Florida Tells Candidate: Not Responsible for Vetting or Disqualifying Candidates- Protestors Can Sue
Posted by By GeorgeM at 26 December, at 04 : 16 AM Print
Does anyone know if this is true? I filed a FL complaint and haven’t heard any such thing. Can we file a criminal complaint with the Attorney-General?
Saturday, December 24, 2011 22:53 ET
Mr Miller,
Here is a letter from the FL Dept of State to independent
candidate Hassan, who wanted to know if he will be placed on
the ballot.
Florida says they will put him on the ballot, and the FL
Supreme Court does not permit the SOS to question his
qualifications.
But they say that action does not preclude a 3d party suit
to remove him from the ballot if he is not qualified.
(personal info redacted)
----------------------------------------------
This same guy, Abdul Hassan, tried to get on the New Hampshire ballot in July, 2011 and was rejected by the NH Secretary of State for not being a natural-born citizen. He is an attorney with an office near mine in Queens Village, NY. May be time to pay him a visit.
William Homolka, 1 year ago
Yeah, that is reported elsewhere on this site.
GeorgeM, 1 year ago
Who was it who said ‘Truth is stranger than fiction?’ This has got to be a joke.
Chris Farrell, 1 year ago
It looks like you would file false swearing charges with the grand jury.
The statutes are in the Florida state ballot news.
99.021 is the sworn statement the candidate provides attesting to his constitutional credentials.
104.011 pertains to false swearing for the above.
103.021 Nomination for presidential electors. Has to do with the electors, not the candidate.
It looks like the FL SOS is blowing smoke on the statutes as 103.021 is irrelevant to the issue of challenging candidate. qualifications.
Zeb Blanchard, 1 year ago
Zeb,
Sorry. I read your posts after I posted. Don’t mean to be duplicative.
Ray
Ray, 1 year ago
Why is the state Republican Party afraid to take a stand on moral iusses with this weak kneed policy of defending against any attack on a Republican candidate irregardless of whether or not the charges are valid. Jim Norman needs to man up and take responsibility for his own actions not hide behind the shield of the Republican Party.
Rizky, 1 year ago
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/2011/de1103.pdf
“However, the ministerial placing of one’s name on the ballot does not preclude litigation to have the name removed from the ballot for not satisfying the eligibility requirements of the office.”
This is the B.S. that’s going on with the SOS. The challenge is not done by “litigation”, it is done by filing a complaint with the grand jury, per FL 104.011. That puts the onus on the candidate to provide his bona fides to the GJ and let them decide on their validity. The SOS had to say a challenge was possible because it is in their statutes!
Zeb Blanchard, 1 year ago
So how do we go about convening a Grand Jury?
This issue needs to be resolved.
Thanks,
Ray
Florida citizen
Ray, 1 year ago
You might try to contact the local elections departments to clarify -Or contact Pam Bondi-the Atty Gen who was elected in 10 with T-party support.
Stuart, 1 year ago
I am not a lawyer.
Florida Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland does appear to be correct.
In a letter to the Supervisor of Elections of Seminole County Florida, responding to an inquiry regarding the Supervisor of Elections “role if you are aware that a candidate is clearly not qualified under applicable law for the office the candidate is seeking”, the Formal Opinion of the Division of Elections states, “The qualifying officer’s role is purely a ministerial one. The qualifying officer is not to look beyond the face of the qualifying papers to determine if the person is a qualified candidate. If the qualifying papers are complete on their face (including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to section 92.525(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011)), even when the qualifying officer is clearly aware that the candidate does not meet constitutional or statutory requirements for the office, the qualifying officer should qualify the candidate and place the candidate’s name on the ballot; thereafter, it is up to a court of competent jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought by a proper party to decide ifthe candidate is qualified.”
This letter is accessible at http://opinions.dos.state.fl.us/searchable/pdf/2011/de1105.pdf
Please read it as it cites the applicable Florida Supreme Court rulings. It also notes, “Falsely swearing to an oath arising out of an election is a felony of the third degree.”
Digging deeper….
According to Florida law, a candidate must submit a written Oath stating that they are “qualified under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to hold the office to which I desire to be nominated or elected”
Florida Statutes:
Form of candidate oath.—
99.021 (1)(a)2. Each candidate for federal office, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to office shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A copy of the oath or affirmation shall be made available to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:
State of Florida
County of
Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says that he or she is a candidate for the office of ; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and laws of the United States to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state, the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent with that of the office he or she seeks; and that he or she will support the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0099/Sections/0099.021.html
There may be grounds for proceeding. There certainly is controversy, therefore a determination of “natural born” is required since that has direct bearing on the truthfulness of the Oath.
Minor v. Happersett makes clear that the US Supreme Court has held that a “natural born citizen” is one born to citizen parents. Please see Leo Donofrio’s excellent article at
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
It appears that a false Oath may have been sworn, falsely swearing an oath arising out of an election is a felony of the third degree.
Ray, 1 year ago