Florida Statute 102.166 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 102
CONDUCTING ELECTIONS AND ASCERTAINING THE RESULTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 102.166

102.166 Manual recounts of overvotes and undervotes.—

(1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure shall be ordered unless:

(a) The candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention by one-quarter of 1 percent or fewer of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made; or

(b) The number of overvotes and undervotes is fewer than the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election.

The Secretary of State is responsible for ordering a manual recount for federal, state, and multicounty races. The county canvassing board or local board responsible for certifying the election is responsible for ordering a manual recount for all other races. A manual recount consists of a recount of marksense ballots or of digital images of those ballots by a person.

(2) Any hardware or software used to identify and sort overvotes and undervotes for a given race or ballot measure must be certified by the Department of State. Any such hardware or software must be capable of simultaneously identifying and sorting overvotes and undervotes in multiple races while simultaneously counting votes. Overvotes and undervotes must be identified and sorted while recounting ballots pursuant to s. 102.141. Overvotes and undervotes may be identified and sorted physically or digitally.

(3) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(4)(a) A vote for a candidate or ballot measure shall be counted if there is a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice.

(b) The Department of State shall adopt specific rules for the federal write-in absentee ballot and for each certified voting system prescribing what constitutes a “clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice.” The rules shall be consistent, to the extent practicable, and may not:

1. Authorize the use of any electronic or electromechanical reading device to review a hybrid voting system ballot that is produced using a voter interface device and that contains both machine-readable fields and machine-printed text of the contest titles and voter selections, unless the printed text is illegible;

2. Exclusively provide that the voter must properly mark or designate his or her choice on the ballot; or

3. Contain a catch-all provision that fails to identify specific standards, such as “any other mark or indication clearly indicating that the voter has made a definite choice.”

1. The appropriate lines or spaces for designating a candidate choice and, for state and local races, the office or ballot measure to be voted, including the proximity of each to the other and the effect of intervening blank lines.

2. The sufficiency of designating a candidate’s first or last name when no other candidate in the race has the same or a similar name.

3. The sufficiency of designating a candidate’s first or last name when an opposing candidate has the same or a similar name, notwithstanding generational suffixes and titles such as “Jr.,” “Sr.,” or “III.” The rule should contemplate the sufficiency of additional first names and first initials, middle names and middle initials, generational suffixes and titles, nicknames, and, in general elections, the name or abbreviation of a political party.

4. Candidate designations containing both a qualified candidate’s name and a political party, including those in which the party designated is the candidate’s party, is not the candidate’s party, has an opposing candidate in the race, or does not have an opposing candidate in the race.

5. Situations where the abbreviation or name of a candidate is the same as the abbreviation or name of a political party to which the candidate does not belong, including those in which the party designated has another candidate in the race or does not have a candidate in the race.

6. The use of marks, symbols, or language, such as arrows, quotation marks, or the word “same” or “ditto,” to indicate that the same political party designation applies to all listed offices or the elector’s approval or disapproval of all listed ballot measures.

7. Situations in which an elector designates the name of a qualified candidate for an incorrect office.

8. Situations in which an elector designates an otherwise correct office name that includes an incorrect district number.

(5) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) Each duplicate ballot prepared pursuant to s. 101.5614(4) or s. 102.141(7) shall be compared with the original ballot to ensure the correctness of the duplicate.

(c) If a counting team is unable to determine whether the ballot contains a clear indication that the voter has made a definite choice, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for a determination.

(d) The Department of State shall adopt detailed rules prescribing additional recount procedures for each certified voting system which shall be uniform to the extent practicable. The rules shall address, at a minimum, the following areas:

1. Security of ballots during the recount process;

2. Time and place of recounts;

3. Public observance of recounts;

4. Objections to ballot determinations;

5. Record of recount proceedings;

6. Procedures relating to candidate and petitioner representatives; and

7. Procedures relating to the certification and the use of automatic tabulating equipment that is not part of a voting system.

(6) Nothing in this section precludes a county canvassing board or local board involved in the recount from comparing a digital image of a ballot to the corresponding physical paper ballot during a manual recount.

History.—s. 9, ch. 18405, 1937; CGL 1940; Supp. 337(23-b); s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 5, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 30, ch. 28156, 1953; s. 24, ch. 57-1; s. 29, ch. 65-380; s. 27, ch. 77-175; s. 48, ch. 79-400; s. 15, ch. 89-348; s. 601, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 99-339; s. 42, ch. 2001-40; s. 21, ch. 2002-17; s. 59, ch. 2005-277; s. 34, ch. 2007-30; s. 15, ch. 2010-167; s. 3, ch. 2011-162; s. 2, ch. 2015-40; s. 11, ch. 2018-112; s. 37, ch. 2019-162; s. 5, ch. 2020-109.

