2§ 103.011, Fla. Stat. (2000). By providing for the popular election of presidential electors,
Florida’s Legislature has also placed that election under Florida’s general statutory election
scheme. Hence, there is essentially only one statutory election scheme for all elections whetherthe elections be for local and state officials or for presidential electors. The Legislature has notchosen to have a separate set of election laws for elections for presidential electors. TheLegislature has chosen to have a single election code control all elections. So, we must interpretand apply that single election code here."
at 1290-1291.The Florida Supreme Court then concluded,
"[i]n sum, Florida’s statutory scheme
simply makes no provision for applying its rules one way for presidential elector electionsand another way for all other elections.
at 1291.The Supreme Court of Florida has thus conclusively already ruled that this court has
jurisdiction to consider and rule upon Plaintiff Voeltz’s elec
tion challenge on eligibility andfraud. This court must respectfully grant an evidentiary hearing. There should logically be noneed for Plaintiff to notice up a hearing, as this court had already committed itself to provide ahearing before it incorrectl
y and precipitously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. Given the
requirement under Florida law that election disputes be adjudicated quickly, this court mustrespectfully set an evidentiary hearing and adjudicate the issues at the earliest time practicable.Moreover, the case is not moot. Indeed, in the now famous 2000 Bush/Gore election challenge
cases, this Court proceeded to adjudicate the parties’
dispute long after the Florida Electors hadmet.Plaintiff is available January 2 or 3, 2013 for a telephonic status conference to set the datefor a specially set evidentiary hearing on the merits, as the law is now clear that one is requiredand that the prior dismissal order should be immediately vacated and set aside, as it was legallyin error. Late Friday, on December 29, 2012
, the court’s scheduling clerk advised that this
telephonic status conference could be held on Thursday, January 3, 2013; however Plaintiff respectfully requests an earlier date of January 2, 2013 as time is of the essence.