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

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...