Nos. 00-16423, 00-16424.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
December 11, 2000.
Bruce J. Terris, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, Kathleen L. Millian, Sarah A. Adams, Terris, Pravlik Millian, LLP, Washington, DC, Roger J. Bernstein, New York City,
Page 579
Randy M. Weber, Miami, FL, Steven Seliger, Quincy, FL, Steven G. Noles, Fort Payne, AL, for Appellants.
Joseph P. Klock, Jr., John W. Little, III, Christopher S. Duke, David Spector, Steel, Hector Davis, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, Deborah K. Kearney, Kerey M. Carpenter, Fla. Dept. of State, Tallahassee, FL, for Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State and State of Florida Elections Canvassing Com’n Bob Crawford and L. Clayton Roberts.
George Nicholas Meros, Jr., Shaunta Combs, Gray, Harris
Robinson, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Governor Jeb Bush.
Kenneth W. Sukhia, Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal
Banker, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
D. Michael Chesser, Chesser, Wingard, Barr Fleet, Shalimar, FL, for Okaloosa Cty. Canvassing Bd.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal[1] is about counting overseas absentee ballots in a presidential election and an attack on paragraph 7 of Rule 1S-2.013 of the Florida Administrative Code. Plaintiff-Appellants want us to nullify paragraph 7. The pertinent part of the Rule reads this way:
With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days from the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is otherwise proper. Overseas electors shall be informed by the supervisors of elections of the provisions of this rule, i.e., the ten day extension provision for the presidential preference primary and the general election, and the provision for voting for the second primary.
This rule has been in place and followed for roughly sixteen years.
The Rule is, in effect, a federal court order dealing with how presidential elections in Florida must accommodate Florida residents, including members of the armed forces of the United States, who are outside of the country on election day.[2]
The cases underlying this appeal were first brought in state courts. Defendants removed the cases to federal court. The federal courts had jurisdiction, because, among other things, the state defendants were being sued to stop them from complying with the Rule, which (given the circumstances of its creation) was, in effect, the order of a federal court.[3]
Turning to the merits, we see no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. We note in passing that the district court’s views are consistent with
Page 580
recent comments of Florida’s highest court about the working of the absentee ballot law.[4] We also observe that to read Florida’s law as Plaintiffs ask us to do would be a significant change in the actual election practices of Florida.[5]
While Florida law seems to favor counting ballots, this change would take away the votes of thousands of Florida citizens — including members of America’s armed forces on duty outside of the country pursuant to the nation’s orders — who, to cast their ballots, just did what they were told by Florida’s election officials.[6] In addition, we have seen nothing and been cited to nothing indicating that Florida’s legislature — during the sixteen years of the Rule’s existence — has ever expressed an intent to overrule the Rule legislatively.
AFFIRMED.
Second, Plaintiffs, in their main brief to us, characterize their claims, in both cases, as presenting issues of federal law: they say “Plaintiffs alleged that in violation of Article II of the United States Constitution, 3 U.S.C. § 1, and Florida law, 2,490 ballots received after election day were counted and included in the final certification by the Defendant Florida Elections Canvassing Commission, which includes defendants Harris and Roberts as officials in the Secretary of State’s office.” (emphasis added). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated brief, that is, one brief for the two underlying cases. Although we do not treat this sentence as a decisive admission by itself, that Plaintiffs themselves recognize that their allegations were claims of rights under federal law, strengthens our conclusion that issues of federal law are a necessary part of Plaintiffs’ claim. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vac. Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (allowing removal “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law.”).
And we do not rule out other bases that federal jurisdiction might exist. See generally, Striff v. Mason, 849 F.2d 240, 245
(1988) (finding that claims “had a sufficient federal character to support removal” because of related federal consent decree) United States v. City of New York, 972 F.2d 464, 469 (1992) an Xiong v. State of Minnesota, et al., 195 F.3d 424, 426 (1999) (both finding removal authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act).
The Florida Supreme Court has said that where absentee voters have done as they were instructed to do by election officials, their ballots should be counted even where the instructions were based upon a misunderstanding of state law. See Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So.2d 720, 724-25 (Fla. 1998).
Plaintiffs claim that what overseas voters were told is not clear. The pertinent administrative rule, however, requires that county election officials notify overseas voters of the ten-day extension period; and record evidence exists that this requirement has been followed.
Page 1295