Backroom Briefing: Chalk one up for write-ins

By JIM SAUNDERS AND JIM TURNER
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, February 4, 2016.......... Write-in candidates rarely get more than a handful of votes and are often suspected of being part of political shenanigans.

But the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday gave a boost to write-ins when it ruled that a state election law is unconstitutional.

The ruling stemmed from a 2014 race for a Broward County Commission seat. Tyron Francois submitted qualifying papers as a write-in candidate for the race, which otherwise included only Democratic candidates. Also, of note, Francois did not live within the district boundaries.

While Francois stood little chance of winning, his candidacy was important because it would "close" the Democratic primary, meaning that only Democratic voters could cast primary ballots. Voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment that opens primaries to all voters if every candidate is from the same party.

Jennifer Brinkmann, a Republican voter in the district, filed a legal challenge to Francois' candidacy based on a state law that said write-ins have to live within the district boundaries at the time of qualifying.  A circuit judge agreed with Brinkmann, prompting appeals.

But the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a 4th District Court of Appeal ruling that said the state law at issue in the Francois case is unconstitutional. That is because the law places a different standard on write-in candidates than other candidates, who are not required to live in the districts at the time of qualifying. Those candidates are required to live in the districts at the time of election.

"This (Supreme) Court has long-instructed that statutes may not impose qualification requirements for public office over and above those set forth in the Florida Constitution. … As such, if any provision of the Florida Constitution provides qualifications for an office of county commissioner, then the Legislature is prohibited from imposing additional qualifications,'' said the opinion, written by Justice James E.C. Perry and joined fully by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston agreed with the outcome but did not sign onto the opinion.

In the case, Brinkmann also argued that write-in candidates should not be considered "opposition" that would trigger closing primaries. The Supreme Court also rejected that argument.

Write-in candidates, however, have often been suspected of taking part in ploys to close primaries and help other candidates. As a hypothetical example, a conservative Republican and a moderate Republican could be in a two-candidate race. It might benefit the conservative to have a closed primary that would only involve ballots cast by GOP voters, rather than opening up the primary to all voters.

Brinkmann's attorneys touched on such scenarios in a brief filed in the Supreme Court. The brief said the 1998 constitutional amendment about open primaries "would be rendered meaningless if the primary election remained closed as a result of the mere presence of a write-in candidate who has the same party affiliation as all of the other candidates. Any time a candidate desired a closed primary, that candidate would only need to recruit a fellow party member to act as a write-in candidate, thereby closing the primary to voters outside the party."

DRIVING UP PRESSURE ON THE SENATE
 
Uber is once again reaching out to its riders, this time to pressure the Senate to get on board a House bill that would prevent local governments from regulating popular app-based transportation network services.
 
The ride-sharing service Thursday announced a petition drive that implores Senate President Andy Gardiner to take up a proposal (HB 509) that was approved by the House in a 108-10 vote last week.
 
The goal is 50,000 signatures. As of Thursday afternoon, more than 12,000 signatures had been collected, according to a website that allows people to add their names.
 
"It's time for the Senate to finish what the House has started by taking up ridesharing legislation and listen to the thousands of Floridians clamoring for more options," Uber said on a webpage that describes "The Situation."
 
In addition to setting statewide rules for the ride-sharing services, the House proposal would set requirements for background checks on drivers and would require Uber and other app-based companies to pay annual fees of $5,000 to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
 
Some cab companies pay more than $100,000 annually in fees with cities and counties.
 
The Senate has put forward a proposal (SB 1118), still in the committee review stages, that only addresses insurance issues for drivers.
 
This is the third session that the House and Senate have taken different approaches to the transportation network services, and the differences are expected to remain in place for now.
 
Gardiner, R-Orlando, has said the state should respect different regulations that have been established and are being set by cities and counties across the state.

Last year, ride-sharing proposals were among the issues that got left behind when the House shut down the regular session early amid a budget dispute with the Senate. Uber unsuccessfully undertook a similar online petition drive to try to get the issue included in a special session that was held in June to complete the budget.

TWEET OF THE WEEK: "Staff fielding calls/emails from Pasco voters questioning why Presidential candidate 'Donald Trump' is last on the ballot. It's alphabetical"---Pasco County Supervisor of Elections Brian Corley (@brianecorley)