Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 101.68
CopyCited 54 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...To protect against fraud, Florida requires those who choose to vote by mail to sign the voter's certificate on the back of the envelope on which they mail their ballots. Fla. Stat. §
101.65 (2016). Voting officials later compare the signature on the certificate with the signature on file for that voter. Fla. Stat. §
101.68 (2017)....
...After that amendment, a voter, upon learning that her vote had been rejected for signature-mismatch, had until 5 p.m. one day before the election to verify her identity by submitting a cure affidavit and an accepted form of identification. Fla. Stat. § 101.68 (4)....
...urt's 2016 opinion, Florida required a cure to be submitted by 5 p.m. on the day before the election-meaning that the deadline to cure a rejected ballot came before the deadline for the supervisor to receive the ballot in the first place. Fla. Stat. § 101.68 (4)(a). And even more problematically, the law did not require canvassing boards to even begin the canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots and check for signature match before noon on the day after the election. 10 Id. § 101.68(2)(a) ("The *1321 county canvassing board may begin the canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots at 7 a.m....
...e officials to provide notice and a chance to cure to thousands of petition signers when no such requirement previously existed. See id. at 1104-05 . But here, Florida already had a cure mechanism for those with mismatched signatures. See Fla. Stat. § 101.68 (4)(a)....
...Barfield ,
396 F.3d 1144 , 1150 (2005). This they cannot do. At the time Plaintiffs brought this action, only about a year had passed since the Florida legislature amended the signature-match scheme by adding the defective cure provision, see Fla. Stat. §
101.68 (effective June 2, 2017), and the DECF had just litigated the topic of signature mismatches, see Fla....
...h to be counted. That would have entailed throwing out all signature-mismatch provisions as an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote. So naturally, the district court had to examine the entire signature-mismatch process-including Fla. Stat. § 101.68 (4), the cure procedure, which Plaintiffs expressly identified in their complaint-to evaluate Plaintiffs' claim that the signature-match scheme unconstitutionally disenfranchised vote-by-mail voters whose signatures had been mismatched....
...not match. Dissent at 1342. But the Dissent's interpretation of the governing statute is not consistent with either what that statute actually requires or what, in practice, occurs in Florida. To reach its mistaken conclusion, the Dissent relies on § 101.68(1) and (4)(a). Dissent at 1342 & n.32. In relevant part, § 101.68(1) provides, "The supervisor ......
...emphasis added). By its language, this provision requires the supervisor to compare signatures and record all votes the supervisor deems to be legitimately cast. As for votes the supervisor cannot certify as validly cast, the provision directs us to § 101.68(4)....
...(emphasis added). By its terms, this provision requires the supervisor to notify voters whose signatures do not match-but only on behalf of the county canvassing board, not on the supervisor's own. A third provision not cited by the Dissent also comes into play: § 101.68(2)(c) 1....
...istration books or the precinct register ... to determine the legality of that vote-by-mail ballot." This provision tasks the canvassing board with performing the signature-match function for ballots the supervisor, in exercising her authority under § 101.68(1), cannot deem valid ballots. And that is why § 101.68(4) requires the supervisor, on behalf of the canvassing board , to notify voters whose ballots have been rejected for signature mismatch....
CopyCited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...in accordance with an injunction order of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County in the case of Levine, et al. v. Falsone, et al., constituting the Canvass Board, Case No. 213299. It is contended that such procedure ordered by the Court violated F.S. 101.68 and other statutes and breached the fundamental requirement of secrecy....
