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

Top 10 Election Issues

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

 

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Edward B. Foley

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error. 

more info & analysis...