Blog of law articles

You know what they say, justice delayed is justice.....won't get fooled again?

(Damn!! I always screw that up.)

BTW, I have it on very good authority that Tallahassee -- as usual -- messed things up and caused a technical problem which resulted in the delay of our weekly breath of fresh judicial air.

So let's get right to deeply inhaling this week's gusts of juridical joy:

North Pointe v. Tomas:

What can you say about an opinion when the most interesting part is that the appellant is represented by a lawyer with the last name Teebagy?

(Steve's a nice guy btw).

Here Mr. Teebagy was on the losing end of an appeal dealing with how to calculate prejudgment interest when the insurer initially denied the claim but then later provided coverage.

Since Lugassy appears to be directly on point, the trial court decision to calculate interest from the date of loss was affirmed.

Republican Party of Miami-Dade County v. Davis:

Remember Ron Paul?

Before all anyone ever talked about was health care, Ron Paul used to say nice things about the Constitution, hold Teabag-y type parties, and I believe wanted everyone to get stoned (legally) some place other than while fighting a stupid war in Iraq.

Well some of those Paulians weren't so hot on how their candidate was treated by the Florida GOP and some might have even supported Paul if he ran as an independent or Libertarian in the general election.

Even worse, many of them tried to gain leverage over the party apparatus by running for positions within the party or to unseat those who they felt mistreated Paul or his supporters.

So in February 2008 the Florida GOP tightened the noose on their "loyalty oath" to basically require advanced blind allegiance to Ms. Alaska or whomever the Party Elders select:

The new loyalty oath required by the Party stated:

I, ____________, hereby swear and affirm that during my term of office I will not actively, publicly, or financially support the election of any candidate other than the Republican candidate in a partisan unitary, general or special election, or a Registered Republican in non-partisan elections, other than Judicial races governed under Florida Statute 105, if there is a registered Republican running for the same office, unless the county executive committee has taken an affirmative vote to endorse one Republican over another per Rule 8(B). I further swear and affirm that I will not engage in activities or conduct that may be deemed by the Grievance Committee and affirmed by the RPOF Chairman as likely to injure the name of the Republican Party or interfere with the activities of the Republican Party.

And sure enough, what do you know -- some of the electors did not submit their new oaths in time, and the Party refused to seat them. (I'm not saying they were Paul supporters, just explaining the background to the new-and-improved loyalty oath.)

There also was an issue regarding how accessible the new oaths were to potential electors and whether the new requirements were adequately disseminated.

Not happy with winning an election and signing the required oaths (albeit untimely), the electors moved for an emergency injunction requiring they be seated, which Judge Genden granted.

In a split-the-baby decision, Judge Salter held as follows:

We affirm the trial court and injunction on somewhat different grounds than those set forth in the order under review. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2008). Our analysis pretermits any need to reconsider the adequacy of the injunction bond. We also affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s evaluation of the elements required for the entry of a temporary injunction.

As a matter of statutory construction, we find that the Party has the right to establish its own separate form of loyalty oath, and a filing deadline for that form, so long as it makes the new rule and new form reasonably (and timely) known and available to the prospective candidates. That right does not excuse the candidates’ obligations to comply with sections 103.091(4) and 99.021, and of course the Party cannot require the supervisor of elections to monitor compliance with any of the Party’s own rules. Here, the trial court found (and this evidence was not disputed below) that the Party’s notices regarding the new form and deadline were too little and too late. We agree.

We also find that the Party was estopped, by virtue of its knowledge of the alleged ineligibility of the appellees before the election, to await the outcome of the election and the commencement of a lawsuit by the appellees before submitting the alleged ineligibility to a court for resolution.

In a specially concurring opinion, Judge Cope takes this analysis to the teabag-filled woodshed:

No one in this case challenges the text of the oath, or challenges the right of the Party to require members of the executive committee to sign the oath.

But the Party went too far. The exact problem is that the Party required candidates to file this Party Loyalty Oath with the county chair by the Filing Deadline. According to the memo, a candidate failing to comply with this requirement would not be seated on the executive committee—even if that candidate won the election.

Seems fair, right?

Judge Cope continues:

In substance the Party required all candidates for executive committee positions to execute this additional Party Loyalty Oath as a condition of running for office. As a matter of form, the Party required the extra oath to be filed with the local committee chairperson, not with the supervisor of elections. But as a matter of substance, the Party reserved to itself the right to nullify the election of successful candidates if the candidates had not filed this extra oath by the Filing Deadline. This the Party cannot do.

Judge Cope concludes, sounding downright like that geeky old Ayn Rand-spouting doc from Texas:

What is at stake is the fundamental right of individuals to offer themselves as candidates for elective positions—including political party positions—and the equally fundamental right of party members to vote for the candidates of their choice. As explained earlier in this opinion, well-settled Florida precedent forbids the Party from imposing additional, nonstatutory requirements as a condition of running for elected office.

En banc and trip to the Supremes, anyone?