§ 104.047 Vote-by-mail ballots and voting; violations.
Overview of Statute
This statute states that it is a felony of the third degree for a person to request a vote-by-mail ballot on behalf of a voter, unless provided for in ss 101.62 or 101.655. It is also a felony of the third degree for a person to mark the ballot of another person, unless provided for in ss. 101.051, 101.655, or 101.661.
Supreme Court of Florida held in 2000 that “conduct of county supervisor of elections in allowing representatives of one political party access to her office for purpose of adding voter identification numbers to requests for absentee ballots, but failing to notify other political parties or any other group or to invite them to take same action, did not amount to illegal disparate treatment.” So “requests” in subsection (1) of the statute must be construed narrowly.
1. Definition for Ballot
As used in the Electronic Voting Systems Act, ballot means the card, tape, or other vehicle upon which the elector’s choices are recorded. Fla. Stat. § 101.5603(2).
2. Definition for Person
An individual or a corporation, association, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock company, club, organization, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate, or other combination of individuals having collective capacity. The term includes a political party, affiliated party committee, or political committee. Fla. Stat. § 106.011(14).
3. 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).
Case State: florida
Case Name: Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board
Citation: 773 So.2d 519
Case Summary: Jacobs initially filed a complaint contesting the certification of election results in the 2000 presidential election. The Circuit Court denied all relief and Jacobs appealed. The appellate court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court then held that the conduct of the county supervisor of elections was not illegal disparate treatment and that the information provided on application for absentee ballots was enough to establish the qualifications of each applicant. Therefore, the supervisor's conduct did not amount to fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing.
Fla. Jur. 2d Elections s 228, Offenses in connection with voting-illegal voting
Fla. Jur. 2d Elections s 230, Theft, destruction, alteration, or wrongful possession or handling of ballots and election equipment and records