CopyCited 104 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15734
...ittee). 2 Wymbs al *1074 leged in count one that the Committee performs a number of important political and governmental functions that amount to state action: (1) the adoption of presidential preference primary rules, as authorized by Fla.Stat.Ann. § 103.101; (2) the nomination of presidential electors, pursuant to Fla.Stat.Ann....
...congressional district in Florida regardless of the number of registered Republicans in the district. 19 . See supra note 7. 20 . Florida has not so provided at any time relevant to this appeal. In Florida, selection of delegates to the national nominating conventions of political parties is governed by Fla. Stat.Ann. § 103.101 (1982 & Supp.1983). The provisions touching most closely on this issue are those in § 103.101(8) which permit delegates to be allotted either on a winner-take-all or a proportional basis....
...They are not bound to the candidate for whom they are selected if their *1084 candidate receives less than 35% of the convention vote, if their candidate has not won nomination by the second ballot, or if the candidate releases his delegates. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 103.101(6) (1982)....
...state action, the Committee may not refrain from exercising them because they are required by Florida law. These two functions are mandated by the State; the Committee has no discretion not to perform them. See Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 100.11 l(3)(b) and 103.101(5)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1027
...The purpose of this suit was to determine the manner or method of selecting or electing National Committeemen and National Committeewomen and Delegates to the National Republican Convention. The Respondents here, plaintiffs in the Court below, contended that Section 103.101(7), F.S.,F.S.A., Election Code, gives the individual members of the Republican Party the right to elect persons to fill these party offices, either in a primary, or in some other method or manner....
...cities as Members of the Republican State Executive Committee of Florida, from choosing, selecting, or attempting to do so, the Party officers in question. These questions necessarily involve the proper construction to be placed upon Subsection 7 of Section 103.101, F.S.,F.S.A., and the power of the courts to interfere with, or regulate, the affairs of political parties in matters not regulated or controlled by Statutes....
...majority of the electors of President and Vice President of the United States and has failed to elect a Governor of Florida." All political parties not within the definition of minority parties are further classified for the purpose of regulation by Section 103.101, F.S.,F.S.A....
...y, and as to such a political party, neither the Executive Committee nor any other body has any discretion as to the manner of electing these party officers. The manner and method of so doing is provided by Statute, and is exclusive. Subsection 7 of Section 103.101 covers each political party whose candidate for governor in the last election received less than twenty percent of the total vote cast for said office. This Subsection 7 of Section 103.101 was enacted for some purpose....
...Unless controlled or regulated by Statutes, the selection or election of such officers is a party matter. With reference to the Republican Party in this state and the manner or method of selecting, or electing, such party officers, Subsection 7 of
103.101 and Subsection 7 of
103.121 are controlling....
...When the State Executive Committee determines the manner or method of electing its party officers, such determination will be final and conclusive. *720 We hold that the Republican Party under the facts in this case is controlled by Subsection 7 of Section 103.101; that the sole and absolute discretion of determining the manner or method of electing the party officers in question is vested in the State Executive Committee of the party, and that the exercise of such discretion is beyond the control or regulation of the courts....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2444
...Before CARNES, Circuit Judge, and FAY * and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judges. FAY, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 David Duke filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1 challenging Florida Statutes Sec. 103.101 which governs access to the presidential primary ballot in Florida. The district court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial and denied relief to all of the plaintiffs. Because we find state action, we REVERSE. I. FACTS 2 Florida Statutes Sec. 103.101 entitled "Presidential preference primary" is the exclusive vehicle through which a person may gain access to the Florida presidential preference primary ballot ("Ballot"). 2 The Plaintiffs sought to have their names placed on the 1992 Ballot in Florida. To that end, they followed the procedures contained in Florida Statutes Sec. 103.101 and submitted their names to the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee ("Committee"). The defendants in this case, Jim Smith, T.K. Wetherell, Gwen Margolis, James M. Lombard, Ander Crenshaw, Simon Ferro, and Van Poole, comprise the Committee described in the statute. 3 Pursuant to Sec. 103.101(2)(a), following the plaintiffs' submissions, the representatives of the Florida Democratic and Republican Parties gave a list of their respective candidates for the Ballot to the Secretary of State, Jim Smith. 3 None of the Plaintiffs were on either list submitted to the Secretary of State. 4 Accordingly, thirty-two candidates, including plaintiffs Duke, Agran, Mahoney, and LaRouche, petitioned the Secretary of State pursuant to Sec. 103.101(2)(b) to have their names reconsidered for inclusion on the Ballot. 4 Subsequently, the Secretary of State requested that the Committee reconvene to reconsider the Plaintiffs' requests. On January 16, 1992, pursuant to Sec. 103.101(2)(c), the Committee reconvened and the Secretary of State read the names of 32 candidates who submitted formal requests for reconsideration....
...Whether this challenge to a presidential primary ballot access statute is capable of repetition yet evading review, and thus justiciable under the United States Constitution Art. III Sec. 2? 7 10 II. Whether the actions of the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee under Florida Statute Sec. 103.101(2)(c) are under color of state law for purposes of liability under Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ? 11 III. Whether Sec. 103.101(2)(c) governing the reconsideration of excluded candidates by the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it lacks any standards and allows arbitrary and capricious governmental action? 12 IV....
...Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc.,
840 F.2d 797, 800 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd by Zinermon v. Burch,
494 U.S. 113 ,
110 S.Ct. 975 ,
108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). 16 Our inquiry into the state action question will focus narrowly on the reconsideration provisions of Sec.
