Appeals Court Puts Jones Ballot Ruling on Hold
The stay effectively means that Rebekah Jones can remain a candidate while the Tallahassee-based appeals court considers whether she is eligible.
August 15, 2022 at 11:06 AM
3 minute read
An appeals court Friday put on hold a circuit judge's ruling that would block Democrat Rebekah Jones from running for a Northwest Florida congressional seat.
The 1st District Court of Appeal issued a two-sentence order granting Jones' request for a stay of a ruling by Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper that said she was ineligible to run in Congressional District 1.
The stay effectively means that Jones can remain a candidate while the Tallahassee-based appeals court considers whether she is eligible. The order did not give a detailed explanation but said Cooper's decision disqualifying Jones "for nomination for election to the United States House of Representatives from Florida's 1st Congressional District in the 2022 election cycle is stayed pending further order of this (appeals) court."
Jones, a former state Department of Health employee who drew widespread attention when she alleged Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration manipulated COVID-19 data, has battled Peggy Schiller in the Democratic primary in the district in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton counties.
Democrats are trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in the heavily Republican district.
Schiller and a voter filed a lawsuit in July contending that Jones was ineligible to run because she had not met a legal requirement of being a registered Democrat for 365 days before qualifying.
Cooper held a hearing last week and entered a written ruling Monday that agreed with the plaintiffs' arguments. He also denied a request by Jones for a stay while an appeal played out.
"This court is keenly aware and sensitive to the right of citizens to choose their representatives and that the involvement by the court in the democratic process is an action to be taken only after serious and thoughtful reflection," Cooper wrote in the ruling. "While it provides this court no pleasure in removing a candidate from the ballot, and the court makes no judgment on the wisdom of the statute, the statute is clear, unambiguous and constitutional."
But Jones' attorney, Benedict Kuehne, filed a motion Thursday at the appeals court seeking a stay of Cooper's ruling, The primary election is Aug. 23, with ballots already being cast.
"(Absent) a stay pending appellate review, Ms. Jones and the voters of Congressional District 1 are denied their constitutional right to exercise their election prerogative to vote for the candidate of their choice," Kuehne wrote. "An immediate stay and direction to allow the voting for both primary candidates for Congressional District 1 to continue unabated is essential to prevent these harms, preserve the status quo right to vote and seek public office and ensure that Ms. Jones can have meaningful relief if this court reverses the final judgment (by Cooper)."
But J.C. Planas, an attorney for the plaintiffs, filed a response Thursday that said the request for a stay should be denied because Jones "does not have a likelihood of success on the merits" of the question of her eligibility.
"The removal of Jones from the ballot is not a hyper technical interpretation of a statute. … Rather, the trial court found that Jones was not a registered member of the Democratic Party for 365 days prior to qualifying, thus she failed to meet the clear requirements of the statute and was not qualified to run for U.S. Congress as a member of the Democratic Party," Planas wrote.
Before granting the stay, the appeals court issued an order Thursday putting the underlying appeal about Jones' eligibility on a fast track.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat Will Happen to the Nominees in Florida's Southern and Middle Districts?
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250