Florida Supreme Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Supreme Court of Florida

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
CYNTHIA McCAULEY,
Plaintiff
vs.
CASE NO. SC00-2462
MARC NOLEN, RICHARD STEWART,
THE HONORABLE THOMAS WELCH, in
their official capacities as members of the BAY
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD; Secretary
of State KATHERINE HARRIS, Secretary of
Agriculture BOB CRAWFORD, and the Director
of the Division of Elections L. CLAYTON ROBERTS
in their official capacities and as the FLORIDA
ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION;
GEORGE W. BUSH; and DICK CHENEY,
Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO NOLEN'S SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS
AND GEORGE BUSH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellant, CYNTHIA McCAULEY, through her undersigned attorney responds to the
Suggestion of Mootness of Appellees Marc Nolen, Richard Stewart, The Honorable Thomas Welch in
their official capacities as members of the Bay County Canvassing Board and the Motion to Dismiss of
George W. Bush and states as follows:
1.
The argument is made because December 12, 2000, has come and gone, the
contest action is moot. The date of December 12 is not established in Florida Statutes. The December
12, 2000, date existed as a buffer to create time in which to identify Florida electors for the Electoral
College by December 18, 2000. Both of these dates are significant to identify the Florida electors
selected to be counted by the United States Congress on or about January 5, 2001. Obviously, the
Florida judiciary has and probably should continue to work to expedite contest actions to serve the

public policy of electoral finality. However, there is no basis in the law for dismissing a contest action
by declaring it moot because of delay. Moreover, the more significant deadline for purposes of
deciding Florida's electors is the meeting of the United States Congress on or about January 5, 2001.
Any Florida judicial decisions after January 5, 2001, may conflict with federal laws governing the
procedures for selection of the President and inauguration. Prior to January 5, 2001, however, the
resolution of Florida judicial matters and their impact on the chosen electors from the State of Florida
would merely mean that two competing slates of electors are in place on January 5, 2001. Competing
slates of electors were created after December 12 by the State of Hawaii in the 1960 Presidential race
between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. U.S. News & World Report, December 11,
2000, "When is a deadline not a deadline," page 38.
2.
If this Court determines that the McCauley appeal has merit and should be
remanded, the broad range of remedies available under Fla. Stat. Section 102.168 are all still fully
available to the Circuit Court. Under current equal protection jurisprudence, it would be a denial of
equal protection to dismiss McCauley's contest rights as moot simply because the lower court made
errors of law or delayed the appellant's right to an immediate hearing. Certainly, there is a denial of
equal protection due to the two tier electoral system created when Governor Jeb Bush of the executive
branch of Florida offered selected segments of the population, mostly Republicans, the convenience of
voting from their own home and did not make an equal offer to the remainder of Florida citizens.
3.
George Bush makes the additional argument that Appellant's lawsuit should be
dismissed because Vice-President Al Gore made a concession speech on December 13, 2000. Of
course, there is no legal basis for dismissing the lawsuit because of Al Gore's withdrawal or
concession. The political decisions affecting Vice-President Al Gore's speech should not affect the

contest rights of Appellant Cynthia McCauley. Appellant Cynthia McCauley's complaint sought a wide
range of judicial remedies including injunctions, declarations of law, up to and including the validation of
certain absentee votes. Regardless of the posture of the presidential race, these remedies remain
availing.
4.
Furthermore, the issues of this case as recognized by the First District Court of
Appeals include issues of great public importance. An exception to the doctrine of mootness exists
concerning issues of great public importance. In Re Dubreuil, 629 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1993).
Moreover, the issues presented in this case are likely to reoccur with each election. If the political
parties believe that they can convert Florida to a mail-in ballot state through widespread use of
absentee ballot voting, those with the money and resources to do so, will take advantage of this method
of increasing their get out the vote.
5.
It is apparent from the answer briefs of George W. Bush and Katherine Harris,
that there is no direct response to this Court's holding in Boardman v. Esteva that to be in substantial
compliance an absentee voter must in some sense be absent. This Court's ruling in this case will likely
therefore have a substantial impact on how future elections in the State of Florida are conducted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant Cynthia McCauley respectfully requests this Court to
deny the Suggestion of Mootness of the Bay County Canvassing Board and the Motion to Dismiss of
George W. Bush and requests such further relief as this Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted,
By:______________________
ALVIN L. PETERS
McCAULEY & PETERS
36 Oak Avenue
Panama City, FL 32401
(850) 769-0276
Fla. Bar No. 0473030

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
CYNTHIA MCCAULEY,
Appellant,
vs.
MARC NOLEN, et al.,
Appellees
=====================================================================
CASE NO. SC00-2462
DCA CASE NO. 1D00-4825
Circuit Case No. 00-2802
______________________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE CYNTHIA MCCAULEY'S
RESPONSE TO NOLEN'S SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS
AND GEORGE BUSH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
ALVIN L. PETERS
McCAULEY & PETERS
36 Oak Avenue
Panama City, FL 32401
(850) 769-0276
Fla. Bar No. 0473030

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by fax and U.S. mail to the following on this ______ day of December, 2000.
MICHAEL S. BURKE
Burke & Blue, P.A.
221 McKenzie Avenue
Panama City, FL 32404
Fax: (850)784-0857
JOSEPH P. KLOCK, JR.
Steel Hector & Davis
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4000
Miami, FL 33131-2310
Fax: 222-8410
VICTORIA WEBER
JONATHAN SJOSTROM
Steel, Hector & Davis
215 South Monroe Street, Ste. 601
Tallahassee, FL 32301-1804
Fax: 222-8410
DEBORAH K. KEARNEY
400 S. Monroe Street, PL 02
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Fax: 922-5763
BARRY RICHARD
Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
P.O. Drawer 1838
Tallahassee, FL 32302
Fax: 681-0207
____________________________
ALVIN L. PETERS

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE