Open Letter to Governor Rick Scott

Governor Scott,

The Florida House of Representatives recently passed a bill stating qualified parties may not place a presidential nominee on the ballot unless they (1) are recognized by the Federal Election Commission as a “national committee”; or (2) submit a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 4% of the last presidential election vote cast.[BAN] The petition of 4% is equal to roughly 335,000 signatures. Not only is this a “bad” bill, it is blatantly unconstitutional!

Article VI, sec. 1. of the Florida Constitution says, “The requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.” The existing law requires an independent presidential candidate in Florida to submit a petition signed by over 100,000 signatures, due July 15. This bill imposes a requirement on new parties that is over 3 times harsher than the requirement for independent Presidential candidates. However, that requirement for independent presidential candidates is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution, because that Constitution says “The requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation… shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.” Democrats have the most registered voters in Florida, and Democratic presidential nominees don’t need any petition to get on the November ballot, so how can the state require over 100,000 for an independent presidential candidate?[Richard Winger] Therefore, this bill, should it pass the Senate, should be vetoed by you on grounds that it is unconstitutional per the State Constitution.

Richard Winger of Ballot Access News writes, “The bill, if enacted, would violate the 11th circuit decision Bergland v Harris, 767 F.2d 1551 (1985), which suggested that Georgia’s former petition requirement of 2.5% (of the number of registered voters) for presidential candidates was probably unconstitutional. That decision is based on Anderson v Celebrezze, which said that states must have easier ballot access for president than for other office.” Therefore, this bill, should it pass the Senate, should be vetoed by you on grounds that it is unconstitutional per federal court rulings.

Additionally this bill would “not permit political parties to nominate anyone for any partisan office (other than president or presidential elector), if that person had been a registered member of another political party at any time during the year before filing to run for office.

The bill makes no exception for new parties. Therefore, a new party, formed in an election year, would not be permitted to have any nominees who had been members of another party for 18 months before the election. This part of the bill, if signed into law, would almost certainly be held unconstitutional. Similar laws in Oklahoma and Nevada were invalidated, as applied to new parties. The Oklahoma case was Crussel v Oklahoma State Election Board, 497 F Supp 646 (1980); the Nevada case was Long v Swackhamer, 538 P 2d 587 (1975). If a law like this had been in effect in 1854, the Republican Party would have been severely handicapped, because a great deal of Republicans elected that year had been Whigs or Democrats or Free Soilers immediately before the Republican Party was formed.

Courts in New Mexico and Colorado have ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to tell a party that it can’t nominate a non-member. The Colorado case was Colorado Democratic Party v Meyer (1988); the New Mexico case was Woodruff v Herrera (2011).”[BAN]

Mr. Governor, this bill is unconstitutional. You, as Chief Executive of Florida, have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, therefore it is your duty to veto this bill should it pass the Senate. If you fail to veto this bill or the Legislature overrides your veto, rest assured that this bill will be challenged in court and struck down as unconstitutional!

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America

Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPRadioNews, the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live. Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party. Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

  1. .Something that must be dealt
    with severity is non-citizens voting in elections. This came to light through
    ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) Liberal and Democratic groups which was
    registering anybody, specially aimed at low income people. Now under
    investigation by 14 States for illegal activities in the voting procedures is
    now extinct; or is it? Various States are enacting laws to halt this enigma,
    by asking voters for several forms of photo ID cards or equivalent

    All citizens should communicate with their federal,
    State representative Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121and demand more
    secure practices for absentee ballots, which can be forged and new security supervision
    of voting. The open border progressives will cheat the election process, one way or another.even to using illegal aliens. Organizations as ACORN have purposely ignored a persons immigration status. Senior
    citizens and impoverished Americans should be able to prove their
    identity through cross-checking with County recorder birth records,
    then given a free picture ID card..

    the facts, not rhetoric or lies from the Leftists. Join
    the TEA PARTY to stop the erosion of American peoples Sovereign rights,
    common language. The TEA PARTY lawmakers will insure NO IMMIGRATION
    REFORM, which is just another term for AMNESTY. Any Path to
    citizenship, under whatever name, adds millions of family members
    through Chain Migration. Texas has just killed any policy of Sanctuary
    Cities within its territory and so should other States replicate. Even
    the Dream Act would mean another form of Amnesty, including  Chain