OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

DiMaio v. Democratic National Committee

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: August 30, 2007 / March 3, 2009
State: Florida
Issues: Primary Election Dates, Selection of Presidential Electors
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Case 8:07-cv-01552, 8:08-cv-00672); U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 07-14816, 08-13241)

Issue:

Whether the Democratic National Committee violated federal law or national party rules by deciding to take away Florida's votes in the national presidential nominating convention, as a result of the State moving its primary election up to January 29, 2008.

Status:

Judgment in favor of the DNC on 5/29/08. Notice of Appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals filed on 6/4/08.  Case was dismissed for lack of prosecution on 7/11/08, reinstated on 8/14/08. Appellant brief filed on 8/14/08.  Appellee brief filed on 9/19/08. Order Dismissing/Vacating and Remanding entered 1/30. CASE CLOSED - Mandate Issued 3/3.

Case Summary

In this case, Hillsborough County Democratic Executive Committee member Victor DiMaio has brought a declaratory judgment action against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to determine whether the DNC violated federal law or national party rules when it decided to take away Florida's votes in the national presidential nominating convention. The DNC made this determination as a result of the State of Florida's decision to move its primary election to January 29, 2007. DNC rules prohibit states from having their presidential primary elections earlier than the first Tuesday in February, with specific exceptions for New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. The complaint seeks a determination that the DNC's decision violates Article II and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, the plaintiff asks the Court to determine whether the National Democratic Party and the State Democratic Party may implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with the National Party rules.

Appellate Court Documents (second appeal)

  • E-CIP Filed (filed 6/16/08)
  • Certificate of Interested Persons (filed 7/8/08)
  • DIS-2 (Letter to district court enclosing dismissal order) issued (filed 7/11/08)
  • Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-1(b), this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file a Transcript Order Form within the time fixed by the rules.(filed 7/11/08)
  • CASE CLOSED - no prosecution (filed 7/11/08)
  • E-Brief Tendered: Appellant by Michael A. Steinberg PDF (filed 7/21/08)
  • Motion to Reinstate Appeal.: (Atty: Michael A. Steinberg) (filed 7/23/08)
  • Amended Motion to Reinstate Appeal: (Atty: Michael A. Steinberg)  (filed 7/25/08)
  • Notice of Transcript Filing Record from Ct. Rptr. (filed 7/28/08)
  • Reinstatement letter issued (entered 8/14/08)
  • Appellant Brief Filed (filed 8/14/08)
  • Record Excerpts (filed 8/14/08)
  • Certificate of Readiness (9/2/08)
  • Over the Phone Extension to File Appellee's Brief Granted Until 9/22/2008 (filed 9/8/08)
  • 7-Day Confirmation Letter for Appellee's Brief until 09/22/08. (filed 9/12/08)
  • E-Brief Tendered by Appellee PDF (filed 9/19/08)
  • Attorney Changed for: Democratic National Committee From: Joseph E. Sandler (202) 479-1111 sandler@sandlerreiff.com To: Giddings, Katherine Eastmoore (filed 9/23/08)
  • Record on Appeal (filed 9/26/08)
  • Exhibits (filed 9/26/08)
  • Supplemental Appellant letter Brief (filed 1/2/09)
  • Supplemental Appellee letter Brief (filed 1/5/09)
  • Opinion Issued DISMISSED/VACATED & REMANDED  PDF (1/30/09)
  • CASE CLOSED - Mandate Issued (entered 3/3/09)

District Court Documents (refiled action)

Appellate Court Documents (first appeal)

  • Appellant Brief PDF (filed 10/29/07)
  • Appellee Brief - Democratic National Committee PDF (filed 11/27/07)
  • Appellee Brief - Florida Democratic Party PDF (11/27/07)
  • Motion to Expedite (filed 1/7/08)
  • Appellant's Motion to Expedite Appeal is GRANTED (entered 1/11/08)
  • Oral Argument Scheduled: 04/15/08
  • Oral Argument Rescheduled: 3/17/08
  • Argued: 3/17/08
  • Opinion PDF (entered 3/21/08)
  • Motion to Shorten Time for Issuance of Mandate (3/27/08)
  • Aplt's motion to shorten time for issuance of mandate is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the mandate instanter (4/4/08)
  • CASE CLOSED-Mandate Issued (entered 4/4/08)

District Court Documents (original action)

Related Links

Commentary

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

10th Circuit Reverses District Court on KS and AZ Proof of Citizenship Requirement

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion today in Kobach v. EAC, rejecting the proof of citizenship requirement imposed by Kansas and Arizona in the voter registration process.

more info & analysis...