Florida’s resign-to-run law has been front and center in this election cycle in a number of challenges to the determination that a candidate has properly qualified for the ballot. The resign-to-run law states: “No officer may qualify as a candidate for another state, district, county, or municipal public office if the terms or any part thereof run concurrently with each other without resigning from the office he or she presently holds.” Section 99.012(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Most notable to date is the case of Ruiz v. Farias, Case No. 3D-2070 (Fla. 3d DCA August 20, 2010), which can be found here. In that case, Ms. Ruiz served as a member of Doral City Council qualified as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for District 112 seat in the Florida House of Representatives. If elected, she would take office on the day of the election, pursuant to Article III, Section 15 of the State Constitution. Under the Doral Municipal Charter, her successor would take office on the day following the election. Mr. Ruiz did not submit a letter resigning from the Doral City Council.
Reversing the trial court which had stricken Ms. Ruiz from the ballot, the District Court concluded that the overlap created by the confluence of the State Constitution and the Municipal Charter were “insufficient to trigger the requirements of the ‘resign-to-run’ law on the facts of this case.” Noting that object of the resign-to-run law “is to prevent persons who are running for a new position from a safe haven of a current position to which the candidate can retreat in the event she is unsuccessful,” the Court rejected a mechanistic application of the law with this admonition:
The appellees urge a mechanistic application of the “resign-to-run” law. Their stratagem is to accomplish an end-run around the sovereign right of the people to select their own officers. The right to vote is among the most important rights we share as Floridians and Americans. The law requires that we resolve doubts about qualifications of a political candidate in favor of the candidate.
Other cases involving application of the resign-to-run law have been decided in Hillsborough County. See Lothrop v. Dingfelder, Case No. 2010-CA-14035 (Fla. 13th Cir. Hillsborough County, August 5, 2010), affirmed per curiam in Lothrop v. Dingfelder, Case No. 2D10-3766 (Fla. 2d DCA August 20, 2010) and Murphey v. Saul-Sena, Case No. 2010-CA-14104 (Fla. 13th Cir. Hillsborough County, August 13, 2010). Both Hillsborough County cases involved candidates who were found to have “substantially complied” with the resign-to-run law.
Prepared by: Mark Herron
mherron@lawfla.com
