A long awaited decision by the Third District Court of Appeal was finally published today.
On September 24, 2013, the Court agreed to hear the Plaintiff’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling in the matter of Kevin Burns v. Lucie Tondreau, et al. Mayoral candidate Kevin Burns filed his original lawsuit challenging Lucie Tondreau’s residency after she won the run-off election on June 4, 2013. The Eleventh Circuit Court dismissed his case, so he filed his appeal with the Third District Court.
I read the fifteen page Opinion a few times and, honestly, I’m still a little confused. For one thing, the Appellate Court agreed with the lower court’s decision to dismiss Burns’ Amended Complaint because “this type of post-election challenge is not permitted.” But then it agreed that Burns “sought relief pursuant to” a Florida Statute that “does permit post-election challenges to the eligibility of the successful candidate for the office in dispute,” based on “Article II, Section 5 of the City of North Miami’s Charter.”
Yes, I’m shaking my head, too.
The most interesting part of the very dry reading was the first couple of sentences of a footnote at the bottom of page 9, which says:
I’m pretty sure that “political suicide” is easily accomplished in North Miami merely by running for office in the first place.
“Alienation of constituents” is a naturally occurring phenomenon once the race is over. (Just ask anyone who has ever won an election.)
The Court based its own split decision on its opinion that Burns’ “Amended Complaint commingles the statutory requirements of Tondreau to qualify to run for mayor with the constitutional eligibility requirement needed for Tondreau to be eligible to hold office.”
If that’s not confusing enough, the Court cites case law (Norman v. Ambler), stating, “The law distinguishes between a candidate’s constitutional eligibility for office, on the one hand, and, on the other, a constitutionally eligible candidate’s taking the necessary steps to qualify to run for office.”
The Opinion further states that even though the City of North Miami’s Charter “establishes a person’s eligibility to serve as mayor,” Burns’ lawsuit was based on his “allegation that Tondreau failed to produce proper documentation as required by Section 6-78(b)(2) of the City code to qualify to run for mayor.” Apparently, “[t]hese allegations, however, only pertain to whether Tondreau met the qualification requirements to run for office, not Tondreau’s eligibility to hold office.”
Oh, yeah, that clears things up, right?
Um, no. Not really.
I’m still unclear on the concept of why the Court’s final ruling was “AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS.”
If there are any attorneys out there who would like to enlighten us, please feel free to weigh in by posting in the comment section below. Preferably in plain English.
In its Conclusion, the Appellate Court does “remand for Burns to file an amended complaint that challenges only Tondreau’s alleged ineligibility for the office of mayor” based on the City Charter’s requirement that a candidate reside in the city for at least one year prior to qualifying.
Kevin Burns told me he intends to file an amended complaint immediately.
In the meantime, no new candidates have filed to run for mayor today.
Thank you, North Miami, for keeping me on my toes.
Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”
Put a fork in Mr. Burns.
The ruling notes that North Miami had, at the time, a relatively straightforward requirement for qualifying. The court noted that this requirement was amended by voters, who apparently knew the qualifying requirement was a little too simple to game.
The ruling requires the trial court to consider whether that previous qualifying requirement was met, if Mr. Burns were to file an amended complaint.
The trial court previously said it didn’t have jurisdiction over that “post election” question. It does, according to the appellate court.
Mr. Burns can file amended complaint, and it will go no where because the old residency/qualifying requirements were easy to comply with.
My main question at this point in time for Mr. Burns is who is paying for his legal fees? There’s just no way he can afford them, given his financial status (lobbying for strip clubs can’t be that lucrative).
Please enlighten us.
I am not in a position to enlighten you. I’m just a disinterested third party who has nothing to lose or gain. I don’t even live in North Miami. I am having a lot of fun watching the circus, though.
Fat Lady Sings brings up a good point …. Mister Burns’ behavior in suddenly showing up at certain city board meetings and giving his two cents for a selected group of parties like the strip club, Mr. Swerdlow, affordable housing project on NE 6th avenue and 135 street, and other projects before the planning commission and/or board of adjustments …. My question is Mister Burns has registered as a lobbyist under the city charter
If I had to take a shot in the dark I’d say he’s getting help with his legal fees from someone who has an interest in his getting in office. Too far fetched? Think again.