...Polk counties. It is not alleged that any of the ballots were in fact defective, rather it is contended that since the return envelopes containing the ballots cast by the voters were not preserved by the election officials as required by Fla. Stat. § 101.68(1), F.S.A., thus defeating any judicial review of the ballots, then all the ballots should be thrown out....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 1725434
...Section
97.012(1) states that it is the Secretary's responsibility to "[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws." Chapter 101 provides that all votes, including absentee ballots, must be received by the Supervisor no later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election. Section
101.68(2)(d) expressly states that "[t]he votes on absentee ballots shall be included in the total vote of the county." Chapter 102 requires that the Board submit the returns by 5 p.m....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 56 A.L.R. 6th 815, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27361, 2008 WL 793584
...al, state, and local races and ballot measures (Tr. 2/6:119-20) and mail the ballot to the voter. When returned, to collect the ballot and review the validity of the voter's signature before submitting the ballots to the county canvassing board, see § 101.68(1), (2), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ing reasons when there are clear, substantial departures from essential requirements of law. We reject appellant's argument that the Canvassing Board is not to compare the signatures on the absentee ballots with those in the registration book. While Section 101.68, Florida Statutes (1979) does not specifically state that signatures are included in the information the Canvassing Board is to compare, considering the nature of the absentee voting process the comparison of signatures would appear to...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida
II Before addressing the merits, this Court must address some preliminary issues. The first is whether the Plaintiffs have standing. Next, this Court will address affirmative defenses raised by Defendants. A Standing is a threshold matter this Court must determine before proceeding to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. E.g. , Via Mat Int'l S. Am. Ltd. v. United States ,
446 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2006). In certain scenarios, associations or organizations have standing to assert claims
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...§
101.67, F.S.A., provides, inter alia, that the supervisor shall deliver the envelopes, along with his list kept regarding said ballots, to the canvassing board and again reiterates the requirement that the application for absentee ballot be properly executed. F.S. §
101.68, F.S.A., provides for the method of canvassing absentee electors' ballots....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...It is apparent that the appellant's challenge to the absentee ballots is two-fold: (1) those that are illegal because they contained defects apparent on the Voter's Certificate, and (2) those that are illegal for reasons not apparent on the Voter's Certificate. Section 101.68(2), Florida Statutes (1977), which reads as follows, appears to govern the former: If any elector or candidate present believes that any absentee ballot is illegal due to any defect apparent on the Voter's Certificate, he may, at any t...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 1810330
...not contain all of the information required by Section
101.62(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In contrast, there is a clear statutory directive regarding the treatment of absentee ballots which do not contain all of the information required on the ballot. Section
101.68(2), Florida Statutes specifically provides that a ballot that fails to include the statutory elements is illegal.......
...The statutory requirement that the requester "must" disclose the nine items in Section
101.62(b) is simply not a definitive statement by the Legislature that requests which are missing the voter's registration number are illegal or void. In contrast, Section
101.68(2)(c)1., Florida Statutes provides that an absentee ballot shall be considered illegal if it does not include the signature and the last four digits of the social security number of the elector, as shown by the registration records, an...
...NOTES [1] The language in the brackets was included in another portion of the trial court's order. [2] While there may be questions regarding the application forms in this case, there is no question that the ballots themselves conformed to the requirements of section 101.68, Florida Statutes (2000), which requires the signature and the last four digits of the social security number of the elector, and either subscription of a notary or identifying information from the attesting witness....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18195, 2012 WL 5077368
...y followed the applicable statute. 1 After a machine and manual recount, it was determined that Jeff Clemens defeated Mackenson Bernard by 17 votes in the Democratic primary for State Senate District 27. Regarding the canvassing of absentee ballots, section 101.68(2)(c)l., Florida Statutes (2011), provides in pertinent part: The canvassing board shall, if the supervisor has not already done so, compare the signature of the elector on the voter’s certificate with the signature of the elector in...
...to review affidavits and accept testimony from voters whose absentee ballots had been rejected. Section
102.168(8) provides: In any contest that requires a review of the canvassing board’s decision on the legality of an absentee ballot pursuant to s.
101.68 based upon a comparison of the signature on the voter’s certificate and the signature of the elector in the registration records, the circuit court may not review or consider any evidence other than the signature on the voter’s certificate and the signature of the elector in the registration records....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19265, 2000 WL 1872622
...See FLA.STAT.ANN. §
101.62(7)(c) (West Supp.2000). Defendant Polk County Canvassing Board rejected an overseas state absentee ballot because the signature on the voter's certificate did not match the signature in the Board's registration records. [4] See id. §
101.68(1)(c)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Elections. 915 F.3d at 1316, 1318 (citing Fla. Stat. §
101.68). But Article III standing and the proper defendant
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6117
before the canvassing of the election returns. Section
101.68(1) requires the canvassing board to begin can*113vassing
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21952
...esults which could be effected by the inclusion of some of these rejected ballots, it is necessary to so note at the time of this contest. The county Canvassing Board may reject absentee ballots for a defect on the face of the Voter’s Certificate, Section
101.68(2); because the elector returned to his home county and voted in his precinct, Section
101.69; because the ballot was received by the supervisor after 7:00 P.M....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1962, 2004 WL 329336
...If the canvassing board determines that any ballot is illegal, a member of the board shall, without opening the envelope, mark across the face of the envelope: “rejected as illegal.” The envelope and the ballot contained therein shall be preserved in the manner that official ballots voted are preserved. Section 101.68(2)(c)l., Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Senate, together filed a constitutional challenge to the signature-
match requirements of Florida’s vote-by-mail statute. See Fla. Stat. §
101.62
(2016) (permitting mail-in voting); Fla. Stat. §
101.65 (2016) (requiring mail-in
voters to sign a voter’s certificate on the back of the mail-in envelope); Fla. Stat.
§
101.68 (2017) (authorizing voting officials to compare the signature on the
envelope with a signature on file and to reject votes where the signature does not
match)....
