Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FL - VOELTZ - 2012-06-15 - Voeltz Reply to Additional SoS Brief

FL - VOELTZ - 2012-06-15 - Voeltz Reply to Additional SoS Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 53|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jun 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDAMICHAEL C. VOELTZ, ))Plaintiff, ))vs. )) Case No.: 2012CA00467BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al. )))Defendants. ))____________________________________________ )
The Florida contest of election statute clearly allows Plaintiff to challenge the eligibilityof any person elected or nominated. Plaintiffs have clearly set forth that Florida Law establishesthat an election or nomination has taken place.Section 103.101(1)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically sets forth that:"Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selectedby the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year thenumber of which is a multiple of 4,
one person to be the candidate fornomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates tothe national convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing thevote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect theresults of the presidential primary, if one is held."Section 103.101(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011) (Emphasis added). Pursuant to section103.101(b), the winner of the Presidential Primary is "elected" on the date of the Presidential
2Primary, which was held this year on January 31, 2012. Whether that person runs unopposed ornot is irrelevant. Since there was no opposition, Barack Obama is the winner as of January 31,2012. The winner of the Presidential Primary is "elect[ed]" and that the nomination "shall"reflect the presidential primary. Since there is no presidential primary, and Barack Obama's namewas the only one presented, he is automatically elected, and will be the nominee. In short, thereis no dispute, nor any question, that Barack Obama is the nominee for the Democratic Party of Florida.Moreover, as set forth in Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, no lessthan the Supreme Court of Florida in
held, unequivocally, that "if there is only onecandidate at the close of qualification, that candidate is automatically nominated for office."
 Republican State Exec. Comm. v. Graham
, 388 So.2d 556, 557(1980). This decision was meantto do away with specious arguments such as the one Defendant Secretary of State has set forth.This decision simply mandates what
knows is fact: if there is only one person thenthat one person is the nominee.Deciding otherwise would create a loophole within the contest of election statute. As theSupreme Court of Florida has consistently held "a statute should not be interpreted in a mannerthat would deem legislative action useless."
 Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters
., 641 So. 2d 858,861 (Fla. 1994),
citing State v. Sullivan
, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255 (1928). The state of Floridaclearly enacted a significant number of election law, all of which work together as onelegislation, specifically to protect the integrity of the election process. To create such a loopholewould essentially nullify a challenge to any unopposed Presidential Primary. The election forPresident of the United States is arguably the most important of all elections, and should not beexcluded.
3Moreover, Defendant's claim of section 101.252's inapplicability is incorrect and non-meritorious. Section 101.252 exists in Chapter 101 of the Florida States, entitled "VotingMethods and Procedures." This ominous election law chapter covers all general provisions of elections within Florida. There is no specific provision excluding section 101.252 from applyingto the Presidential Primary, and this chapter was enacted to cover all elections, generally. If, asDefendants indicate, the courts must not "color" an unambiguous statute "by the addition of words...", then this Court must not, respectfully, add an exemption to the statute where one doesnot exist. Since the two provisions do not conflict, they must be read in tandem ascomplementary.
 Morton v. Mancari
, 417 U.S. 535,(1974). As the Supreme Court held in
"Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled ornullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment."
 Id. at 
550-551. The SupremeCourt went further and explained "when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as
effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if 
possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal
`must be clear and manifest.’
 United States v. Borden Co.,
308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939)). There is no "clear and manifest"intention by the legislature to exempt the Presidential Primary from this statute, and it must applyto
elections, including the Presidential Primary. Thus, Defendant Obama was automaticallydeclared the nominee for the Democratic Party.Plaintiff's claim is also ripe because this harm is "capable of repetition, yet evadingreview."
 Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973). In
, the injury to the petitioner concernedher rights with regard to pregnancy. The
respondent raised the issue of standing because thepetitioner was no longer pregnant by the time her claims were adjudicated. The Supreme Court

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->