Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 3D06-2125.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-2125.,3D06-2125. |
| Parties | Valerie R. Manno SCHURR, Appellant, v. Jose R. SANCHEZ-GRONLIER, Candidate for Circuit Court Judge Group 78, and Lester Sola, Supervisor of Elections, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in his official capacity, and the Florida Department of State and Sue M. Cobb, in her official capacity as Florida Secretary of State, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Buchbinder & Elegant and Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami, for appellant.
Geller, Geller, Fisher & Garfinkel, Hollywood, and Joseph S. Geller and Peggy Fisher; Sale & Kuehne and Benedict P Kuehne, Miami; Murray A. Greenberg, Miami, and Oren Rosenthal; Holland & Knight and Richard Antonio Perez, Miami, for appellees.
Before FLETCHER and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The judgment below is affirmed on the authority of the comprehensive and eminently correct opinion of the trial court:
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's [Valerie R. Manno Schurr] Motion for Temporary Injunction and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff has requested that this Court declare that under the applicable statutes, Defendant Jose R. Sanchez-Gronlier is not a properly qualified candidate for election to the office of Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Group 78. After making such a finding, Plaintiff asks that this Court issue an injunction directing that Defendant Lester Sola, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections, remove Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier's name from the ballot for the Miami-Dade County primary election scheduled for September 5, 2006. Plaintiff additionally asks this Court to issue an injunction directing that Defendant Sue Cobb, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, de-certify Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier as a properly qualified candidate for this primary election.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to timely file the appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates, Form DS-DE 9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1) as required by Florida Statutes §§ 105.031(5)(a)(4)1 and 106.021(1)(a).2 Plaintiff also asserts that the check presented for payment of his filing fee as required by § 105.031(5)(a)(1) is not a properly executed check drawn upon his campaign account. She bases this assertion on the belief that Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier opened a campaign account, accepted contributions which were deposited into this account, and made expenditures from the account without having filed the required DS-DE 9, all in violation of § 106.021(1)(a). Plaintiff maintains that the proper remedy for these violations is the removal of Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier from the ballot.
* * *
This Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2006.3 At that hearing, the parties stipulated to the entry of a final judgment of the matters presented in Plaintiff's motion and complaint. The jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject matter of this action is not in dispute. Upon considering the evidence that was presented, the pleadings which were filed and the argument of counsel, the Court finds that:
1. Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier obtained information pertinent to filing for election to judicial office from the Department of State webpage. Included in this information was a memorandum from the Department of State, Division of Elections, regarding qualifying requirements for judicial candidates in the 2006 election (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2). The memo lists what must be filed by candidates who intend to qualify for election by paying a qualifying fee, including 1) an Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository (Form DS-DE 9); 2) a Judicial Offices Loyalty Oath (Form DS-DE 26); 3) a Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests for the year 2005; and 4) the qualifying fee paid by a check drawn on the candidate's campaign account.
2. Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier opened a campaign account with money he loaned to his campaign. There were no contributions made by any other person to his campaign and deposited into his account prior to July 21, 2006.
3. Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier made no expenditures from his campaign account prior to presenting a check drawn on his account to pay his qualifying fee on July 21, 2006.
4. On July 21, 2006, the last day of the qualifying period, Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier presented in person each of the required items for qualifying at the Division of Elections in Tallahassee. The Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates (Form DS-DE 9) was filed and date stamped at 8:17 a.m. The Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest for the year 2005 was filed, and dated stamped at 8:17 a.m. A statement that Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier had read and understood the requirements of the Florida Judicial Code of Conduct was filed and date stamped at 8:17 a.m.4 Finally, the qualifying check, dated July 19, 2006, was presented, filed and date stamped at 8:19 a.m.
§ 106.021(1)(a) prohibits campaign contributions and expenditures until the candidate has appointed a treasurer and designated a primary campaign depository.5 § 105.031(5), while not explicitly including such a prohibition, does refer to § 106.021 in referencing the appointment and designation form.
When Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier opened his campaign account, he did so with money he loaned to the campaign. Such loans are campaign contributions.6 Since he had not designated a primary campaign depository when he opened the account, Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier was in violation of § 106.021(1)(a) for accepting a campaign contribution prior to the filing of the Form DS-DE 9.
The only expenditure made by Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier from the campaign account was the qualifying check. The check was presented for payment two minutes after the appointment of treasurer and designation of campaign depository were filed. As a result, there was no violation of § 106.021 for making an expenditure from the campaign account. The fact that the check was dated July 19, 2006 is of no moment. The expenditure was made at the time of presentment.
Does the fact that Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier opened an account with an improper campaign contribution mean that the check he presented to the Division of Elections was not properly executed? If so, § 105.031(5)(a)(1) provides that he should be disqualified. However, while the campaign contribution which established his campaign account was improper, prior to presenting the check for payment, Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier did file the Form DS-DE 9. Any harm created by his actions under these circumstances was rendered de minimis.7 This Court finds that Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier cured the defective contribution by his filing of the Form DS-DE 9. Thus, when the check was presented to the Division of Elections, it was drawn on a valid campaign account and was properly executed. Disqualification of Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier is not warranted on this basis.
Since this Court has found that Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier violated § 106.021, should Plaintiff's prayer that this Court issue an injunction directing the Secretary of State and the Supervisor of Elections for Miami-Dade County to de-certify the offender and remove Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier's name from the ballot be granted? In answering this question, the Court recognizes binding precedent holding that § 106.021 does not provide for a private right of action. Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). As properly argued by Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier, §§ 106.18 and 106.19 detail the removal of a candidate for violations of Chapter 106, with enforcement within the purview of the Florida Elections Commission. As a result, the requested injunctive relief is not warranted.
As indicated earlier, the violation of § 106.021 was de minimis and no harm to the public's interest in fair elections resulted.8 Additionally, the Court's conclusions here comport with the strong public interest of providing electoral choice. Indeed, in Republican State Executive Committee v. Graham, 388 So.2d 556, 558 (Fla.1980), the Supreme Court stated:
If two equally reasonable constructions might be found, this Court in the past has chosen the one which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levey v. Dijols
...candidate's name from the ballot, BEFORE the election is held. See Miller v. Mendez, 804 So.2d 1243 (Fla.2001); Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Miller v. Gross, 788 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Smith v. Crawford, 645 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Marina v. ......
-
Torres v. Shaw
...(emphasis added).But other election-related statutes do not provide private rights of action. See, e.g., Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier , 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding no private right of action to challenge whether a check had been "properly executed" under § 105.031(5)(a)); Goff......
-
Torres v. Shaw
...DCA 2001) (finding no private right of action under chapter 106); see also Torrens v. Shaw, 257 So.3d 168, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (approving Schurr and Goff and concluding that "a private citizen's allegation of a violation of chapter 106 has no bearing on whether a candidate has properly ......
-
Norman v. Ambler
...successfully qualified to run for office. Cf. State ex rel. Siegendorf v. Stone, supra; Browning v. Young, supra; Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Smith v. Crawford, 645 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Marina v. Leahy, supra. At issue here is whether the facts......