...2
Case: 18-14758 Date Filed: 02/19/2020 Page: 3 of 9
and an accepted form of identification.” Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee,
915 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Fla. Stat. §
101.68(4)).
The plaintiffs also challenged the application of Florida’s law allowing
prospective voters who could not prove their eligibility to cast provisional ballots.
See Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19551
...st his failure to be nominated as a party candidate. The thrust of his complaint was to challenge casting, computation, and tabulation of certain absentee ballots. The trial court entered summary final judgment in favor of the appellees relying upon Section 101.68(2), Florida Statutes (1977) which provides: If any elector or candidate present believes that any absentee ballot is illegal due to any defect apparent on the Voter’s Certificate, he may, at any time before the ballot is removed from...
...The other elector testified that, although she had executed the Voter’s Certificate, thereby making it valid on its face, she had not completed the ballot. Another absentee ballot was initially properly rejected by the canvassing board pursuant to Section 101.68(1), Florida Statutes (1977) because it appeared that the elector had voted in person....
...but that another elector with a similar name was the one who had actually voted. In its written order articulating reasons for granting summary judgment, the trial court found that the assault made upon these alleged irregularities was foreclosed by Section 101.68(2), supra....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...ail to
sign the voter’s certificate on the back of the envelope on which they mail their
ballots. Fla. Stat. §
101.65 (2016). Voting officials later compare the signature on
the certificate with the signature on file for that voter. Fla. Stat. §
101.68 (2017)....
...After that
amendment, a voter, upon learning that her vote had been rejected for signature-
mismatch, had until 5 p.m. one day before the election to verify her identity by
submitting a cure affidavit and an accepted form of identification. Fla. Stat. §
101.68(4)....
...2016 opinion, Florida required a
cure to be submitted by 5 p.m. on the day before the election—meaning that the
deadline to cure a rejected ballot came before the deadline for the supervisor to
receive the ballot in the first place. Fla. Stat. § 101.68(4)(a). And even more
problematically, the law did not require canvassing boards to even begin the
canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots and check for signature match before noon on the
day after the election. 10 Id. § 101.68(2)(a) (“The county canvassing board may begin
10
The Dissent takes issue with this legal conclusion and instead asserts that Florida law
requires the county supervisor of election to (1) immediately “compare the sign...
...not match. Dissent at 65. But the Dissent’s
interpretation of the governing statute is not consistent with either what that statute actually
requires or what, in practice, occurs in Florida. To reach its mistaken conclusion, the Dissent relies
on § 101.68(1) and (4)(a). Dissent at 65 & n.32. In relevant part, § 101.68(1) provides, “The
supervisor ....
....” (emphasis added). By its language, this provision requires the
supervisor to compare signatures and record all votes the supervisor deems to be legitimately cast.
As for votes the supervisor cannot certify as validly cast, the provision directs us to § 101.68(4).
That provision states, “The supervisor shall, on behalf of the county canvassing board,
immediately notify an elector who has returned a vote-by-mail ballot ....
...By its
terms, this provision requires the supervisor to notify voters whose signatures do not match—but
only on behalf of the county canvassing board, not on the supervisor’s own. A third provision not
cited by the Dissent also comes into play: § 101.68(2)(c)1....
...ation books or the precinct register . .
. to determine the legality of that vote-by-mail ballot.” This provision tasks the canvassing board
with performing the signature-match function for ballots the supervisor, in exercising her authority
under § 101.68(1), cannot deem valid ballots. And that is why § 101.68(4) requires the supervisor,
on behalf of the canvassing board, to notify voters whose ballots have been rejected for signature
mismatch....
...requiring state officials to provide notice and a chance to cure to thousands of
petition signers when no such requirement previously existed. See id. at 1104-05.
But here, Florida already had a cure mechanism for those with mismatched
signatures. See Fla. Stat. § 101.68(4)(a).
And contrary to Defendants’ assertions, it is not too difficult to interpret and
apply the district court’s order....
...Barfield,
396 F.3d 1144, 1150 (2005). This they cannot
do.
At the time Plaintiffs brought this action, only about a year had passed since
the Florida legislature amended the signature-match scheme by adding the defective
cure provision, see Fla. Stat. §
101.68 (effective June 2, 2017), and the DECF had
just litigated the topic of signature mismatches, see Fla....
...signature-mismatch to be counted. That would have entailed throwing out all
signature-mismatch provisions as an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote.
So naturally, the district court had to examine the entire signature-mismatch
process—including Fla. Stat. § 101.68(4), the cure procedure, which Plaintiffs
expressly identified in their complaint—to evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim that the
signature-match scheme unconstitutionally disenfranchised vote-by-mail voters
whose signatures had been mismatche...
