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

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...