Note.—Former s. 100.25; s. 101.57.

F.S. 102.166 on Google Scholar

F.S. 102.166 on CourtListener

Amendments to 102.166

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 102.166

Total Results: 37

Ned L. Siegel, Georgette Sosa Douglas v. Theresa Lepore, Charles E. Burton

234 F.3d 1163

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 18, 2000 | Docket: 2056346

Cited 670 times | Published

outcome of the election.” See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.166(5). The 1989 Florida legislature, however, abdicated

Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris

772 So. 2d 1273, 2000 WL 1804707

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2000 | Docket: 2517588

Cited 36 times | Published

voted to conduct countywide manual recounts. See § 102.166(5), Fla. Stat. (2000). Because the Palm Beach

Robert Wexler v. Arthur Anderson

452 F.3d 1226, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15080, 2006 WL 1685802

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 20, 2006 | Docket: 213175

Cited 33 times | Published

(collectively, “residual votes”). Fla. Stat. § 102.166. An over-vote results when “the elector marks

Gore v. Harris

772 So. 2d 1243, 2000 WL 1800752

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2000 | Docket: 2523042

Cited 13 times | Published

certification following a protest pursuant to section 102.166(1), Florida Statutes (2000), whichever occurs

Beckstrom v. VOLUSIA COUNTY CANVASSING

707 So. 2d 720, 1998 WL 120219

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1998 | Docket: 1675891

Cited 13 times | Published

sheriff. On November 8, 1996, pursuant to section 102.166(11), Florida Statutes (1995),[1] appellant

Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris

772 So. 2d 1220, 2000 WL 1725434

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2000 | Docket: 2561311

Cited 11 times | Published

Counties pursuant to section 102.166, Florida Statutes (2000).[3] Pursuant to section 102.166(4)(d), the county

In Re Protest Election Returns and Absentee Ballots 4, 1997 Election for City of Miami

707 So. 2d 1170, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2408, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 1998 | Docket: 1675821

Cited 10 times | Published

protest to the run-off election pursuant to Section 102.166, Florida Statutes (1997), as well as the November

Browning v. Sarasota Alliance

968 So. 2d 637, 2007 WL 3170111

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2007 | Docket: 2531657

Cited 8 times | Published

machine and manual recounts are mandated. See § 102.166. We are also concerned by the amendment's provisions

Wexler v. Lepore

878 So. 2d 1276, 2004 WL 1753408

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 2004 | Docket: 759270

Cited 8 times | Published

recorded and reported, including any recount. Section 102.166(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (2003), specifically

Broward Cty. Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan

607 So. 2d 508, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11920, 1992 WL 324859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1992 | Docket: 1526242

Cited 8 times | Published

protest with the appropriate canvassing board. § 102.166(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). In addition, a candidate

Touchston v. Mcdermott

234 F.3d 1130, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29366

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 17, 2000 | Docket: 236430

Cited 7 times | Published

"Defendants") alleging the unconstitutionality of Florida Statute 102.166(4) (West Supp. 2000). The district court

Siegel v. LePore

120 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1190, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16333, 2000 WL 1687185

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2000 | Docket: 2367000

Cited 7 times | Published

affect the outcome of an election." Fla. Stat. § 102.166(3)(c). After the vote counts are certified, the

Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten

548 So. 2d 258, 1989 WL 81236

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1989 | Docket: 1699059

Cited 6 times | Published

Flack involved an election protest filed under section 102.166, Florida Statutes (1977). The Florida Rules

Florida Democratic Party v. Hood

884 So. 2d 1148, 2004 WL 2402451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 2004 | Docket: 1683027

Cited 3 times | Published

office or ballot measure" shall be conducted. § 102.166(1). "A vote cast for a candidate or ballot measure

Wexler v. Lepore

319 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9820, 2004 WL 1196548

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 24, 2004 | Docket: 2184857

Cited 3 times | Published

one-quarter of a percent or less. Fla. Stat. § 102.166. In such an instance, "a manual recount of the

Scheer v. City of Miami

15 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18105, 1998 WL 476813

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1998 | Docket: 2182072

Cited 3 times | Published

vote count in the first election pursuant to Section 102.166, Fla. Stat. (1997). Carollo and Suarez intervened

Touchston v. Mcdermott

234 F.3d 1133

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 18, 2000 | Docket: 257768

Cited 2 times | Published

could affect the outcome of an election." Fla. Stat. 102.166(3)(c). After the county canvassing board

Miami-Dade Dem. Party v. Canvassing Bd.