103.101(2)(c) as it is the only subsection of the statute which the Plaintiffs address on appeal....
...ne no later than the second Thursday after the first Monday in January to reconsider placing the candidate's name on the ballot. The Department of State shall immediately notify such candidate of the selection committee's decision. 18 Fla.Stat. Sec. 103.101(2)(c) (1991) (emphasis added)....
...tricably intertwined with the process of placing candidates names on the ballot, and the state-created procedures, not the autonomous political parties, make the final determination as to who will appear on the ballot in each primary election. 11 26 Section 103.101(2)(c) does not leave the individual political parties the discretion to review a candidate's reconsideration....
...Rather, because the Florida legislature has given the Committee power to "declare [during the reconsideration process] who is fit to run, and who, by extension is fit to govern," Duke II at 1404, we are bound by the new precedent in this Circuit and hold that the procedures outlined in Sec. 103.101(2)(c) constitute state action....
...1983 analysis by finding state action, we now turn to the second prong to determine whether the Plaintiffs suffered a deprivation of any constitutional right, privilege or immunity through the Committee's application of the reconsideration procedure outlined by Sec. 103.101(2)(c)....
...laintiffs in this case. Because we find that the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights are subjected to severe restrictions, namely the Committee's unfettered discretion to exclude candidates who have petitioned for reconsideration, we will analyze Sec.
103.101(2)(c) under a strict scrutiny test to determine if it is "narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest." Burdick, --- U.S. at ----,
112 S.Ct. at 2063 . See also Norman v. Reed, --- U.S. ----, ----,
112 S.Ct. 698, 705 ,
116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992). 14 36 Only a portion of one sentence contained in Sec.
103.101(2)(c) addresses the means through which candidates are reconsidered for placement on the ballot....
...d by the [reconsideration provision because] the scheme permits and encourages an arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville,
405 U.S. 156, 170 ,
92 S.Ct. 839, 847 ,
31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). Because Sec.
103.101(2)(c) "cannot be squared with our constitutional standards ...," Id. at 171 ,
92 S.Ct. at 848, we hold that it is unconstitutional. 15 III. CONCLUSION 37 Because we find that the reconsideration provisions contained in Florida Statutes Sec.
103.101(2)(c) constitute state action which deprived the Plaintiffs' of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, we REVERSE the district court's order....
...nvene no later than the second Thursday after the first Monday in January to reconsider placing the candidate's name on the ballot. The Department of State shall immediately notify such candidate of the selection committee's decision. Fla.Stat. Sec. 103.101(2) (1991) (emphasis added)....
...107, 123-24 ,
101 S.Ct. 1010, 1019-20 ,
67 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981); Kusper v. Pontikes,
414 U.S. 51, 56-57 ,
94 S.Ct. 303, 307-08 ,
38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973) 4 The parties stipulated at trial that the Plaintiffs complied with the requirements outlined in Sec.
103.101 5 The Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C....
...t that this subsection was not properly preserved for appeal. The entire statute was the basis of the lawsuit. Furthermore, the record reflects discussion of subsection (2)(c) and Plaintiffs' counsel pointed out that "[t]his lawsuit deals with [Sec. 103.101 subsection] 2, mostly B and C." (R2-143)....
...hat respect, we think that the inquiry must go further to encompass the entire statute; namely the reconsideration provisions 12 It should be noted that Defendants Poole, Crenshaw and Lombard conceded that if this Court found state action, then Sec. 103.101 is unconstitutional....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 803, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1682, 1992 WL 25430
...The Court also permitted Eugene McCarthy to intervene as a plaintiff seeking access to the Democratic ballot. Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter an injunction ordering that their names be placed on the primary ballot scheduled for March 10, 1992 and to declare the procedure set forth in Florida Statute § 103.101 as unconstitutionally void for vagueness since it provides no rules governing the decisions of the political parties and it allows for such parties and their officials to make their decisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner....
...Wetherell, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, indicating that *869 their participation in the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee was as a result of the Democratic Party Leadership roles and not in their capacities legislators. C. Statute Section 103.101 of the Florida Statutes provides in relevant part: (2) There shall be a Presidential Candidate Selection Committee composed of the Secretary of State, who shall be a nonvoting chairman; the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the...
...reconvene no later than the second Thursday after the first Monday in January to reconsider placing the candidate's name on the ballot. The Department of State shall immediately notify such candidate of the selection committee's decision. Fla.Stat. § 103.101(2)(a), (b), (c). LEGAL ANALYSIS The state action issue is the threshold question in this case. If the actions of the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee created by Florida Statute § 103.101 were actions taken "under color of state law," then this Court must address the constitutional validity of the statute. If the actions of the Committee were not taken "under color of state law," then Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, challenging the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 103.101....
...Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove State Action In order to prove a right to relief for the alleged constitutional violations, the Plaintiffs must prove state action. Monroe v. Pape,
365 U.S. 167,
81 S.Ct. 473,
5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). It is clear upon a review of Fla.Stat. §§
103.091,
103.101, Kay, v....
...election officer of the state, §
97.012, Fla.Stat., although that officer does not conduct elections. The Secretary of State's role is that of a facilitator who does not and cannot take any action. It should also be pointed out that under Fla.Stat. §
103.101(2), while the Secretary of State is designated as chairman of the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee, he is a non-voting chairman, which is further evidence of the absence of state action....
