wake . . . See also S.H.A. ch. 110, § 101.65-2, Supreme Court Rule 65-2, adopted November 12, 1957, providing: “ . . .

UNITED STATES PECKHAM, v. E. RAGEN,, 241 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1957)

. . . effective September 26, 1956 (Supreme Court Rules, Smith-Hurd Illinois Annotated Statutes, Chap. 110, Sec. 101.65 . . .

McDONALD, v. R. MILLER J. B., 90 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1956)

. . . Likewise, under Section 101.65, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the marked ballot must be returned to the supervisor . . .

PARRA, v. C. B. HARVEY, C. Jr. C., 89 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1956)

. . . such a voter shall “[u]pon the receipt of the * * ■ * ballot and printed instructions as provided in § 101.65 . . . In Sec. 101.65, supra, which must be considered with Sec. 101.66, supra, we find that among the instructions . . .

GRIFFIN v. ILLINOIS, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956)

. . . Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 101.65 (Supreme Court Rule 65). . . . Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 101.65 (Supreme Court Rule 65); People v. Callopy, 358 Ill. 11, 192 N. . . .

MULLAN v. UNITED STATES, 118 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1886)

. . . of Contra Costa county shall receive in payment therefor, from John Mullan, one hundred and one ^/o (101.65 . . .