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

David  Stebenne

Reshaping the Rules for Voting: How Two Different Eras Compare

David Stebenne

Fifty years ago, an eight – year period of innovation in voting rules began with ratification of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. Formally adopted on January 23, 1964, it put an end to the practice (in several of the Southern and Border States) of requiring payment in order to vote in federal elections. Two years later, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections interpreted the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause so as to apply the ban to state elections as well. In 1965, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law a Civil Rights Act known less formally as the Voting Rights Act. It established federal registrars in Southern states where local registrars had long denied the right to vote to black residents. That measure was followed by Congress’s passage and the states’ ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment prohibited denying the right to vote to citizens who had reached age eighteen. Part of a trend to establish that age as the mark of adulthood, rather than the older standard of twenty-one years, the 26th Amendment was formally adopted on June 30, 1971. And, of course, during that same eight – year time period, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down landmark reapportionment rulings that required state legislative bodies to reapportion themselves (and U.S. House districts) promptly after each federal census, and to do so in accordance with the principle of one person, one vote. By the end of 1972, that reapportionment process was complete, and had produced some far reaching changes for voters at the ballot box. For example, in Maryland, where I mostly grew up, representation of the rural and conservative Eastern Shore counties greatly diminished in the Maryland General Assembly (and in Maryland’s U.S. House delegation), while that of the Baltimore metropolitan area greatly increased.

From the vantage point of more than four decades later, what all of those changes meant for the American electorate has become clear. The impact of the poll tax ban and introduction of federal registrars into the South substantially increased the number of black women voters. (The rise in felony disfranchisement among black men nationally over the past forty years meant that gains among black men voting in the South were offset by losses among black men voting elsewhere.) Voters between the ages of eighteen and twenty seldom turned out in large numbers, and so giving them the right to vote didn’t change much in terms of who voted with any regularity. Thus, the one major gain in terms of participation came among black women. At the same time, the propensity of people in the middle three fifths of the income distribution living outside the South to vote fell substantially over those forty years, among whites especially, a shift that was most pronounced from 1972 to 1996. (The decline of labor unions was the single most important reason for that.)

Those changes in who voted regularly had significant implications for national politics. Black women tend to be among the most strongly liberal voters in the country, in the contemporary sense of that word. Most self – described moderates are middle class white people. Substantially more voting by black women has tended to push the more liberal of the two major parties leftward, while substantially less participation by middle class whites has tended to push both major parties away from the moderate middle.

With this history in mind, consider the new eight – year period of reshaping voting rules that began around 2006 and has continued through the present. The major changes have been in the direction of making voting somewhat harder to do, thanks to new requirements to provide identification, restrict early voting, eliminating same – day registration, and barring votes cast in the wrong precinct from being counted at all, to give only four examples. North Carolina has recently been a leader in that regard, but those same kinds of changes have played out in many other states as well. Those changes in voting rules appear likely to reduce voter participation by the one group that gained a lot from the changes of the earlier era, i.e., black women, and the poorer of them especially. (Felony disfranchisement continues to keep voting by black men low irrespective of these changes in voting laws.) At the same time, interest in voting among middle class whites has increased substantially over what it was in the 1970’s, ‘80’s, and ‘90’s. They appear much better able to navigate the current system of voting requirements because middle class whites are significantly more likely to have the forms of identification, flexible schedules, literacy skills and familiarity with local governance needed to do so.

What this suggests is that whatever the intent of recent changes in voting rules, one of its most important consequences will be to strengthen the political power of the center, by discouraging voting somewhat among black women (and the majority among them with low incomes especially), who tend to be strongly liberal, while voting by middle class whites, who tend to be moderate, increases. Strengthening the center, in and of itself, is not so troubling in a country that seems excessively polarized. What is troubling is a way of revitalizing the center that follows, however unintentionally, from reducing access to voting by eligible citizens.  

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Wasserman Schultz says state's ID law struck down by Supreme Court

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in a Politifact article on judicial rulings in Wisconsin and Texas on voter identification laws. Several Democratic candidates labeled the decision as "striking down" the laws, something Politifact called into question.

"It’s not accurate to say it was ‘struck down,’ but it’s understandable" given the New York Times headline and other media coverage, said Daniel P. Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor and expert on election law.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Request to Vacate Fifth Circuit's Stay in Texas Voter ID Case

Over the weekend, the United States Supreme Court denied a request to vacate a stay issued by the Fifth Circuit last week. The Fifth Circuit's order blocked the decision of the District Court finding Texas' voter ID law unconstitutional. The case is Veasey v. Perry.

more info & analysis...