[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12451

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

PEOPLE'S PARTY OF FLORIDA, 

ELISE MYSELS, 

CAROLYN WOLFE, 

VICTOR NIETO, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF 

ELECTIONS, 

FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE,

in his official capacity, 

PASCO COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS,

in his official capacity, 

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12451

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01274-TPB-MRM

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On June 3, 2022, the Appellants—the People’s Party of 

Florida, a newly recognized political party; Carolyn Wolf and 

Victor Nieto, two officers of the political party; and Elise Mysels, a 

People’s Party candidate seeking to be placed on the ballot—filed 

suit to enjoin Florida from enforcing Fla. Stat. § 99.021. Section 

99.021 requires a candidate to sign an oath that she has been a 

member of her political party, and not a member of another 

political party, for the 365 days before the beginning of the 

applicable qualifying period to appear on the ballot.1

 The People’s 

1

Fla. Stat. § 99.021(1)(b) provides that 

any person seeking to qualify for nomination as a candidate of 

any political party shall, at the time of subscribing to the oath 

or affirmation, state in writing . . . [t]hat the person has been a 

registered member of the political party for which he or she is 

seeking nomination as a candidate for 365 days before the 

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 2 of 6
22-12451 Opinion of the Court 3

Party was recognized by the State of Florida as a minor political 

party as of September 1, 2021. The Appellants claimed that they 

are injured by Florida’s refusal to recognize the People’s Party as a 

political party for the purpose of running candidates for federal, 

state, or multicounty district office until after September 1, 2022, 

due to the 365-day waiting period in § 99.021. 

The district court denied the Appellants’ motion for a 

preliminary injunction on June 22, finding that the Appellantsfailed 

to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or 

irreparable injury, that the requested injunction disserved the 

public interest, and that the harm to the public interest outweighed

any harm to the Appellants. The Appellants moved for 

reconsideration, which the district court denied in a paperless order 

in July 2022. The Appellants timely appealed, filing a motion to 

expedite, which we granted. 

beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for 

which the person seeks to qualify.

Section 99.021(1)(c), in turns, provides that 

any person seeking to qualify for office as a candidate with no 

party affiliation shall, at the time of subscribing to the oath or 

affirmation, state in writing that he or she is registered without 

any party affiliation and that he or she has not been a registered 

member of any political party for 365 days before the 

beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for 

which the person seeks to qualify.

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12451

While the appeal has been pending, however, Florida filed a 

motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because, according to the 

state, we cannot afford the Appellants meaningful relief because 

Mysels is not a qualified candidate under Florida law even if she 

were to prevail in this Court. 

It is undisputed that the period for candidates to qualify 

closed on June 17, 2022—two weeks after the Appellants filed this 

action below. To qualify for a political party’s nomination for a 

partisan office, a candidate must satisfy five separate requirements, 

only one of which the Appellants challenge here. The other, 

unchallenged, requirements include, among other things, paying a 

filing fee or submitting petitions with a requisite number of 

signatures, appointing a campaign treasurer, and filing a financial 

disclosure. Fla. Stat. § 99.061(7)(a). It is also undisputed that 

Mysels, the sole People’s Party candidate identified by the 

Appellants, did not meet any of these requirements by the June 17 

deadline. 

Florida argues that, given Mysels’ failure to meet these 

unchallenged ballot qualifications, she would remain unqualified 

even if we were to enjoin enforcement of the 365-day rule, and so 

the case is moot. The Appellants respond that even if Mysels 

cannot obtain relief, the other Appellants can, including a 

declaratory judgment that the 365-day rule is unconstitutional. For 

the reasons explained below, we agree with Florida that this appeal 

is moot and dismiss it accordingly. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 4 of 6
22-12451 Opinion of the Court 5

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, our jurisdiction is 

limited to “cases and controversies.” Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. 

United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotations 

omitted). One strand of this justiciability doctrine is mootness, 

which requires that a controversy “be extant at all stages of review, 

not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”2 Id. at 1190 (citing 

Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). “A case is moot when 

events subsequent to the commencement of a lawsuit create a 

situation in which the court can no longer give the plaintiff 

meaningful relief.” Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. 

Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 629 (11th Cir. 1998).

Here, the passage of the June 17 qualification deadline and 

Mysels’s failure to satisfy any of the unchallenged qualifications 

render the case moot. Because Mysels would remain unqualified 

even if we enjoined enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 99.021’s 365-day 

rule, there is no meaningful relief to offer the Appellants. Although 

the Appellants technically seek relief beyond enjoining 

enforcement of the law and qualifying Mysels for the November 

2022 ballot—including a declaratory judgment—the only concrete 

injury the Appellants allege is the impossibility of Mysels qualifying 

as a candidate for the November 2022 election. Tellingly, the 

Appellants have failed to identify any other People’s Party member 

2

Article III standing, in contrast to mootness, is assessed only at the outset of 

the litigation. Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Trans. Auth., 344 F.3d 

1263, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12451

in Mysels’ predicament or any other aspiring-candidates at all—

even in response to Florida’s motion to dismiss. If we were to

reverse the district court and grant injunctive relief, the only 

identified would-be candidate, Mysels, would still be ineligible to 

appear on the 2022 ballot based on other (unchallenged) portions 

of Florida’s ballot access laws. Thus, we “can no longer give the 

[Appellants] meaningful relief.” Jews for Jesus, 162 F.3d at 629. 

Moreover, the fact that the Appellants seek declaratory 

relief, in addition to an injunction, does not save the case from 

mootness. “An otherwise nonjusticiable case cannot be 

resurrected simply by seeking declaratory relief.” Gagliardi v. 

TJCV Land Tr., 889 F.3d 728, 735 (11th Cir. 2018). Absent 

“sufficient immediacy and reality,” a declaratory judgment cannot 

render a case justiciable. Id. (quoting Preiser, 422 U.S. at 402). The 

Appellants would be hard pressed to contend “sufficient 

immediacy and reality” given their failure to identify even one

candidate who would qualify for the November 2022 ballot but-for 

the 365-day rule.

Accordingly, we GRANT Florida’s motion to dismiss the 

appeal as moot.3

 

3 We further DENY the Appellants’ motion to reconsider this Court’s August 

16, 2022, order, which denied the Appellants leave to file an “Addendum” to 

their opening brief. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12451 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 6 of 6