## Facts

- Miami held a mayoral general election on November 4, 1997, followed by a run-off on November 13, 1997; the run-off results were certified November 14, 1997, and the declared winner assumed office.
- The losing candidate filed a statutory election protest and election contest challenging the November election results, focusing on absentee-ballot misconduct; the matters were consolidated.
- After extensive proceedings, the trial court found a broad pattern of fraudulent, intentional, and criminal conduct involving absentee ballots that frustrated the purpose of absentee-voting laws.
- The trial court determined there was “massive fraud” in absentee ballots and, as a remedy, declared the entire mayoral election void and ordered a new election within 60 days.
- On appeal, the parties disputed (1) whether the fraud findings were supported by the record and (2) whether Florida law permitted the remedy of voiding the election and ordering a new one when precinct (machine) votes were not shown to be tainted.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding of massive absentee-ballot fraud.
2. Whether, given that finding, Florida election-contest law authorized voiding the entire election and ordering a new election, or instead required a remedy based on ascertainable, untainted legal votes.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings that substantial competent evidence supported massive fraud in absentee ballots.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s remedy ordering a new election, holding that the trial court exceeded permissible relief under Florida election-contest law.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with applying election-contest remedies to the untainted vote totals rather than nullifying the entire election.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of trial-court factfinding in an election contest is deferential; findings supported by substantial competent evidence are upheld.
- Election-contest remedies must conform to statutory limits and related precedent; the remedy must fit the proven illegality or fraud.
- Voiding an election and ordering a new one is an extraordinary remedy, permissible only when the unlawful conduct is so pervasive and uncorrectable that the will of the electorate cannot be determined.
- When fraud is confined to a separable category of ballots (such as absentee ballots) and untainted legal votes can be identified and relied upon, courts should resolve the contest by excluding or adjusting the unlawful votes and determining the result from the remaining legal votes.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the finding that absentee-ballot fraud infected the election but held that a new election was not an authorized remedy where the voters’ will could be determined from untainted precinct votes, requiring remand for a legally supported resolution based on lawful vote totals.


In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)