...then examines the evidence, and if it finds the voter eligible, compares the
signature on the voter’s certificate with the signature on the voter’s registration
entry. 7 If they match, the provisional ballot is counted. 8
2
See id. §§
101.6103(5),
101.68(1).
3
Id. §
101.68(4)(a). The identification requirement may be met by means of a photo
(Tier I) or non-photo (Tier 2) ID. Id. §
101.68(4)(c). If a Tier 2 ID is used, the signature on the
cure affidavit must match the signature in the registration entry. Id. §§
101.68(2)(c)(1)(a)–(b).
4
Id. §
101.68(4)(a).
5
Id....
...1.
53
Case: 18-14758 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 54 of 83
The District Court found that the Code’s signature-matching provisions, Fla.
Stat. §§
101.68(1), (2)(c)(1) (VBM ballots), and §§
101.048(2)(b),
101.68(c)
(provisional ballots), were standardless and therefore offensive to the Equal
Protection Clause.
For a vote-by-mail ballot to be counted, the envelope of that ballot
must include the voter’s signature. [Fla. Stat. §
101.65.] Once the
vote-by-mail ballots are received, county canvassing boards review
those ballots to verify the signature requirement has been met. Id. §
101.68(c)....
...voters of the right to vote in the 2018 general election in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. Id. at *8.
2.
Next, the District Court analyzed the Code’s provision for curing a
signature-rejected ballot in Fla. Stat. §§ 101.68(4)(a)–(b)....
...(emphasis added).31 In addition to granting relief unrelated to Plaintiffs’ claim—
and different from the relief Plaintiffs actually asked for—the District Court also
misread the Election Code.
30
The relevant provisions are Fla. Stat. §§ 101.68(1), 2(a), 2(c)(1), and (4). As the
ensuing discussion in the text indicates, the District Court overlooked § 101.68(1) and its
relationship to § 101.68(4)(a) and focused instead on §§ 101.68(2)(a) and (2)(c)(1)....
... Case: 18-14758 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 66 of 83
signature, or that the signature on the certificate does not match the one in the
registration entry, the supervisor of elections must immediately notify the voter, id.
§ 101.68(4)(a), and allow him to cure the defect.33 The voter will have until 5 p.m.
the day before the election to present the supervisor of elections a signed affidavit
that includes a copy of an appropriate form of identification and a sworn statement
verifying that the ballot is his. Id. §§ 101.68(4)(a)–(b). This submission can be
made via mail, fax, or email. Id. §§ 101.68(4)(c)(4)–(5).
The ballot, and any cure affidavit received, are eventually canvassed....
...he
signature” on the voter’s certificate or cure affidavit with the one in the registration
elector on the voter’s certificate with the signature of the elector in the registration
books or the precinct register . . . .
Id. § 101.68(1) (emphasis added)....
...ty commissioners. Id. §
102.141(1).
66
Case: 18-14758 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 67 of 83
books “to determine the legality of that vote-by-mail ballot.” 35 Id. §
101.68(2)(c)(1). Canvassing need not occur immediately on receiving a ballot or
cure affidavit: it can begin any time from 15 days before the election to noon of the
day after. Id. §
101.68(2)(a). If a ballot is rejected for a signature mismatch and is
not cured under the procedure specified in §
101.68(4)(b), it is marked “rejected as
illegal” and is not tabulated, although the ballot itself is preserved. Id. §§
101.68(2)(c)(1), (5).
B.
The District Court reached its decision that the Code provisions relating to
“curing” signature-rejected ballots were applied unconstitutionally because it failed
to comprehend how the statutes operated to notify VBM voters that their ballots
had been rejected, id. §§
101.62(1)(a)–(b), and to inform voters of their right to
cure the rejection, id. §
101.68(4)(b).
With all of that clearly laid out in the Code, here is how the District Court
described the statutory process:
The opportunity to cure is the last chance a vote-by-mail voter has to
save their vote from being rejected and not counted....
...Presumably, this would happen only if the canvassing board received a VBM ballot
after canvassing had already begun. Otherwise, the supervisor would have compared the
signatures immediately after receiving the ballot, as he or she is required to do. Id. § 101.68(1).
67
Case: 18-14758 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 68 of 83
ballots at 7 a.m. on the 15th day before the election, but no later than
noon on the day following the election. Fla. Stat. § 101.68(2)(a).
Thus, a vote-by-mail voter could mail their ballot in weeks early, but
the canvassing board could also wait, canvass the ballot the day after
the election, determine there is a mismatched signature, and toss the
vote....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...In Lee, a motions panel of this Court ruled that the Florida Secretary
of State was a proper defendant under Ex parte Young,
209 U.S. 123 (1908), in an
action challenging an election procedure administered by the county Supervisors of
Elections.
915 F.3d at 1316, 1318 (citing Fla. Stat. §
101.68)....
