Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 102.168 (2025)

Contest of election.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

102.168 Contest of election.—

(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the adoption of a constitutional amendment or the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any voter qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy or constitutional amendment, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint must set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office; or set aside the result of the election on a referendum or constitutional amendment. The grounds for contesting an election or a constitutional amendment under this section are:

(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute or of the proposed constitutional amendment for placement on the ballot.

(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(d) Proof that any voter, election official, or canvassing board member was given or offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose of procuring the successful candidate’s nomination or election or determining the result on any question by referendum or constitutional amendment.

(4) The canvassing board responsible for canvassing the election is an indispensable party defendant in county and local elections. The Elections Canvassing Commission is an indispensable party defendant in federal, state, and multicounty elections; in elections for constitutional amendments; and in elections for justice of the Supreme Court, judge of a district court of appeal, and judge of a circuit court. The successful candidate is an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate. The sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition, identified pursuant to s. 100.371, is an indispensable party to any action brought to contest such election.

(5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.

(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding election.

(8) In any contest that requires a review of the canvassing board’s decision on the legality of a provisional or vote-by-mail ballot pursuant to s. 101.048 or s. 101.68 based upon a comparison of the signature of the elector in the registration records with the signature on the provisional or vote-by-mail voter’s certificate or the provisional or vote-by-mail cure affidavit, the circuit court may not review or consider any evidence other than the signature of the elector in the registration records, the signature on the respective voter’s certificate or cure affidavit, and any supporting identification that the elector submitted with the cure affidavit. The court’s review of such issue shall be to determine only if the canvassing board abused its discretion in making its decision.

History.—ss. 7, 8, Art. 10, ch. 38, 1845; RS 199; GS 283; RGS 379; CGL 444; s. 3, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 16, ch. 65-378; s. 28, ch. 77-175; s. 49, ch. 79-400; s. 602, ch. 95-147; s. 3, ch. 99-339; s. 44, ch. 2001-40; s. 60, ch. 2005-277; s. 44, ch. 2011-40; s. 35, ch. 2016-37; s. 38, ch. 2019-162; s. 11, ch. 2025-21.

Note.—Former s. 104.06; s. 99.192; s. 102.161.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 71× “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). · cites it 16× “Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.168 (Supp. 2001). He sought relief pursuant to § 102.”

Norman v. Ambler, 46 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 14× “Section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2010), provides: (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum.”

Ned L. Siegel, Georgette Sosa Douglas v. Theresa Lepore, Charles E. Burton, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “166 , or brought by a candidate, qualified voter, or taxpayer as a contest under Fla. Stat. § 102.168 . A court may void a challenged election result based on a finding of substantial irregularities that raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the election results express the…”

Burns v. Tondreau, 139 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). · cites it 20× “The trial court found “that the McPherson case makes it clear that any statutory right to contest an election pursuant to §§ 102.168 and 102.1682 is limited only to ‘consideration of the balloting and counting process.”

Siegel v. LePore, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 15× “See Fla. Stat. § 102.168 et seq. The circuit courts are authorized to provide any relief that is appropriate.”

Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 6× “However, in this case involving a presidential election, the decision as to when amended returns can be excluded from the statewide certification must necessarily be considered in conjunction with the contest provisions of section 102.168 and the deadlines set forth in 3 U.”

Democratic Exec. Comm. of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. §§ 102.168 (1), (3), (8). Rejection of valid provisional ballots may also be challenged in the Florida Circuit Court, and the evidentiary and standard-of-review limitations of subsection (8) do not apply.”

Jackson v. Leon Cnty. Elections Canvassing Bd., 204 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). · cites it 30× “Based on our review of the Florida Election Code and the City of Tallahassee’s Charter, we hold that Jackson had a clear legal right to an immediate hearing under section 102.168, Florida Statutes, the trial court had a clear legal duty to conduct such hearing, and the trial…”

Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 7× “[54] Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns are submitted to the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two ways: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or…”

Levey v. Dijols, 990 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). · cites it 14× “Fla. Stat. § 102.168 (1)-(2). The statute requires the candidate to set forth the grounds that allegedly establish the candidate's right to the contested office or the grounds for "setting aside the result of the election.”

Leon v. Carollo, 246 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). · cites it 14× “In 1999, the Florida Legislature amended section 102.168 to allow for post-election challenges based on the successful candidate’s ineligibility for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— 102.168(1) — 3 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Jackson v. Leon Cnty. Elections Canvassing Bd., 204 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “Based on our review of the Florida Election Code and the City of Tallahassee’s Charter, we hold that Jackson had a clear legal right to an immediate hearing under section 102.168, Florida Statutes, the trial court had a clear legal duty to conduct such hearing, and the trial…”

Jackson v. Leon Cnty. Elections Canvassing Bd., 214 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

— 102.168(2) — 6 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2000). “[54] Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns are submitted to the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two ways: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or…”

Burns v. Tondreau, 139 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “The trial court found “that the McPherson case makes it clear that any statutory right to contest an election pursuant to §§ 102.168 and 102.1682 is limited only to ‘consideration of the balloting and counting process.”

Miller v. City of Belle Glade Canvassing Bd., 790 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 102.168(3) — 3 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Levey v. Dijols, 990 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “Fla. Stat. § 102.168 (1)-(2). The statute requires the candidate to set forth the grounds that allegedly establish the candidate's right to the contested office or the grounds for "setting aside the result of the election.”

— 102.168(3)(a) — 3 cases

Leon v. Carollo, 246 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “In 1999, the Florida Legislature amended section 102.168 to allow for post-election challenges based on the successful candidate’s ineligibility for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Henderson v. Johnson, 97 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

— 102.168(3)(b) — 5 cases

Norman v. Ambler, 46 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2010), provides: (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum.”

Victor Milanes v. Todd Hannon (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

— 102.168(3)(c) — 6 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Comm'n, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (N.D. Fla. 2000).

Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2000).

Kinney v. Putnam Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 253 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Robert C. Touchston v. Michael McDermott, 234 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2000).

— 102.168(4) — 3 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Henderson v. Johnson, 97 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

— 102.168(5) — 2 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Henderson v. Johnson, 97 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

— 102.168(7) — 2 cases

Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Comm'n, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (N.D. Fla. 2000).

— 102.168(8) — 3 cases

Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “) This case today is controlled by the language set forth by the Legislature in section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2000).

Robert C. Touchston v. Michael McDermott, 234 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2000).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.