§ 105.061 Electors qualified to vote.
Overview of Statute
This statute governs who is qualified to vote in a nonpartisan election. In elections for judicial office or for retention, all qualified voters in the territorial jurisdiction of the court in question are eligible to vote for candidates for judicial office in that court or for or against retention. In school board elections, the members are elected by qualified voters as laid out in chapter 1001.
(1) Each qualified elector of the territorial jurisdiction of a court shall be eligible to vote for a candidate for each judicial office of such court or, in the case of a justice or a judge seeking retention, for or against retention of such justice or judge.
(2) The election of members of a school board shall be by vote of the qualified electors as prescribed in chapter 1001.
s. 6, ch. 71-49; s. 38, ch. 77-175; s. 6, ch. 99-326; s. 5, ch. 99-355; s. 887, ch. 2002-387.
1. Definition for Judicial Office
Includes the office of:
(a) Justice of the Supreme Court.
(b) Judge of a district court of appeal.
(c) Judge of a circuit court.
(d) County court judge.
A judicial office is a nonpartisan office, and a candidate for election or retention thereto is prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for such an office based on party affiliation. Fla. Stat. § 105.011(2).
2. Definition for Elector
“Elector” is synonymous with the word “voter” or “qualified elector or voter,” except where the word is used to describe presidential electors. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(15).
3. Definition for Election
Any primary election, special primary election, special election, general election, or presidential preference primary election. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(12).
4. Definition for Candidate
Any person to whom any one or more of the following applies:
Case Name: Davis v. Chiles
Citation: 139 F.3d 1414
Federal Circuit Court: 11th Circuit Court
Case Summary: Davis v. Chiles held that plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case under the applicable law regarding the system of selecting judges in two at-large judicial election districts, because they failed to propose a permissible remedy.
“Voting Rights: Vote Dilution Davis v. Chiles 139 F.3d 1414 (11th Cir. 1998)” 28 Stetson L. Rev. 959