773 So. 2d 1179, 2000 WL 1790424

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2000 | Docket: 1687596

Cited 2 times | Published

ballots from three of its precincts pursuant to section 102.166(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). The results of that

Touchston v. McDermott

120 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 2000 WL 1713943

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2000 | Docket: 2366952

Cited 2 times | Published

Democratic candidate. Plaintiffs contend that section 102.166(4), Florida Statutes, violates their equal

Flack v. Carter

392 So. 2d 37

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 1980 | Docket: 1268240

Cited 2 times | Published

remedies; lack of jurisdiction; and estoppel. Section 102.166, Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (1) Any

Wexler v. Lepore

342 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21344, 2004 WL 2421584

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2004 | Docket: 2225005

Cited 1 times | Published

is onequarter of a percent or less. Fla. Stat. § 102.166.[2] In such an instance, "a manual recount of

Gore v. Harris

773 So. 2d 524, 2000 WL 1867628

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2000 | Docket: 1291959

Cited 1 times | Published

that a candidate had the option pursuant to section 102.166(4), Florida Statutes (2000), to request a manual

Morse v. Dade County Canvassing Bd.

456 So. 2d 1314

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 1984 | Docket: 1447600

Cited 1 times | Published

jurisdiction could have been invoked here pursuant to Section 102.166 only by a protest alleging fraud filed by a

CRAIG SIMMONS v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2022 | Docket: 63285669

Published

the meaning of “presents” with respect to section 102.166, Florida Statutes (1987). In Finno, the plaintiff

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. Detzner

347 F. Supp. 3d 1033

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2018 | Docket: 64321681

Published

SO ORDERED on November 15, 2018.

League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Scott

366 F. Supp. 3d 1311

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2018 | Docket: 64323297

Published

Even so, Scott's request to state law enforcement must be viewed in the context of Scott's other contemporaneous public statements. "I will not sit idly by," Scott said outside the Governor's mansion, "while unethical liberals try to steal this election." Pl.'s Ex. 1-4. Later on television, after noting his order to state law enforcement, Scott declared "we're gonna fight this and we're gonna win." Pl.'s Ex. 1-5. He also explained "we're gonna do everything we can," "we're gonna fight this and we're

Goldsmith v. McDonald

32 So. 3d 713, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4499, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 781

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2010 | Docket: 1662338

Published

See § 102.141(7), Fla. Stat. (2008). [2] See § 102.166, Fla. Stat. (2008). [3] See § 102.168, Fla. Stat

Braxton v. Holmes County Election Canvassing Board

870 So. 2d 958, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1962, 2004 WL 329336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2004 | Docket: 64829920

Published

conducted by the Canvassing Board pursuant to section 102.166, the circuit court in a contest proceeding

Miller v. City of Belle Glade Canvassing Board

790 So. 2d 511, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8778, 2001 WL 716895

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2001 | Docket: 64807099

Published

[appellants] in the instant action was filed pursuant to § 102.166(1), the aforesaid 5 day rule governs.” This is

Robert C. Touchston v. Michael McDermott

234 F.3d 1133, 2000 WL 1781942

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 6, 2000 | Docket: 396313

Published

affect the outcome of an election.” Fla. Stat. § 102.166(3)(c). After the county canvassing board certifies

Ned L. Siegel v. Theresa Lepore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 6, 2000 | Docket: 396315

Published

names appeared on the ballot. See Fla. Stat. § 102.166(4)(a). Such a request must be filed with the

Touchston v. McDermott

234 F.3d 1130, 2000 WL 1718739

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 17, 2000 | Docket: 64073397

Published

alleging the unconstitutionality of Florida Statute § 102.166(4) (West Supp.2000). The district court heard

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Nov 14, 2000 | Docket: 3258825

Published

of" an election as that phrase is used in section 102.166(5), Florida Statutes. I am answering your request

In re Finno

546 So. 2d 805, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1818, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4349, 1989 WL 85232

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1989 | Docket: 64643865

Published

the protest he wished to file pursuant to section 102.166(2), Florida Statutes (1987). He arranged to

Harden v. Garrett

483 So. 2d 409, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 13

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1985 | Docket: 455811

Published

originally filed an election protest under section 102.166, Florida Statutes (1983), and an election contest

In re Protest of Election Returns under Section 102.166(2) FS

447 So. 2d 1046, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12625

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 1984 | Docket: 64603885

Published

returns. Appellant filed a protest pursuant to Section 102.166(2), Florida Statutes (1988) and alleged that

Brake v. Gissendanner

206 So. 2d 10, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5988

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1968 | Docket: 64503685

Published

appellant was untimely, pursuant to the provisions of § 102.166(3), Fla.Stat. F.S.A. Subsection (1) of said section