Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/118711540/Voeltz-III-2012-12-12-Obama-Notice-of-Applicability-of-3-USC-s5
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 20:31:05
Document Index: 766081979

Matched Legal Cases: ['§5', '§5', '§5', '§7', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§ 572']

Voeltz III - 2012-12-12 - Obama Notice of Applicability of 3 USC s5 | Electoral College (United States) | United States Code
Voeltz III - 2012-12-12 - Obama Notice of Applicability of 3 USC s5
Description: Voeltz III - 2012-12-12 - Obama Notice of Applicability of 3 USC s5
37-2012-CA-003857 MICHAEL C. VOELTZ, Plaintiff, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Winner of the 2012 Florida General Election, KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida, and FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION, Defendants.
Defendant Barack Obama (“President Obama”), through undersigned counsel, submits this notice regarding the applicability of Title 3 U.S.C. §5 to this action. The effect of this provision is to preclude the ability of this Court to render a conclusive determination regarding the results of the November 6, 2012 general election at which the electors pledged to support
electors for Mitt Romney as the winner of the Florida General Election.
Title 3 U.S.C. §5 provides as follows:
If any State shall have provided by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time for the meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such state is concerned.
President Obama were chosen pursuant to Section 103.011, Florida Statutes, and to certify the
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOTICE OF APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 3 U.S.C. §5
(Emphasis added.) Pursuant to Title 3 U.S.C. §7, “[t]he electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in
State shall direct.” Thus, in accordance with federal law and Section 103.051, Florida Statutes, 1 the presidential electors will meet in Tallahassee, on Monday, December 17, 2012.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that Title 3 U.S.C. §5 “creates a ‘safe harbor’ for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned. If a state
election day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of
(2000). Florida has created a process to “contest” a presidential election 2 and, pursuant to Title 3
that determination to be giver conclusive effect by Congress is December 11, 2012. See Palm
So. 2d at 1290, n. 22.
In the instant case, there has been no determination, final or otherwise, of the contest filed by Plaintiff concerning the eligibility of President Obama to serve as President of the United States.
Although Plaintiff, in his Prayer for Relief, “seeks an expedited ruling on this matter due to the time constraint of the approaching electoral voting day,” citing to Title 3 U.S.C. §5, he has taken
U.S.C. §5, the date for any final determination of any dispute concerning the electors in order for
meeting of the electors.” Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70, 77-78
legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to
December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such
no steps to schedule this matter for an immediate hearing by the Court, 3 nor has the Plaintiff filed
Accordingly, any ruling by the Court after December 11, 2012, would not be “conclusive;”
in other words, any ruling would be advisory at best. 4 With limited exceptions, Florida courts cannot render advisory opinions. “It is the function of a judicial tribunal to decide actual
questions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue.” Montgomery v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 468 So.2d 1014, 1016-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, § 572, p. 389). As noted by the Second District Court of Appeal, “t]he limitation on the exercise of judicial power to the decision of justiciable controversies has been attributed to judicial adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers. Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d 2005) (citing Ervin v. City of
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot
notice of priority status pursuant to Rule 2.545(c), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
Ashley Davis, Assistant General Counsel Department of State 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Email: ashley.davis@dos.myflorida.com
Larry Klayman, Esquire Klayman Law Firm 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 Email: leklayman@gmail.com
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail on this 12th day of December, 2012, to:
Stephen F. Rosenthal Florida Bar No. 131458 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130-1720 Telephone (305) 358-2500 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
Tallahassee, FL 32317 Telephone (850) 222-0720 Facsimile: (850) 558-0659