• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALSELEVENTH CIRCUITSeptember 27, 2004THOMAS K. KAHNCLERK 
[PUBLISH]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________________________  No. 04-12826 _____________________________ D. C. Docket No. 04-80216 CV-JICROBERT WEXLER, Congressman,ADDIE GREENE, Commissioner, et al.Plaintiffs-Appellants,versusTHERESA LEPORE, Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, KAY CLEM, Supervisor of Elections for Indian River County, Florida andPresident of the Florida Association of Supervisorsof Elections, et al.Defendants-Appellees. _______________________ Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida ________________________ 
(September 27, 2004)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, FAY, Circuit Judge, and CORRIGAN*,District Judge. _______________ 
* Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida,sitting by designation.
 
Citing a lack of standing, the state trial court dismissed Appellant Wexler’s state law claim with
1
 prejudice. The District Court of Appeals for the Fourth District reversed on the standing issue, butit has affirmed the dismissal of Wexler’s state claims as moot and for failure to establish a likelihoodof success on the merits. Wexler v. Lepore, No. 4D04-918, 2004 WL 1753408 at *1 (Fla. App. 4Dist. Aug. 6, 2004).2
PER CURIAM:Citing the Younger doctrine, the district court abstained from exercising its jurisdiction to hear Appellants’ constitutional challenge to the method of recounting electoral votes in fifteen Florida counties. We vacate that decision andremand for a consideration of the merits.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff-Appellant Wexler filed two actions challenging the recount systemin fifteen Florida counties. The first, filed in a Florida state court on 16 January2004, asserted claims exclusively under Florida law. Plaintiff-Appellant Wexler,
1
along with Appellants Greene, Aaronson and Fransetta filed this action in thedistrict court on 8 March 2004. The federal suit alleges violations of the UnitedStates Constitution and is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The same facts underlie both actions. Fifteen Florida counties use a paperless, touchscreen method of voting. As is alleged, these touchscreen systems
 
In the state court action, Wexler only asserted violations of Florida law.
2
The district court rejected Appellees’ arguments under the Pullman and Colorado River doctrines.
3
Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman, Co., 61 S. Ct. 643 (1941); Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v.United States, 96 S. Ct. 1236 (1976). Appellee-Defendants did not cross-appeal that portion of thelower court’s decision; we do not consider those doctrines here
.
3
do not produce a paper record of votes. Accordingly, the fifteen counties wherethey are employed lack a manual recount procedure, which is available inFlorida’s remaining fifty-two counties. In the federal claim, Plaintiffs allege this“non-uniform, differential standard” violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United StatesConstitution. Citing the Younger doctrine, the district court abstained from
2
hearing Appellants’ constitutional challenge, and it dismissed Appellants’ suit.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEWWe review a district court’s decision to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion. 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255,1274 (11th Cir. 2003). An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion. Major League Baseball v. Crist, 331 F.3d 1177, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing UnitedStates v. Pruitt, 174 F.3d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999)).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...