CAREY BAKER

v.

MARK V. JORDAN AND D. ALAN HAYS, AS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-2618 LT Case No. 2024-CA-1239 _____________________________

CAREY BAKER,

Appellant,

v.

MARK V. JORDAN and D. ALAN

HAYS, AS SUPERVISOR OF

ELECTIONS, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Appellees. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Gary L. Sanders, Judge.

Ricky L. Polston, Daniel Nordby, Benjamin J. Gibson, and Amber S. Nunnally, of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

John T. LaVia, III, of Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Dee, LaVia, Wright, Perry & Harper, P.A., Tallahassee, and Ronald A. Labasky, Tallahassee, for Appellee, D. Alan Hays.

Laura K. Hargrove, of Gause & Hargrove, PLLC, Tavares, for Appellee, Mark V. Jordan.

November 15, 2024

SOUD, J.

2

Appellant Carey Baker, the incumbent Lake County Property Appraiser, appeals the trial court’s final order denying relief in his action seeking to disqualify Appellee Mark Jordan as a candidate for that office in the 2024 General Election. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief.¹

I.

The saga surrounding the two gentlemen running for election as the Lake County Property Appraiser reveals eleventh-hour political strategies fraught with corresponding political risks. While both Baker and Jordan suggest that the means employed by the other in qualifying to run have created a tempest within the local Republican Party, the facts in the record before us are not materially disputed. In November, the voters in Lake County will be asked to elect, among other officials, the property appraiser for the coming fouryear term. Anyone wishing to run was required to file all necessary paperwork to qualify as a candidate between¹²:00 p.m. Monday, June¹⁰, 2024, and¹²:00 p.m. Friday, June 14, 2024. After this qualifying week passed, D. Alan Hays, the Lake County Supervisor of Elections, certified that both Baker and Jordan qualified to run for property appraiser. The origins of their respective candidacies are central to this case. In January 2024, months before qualifying week, Baker filed to run as a Republican Party candidate² for re-election. To this end,

qualification papers and subscribes to a candidate’s oath as required by law.” See § 97.021(7)(d)–(e), Fla. Stat. (2024). “Filing” as a candidate is distinct from “qualifying” as a candidate. One may “file” as a candidate at any time prior to qualifying week and must do so before he may accept campaign contributions and make campaign expenditures. See § 106.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat. One “qualifies” as a candidate to appear on the ballot only during the defined qualifying week. To qualify, a candidate must provide to the elections office all necessary qualifying paperwork and pay the qualifying fee (or, alternatively, submit enough candidate petitions to appear on the ballot).

5

II.

In deciding this case, we review the trial court’s factual findings for support by competent, substantial evidence. See Wayne’s Aggregate & Materials, LLC v. Lopez, 391 So. 3d 633, 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). The trial court’s legal conclusions and interpretation of Florida statutes are reviewed de novo. See id.; see also MB Doral, LLC v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Baker argues, as he did below, that Jordan must be disqualified as a candidate for three reasons: (i) he failed to withdraw from the hospital board race before qualifying as a candidate for property appraiser and thereby qualified for more than one office, in violation of section 99.012(2), Florida Statutes (2024); (ii) he did not file his paperwork to qualify as a candidate for property appraiser until after the noon qualifying deadline had passed; and (iii) he failed to pay the qualifying fee from a campaign account opened specifically for his campaign for property appraiser. Each of Baker’s arguments fails under Florida law.

A.

Our analysis begins with the requirements of Florida law for one to qualify as a candidate for office. The Florida Election Code sets forth what one must do to become a candidate for office in the state. And as Judge Nordby cogently wrote for the First District, “The Legislature designed the process to facilitate ballot access.” Jones v. Schiller, 345 So. 3d 406, 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). Generally, for an individual to qualify to run for a non-judicial, partisan county office such as the Lake County Property Appraiser, the Election Code requires that he provide five items to the supervisor of elections: (1) payment of the qualifying fee via “[a] properly executed check drawn upon the candidate’s campaign account;” (2) the candidate’s oath; (3) the written statement of political party affiliation (or no party affiliation); (4) the completed DS-DE⁹ form appointing a campaign treasurer and designating a campaign depository; and (5) the full and public disclosure or statement of financial interests required by section 99.061(5). See

3 While certainly the implementation of the Election Code by the Secretary will necessarily and inherently involve his interpretation of the laws enacted by the Florida Legislature, the ultimate interpretation of statutes or rules belongs to Florida courts when presented in cases and controversies before us. The Florida Constitution mandates our authority and responsibility in this regard: “In interpreting a state statute or rule, a state court . . . may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo.” Art. V, § 21, Fla. Const.

B.

“Fundamental to our system of government is the principle that the right to be a candidate for public office is a valuable one and no one should be denied this right unless the Constitution or an applicable valid law expressly declares him to be ineligible.” Wright v. City of Miami Gardens, 200 So. 3d 765, 775 (Fla. 2016). In this case before us, both Baker and Jordan sought to exercise this right in the manner they saw fit. Pertinent for our review, Jordan filed his papers to qualify as a Republican Party candidate for property appraiser, including, inter alia, his (1) re-filed “Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates” (form DS-DE⁹), designating a “change” in office sought to Lake County Property Appraiser; and (2) a check for $10,685.04 from the “Mark V. Jordan Campaign Account” in payment of the qualifying fee. Upon receiving and reviewing the papers required by section 99.012(2), Florida Statutes, the Lake County Supervisor of Elections certified Jordan as a qualified candidate for property appraiser. Once Jordan had been so certified and secured access to the ballot for Lake County voters’ consideration, the “only way” he could be disqualified by a Florida court is if some constitutional or statutory basis requires his disqualification. See Jones, 345 So. 3d at 412. And Baker has presented no such basis for Jordan’s disqualification.

1.

First, Baker suggests that Jordan failed to properly withdraw from the hospital board race before qualifying as a candidate for property appraiser. As a result, Jordan in effect qualified for two offices with concurrent terms, which is plainly prohibited by section 99.012(2), Florida Statutes. Baker’s argument is premised upon his conclusion that Jordan’s “re-filing” of his form DS-DE⁹ to “change” the office sought to property appraiser was insufficient to effectuate his withdrawal from the hospital board race. In short, Baker insists that these two statutory requirements cannot be fulfilled with one form filed with the Supervisor of Elections. This

4 See Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Fla. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 236 So. 3d 1183, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), approved, 260 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 2018) (“The word ‘may’ when given its ordinary meaning denotes a permissive term rather than the mandatory connotation of the word ‘shall.’”).