Case Name: Lee W. SMITH, Rose Ogden, Joe Kear, John Richardson, Susan Schulman, and Stuart Rogers, Petitioners, v. Bruce A. SMATHERS, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and Mary L. Singleton, Director, Department of Elections, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-04-19
Citations: 372 So. 2d 427
Docket Number: No. 54600
Parties: Lee W. SMITH, Rose Ogden, Joe Kear, John Richardson, Susan Schulman, and Stuart Rogers, Petitioners, v. Bruce A. SMATHERS, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and Mary L. Singleton, Director, Department of Elections, Respondents.
Judges: ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 372
Pages: 427–431

Head Matter:
Lee W. SMITH, Rose Ogden, Joe Kear, John Richardson, Susan Schulman, and Stuart Rogers, Petitioners, v. Bruce A. SMATHERS, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and Mary L. Singleton, Director, Department of Elections, Respondents.
No. 54600.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 19, 1979.
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1979.
Ira J. Kurzban of Kurzban & Kurzban, Miami, The National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, New York City, and Bruce S. Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
David E. Cardwell, Director, and Ronald A. Labasky, Legal Counsel, Div. of Elections, Tallahassee, for respondents.

Opinion:
OVERTON, Justice.
The petitioner, Lee W. Smith, by an original proceeding in mandamus, sought an opportunity to be a write-in candidate for Congress in the Thirteenth Congressional District. He was joined by five persons who wanted to vote for him in the general election on November 7, 1978. We issued an alternative writ, received a return, and heard oral argument. On October 30, 1978, we denied relief but reserved jurisdiction to enter a full opinion on the issue presented.
In the congressional race in issue in these proceedings, only one candidate, William Lehman, qualified, and his name was not on the ballot because he was unopposed. See § 101.151(6), Fla.Stat. (1977). The right asserted by petitioner Smith to be a write-in candidate is necessarily intertwined with the election procedure which eliminates an unopposed candidate's name from the ballot.
Considering the limited time available before the election, it was not feasible to require the reinsertion of Mr. Lehman's name on the ballot and devise a procedure for petitioner Smith to qualify as a write-in candidate. To have granted the relief would have caused an unwarranted disruption of the election process. This fact, coupled with the petitioners' failure to join as parties to the action Mr. Lehman and the local supervisors of elections who are required by Section 101.251, Florida Statutes (1977), to prepare the ballots, resulted in our denial of the requested relief for this election.
Despite our denial of relief in this instance, we have considered the constitutional issues involved in this controversy and hold that the complete abolition of write-in candidacies by the revised Florida Election Code is unconstitutional.
Prior to January 1, 1978, the Florida Election Code provided a procedure for write-in candidacies. It required write-in candidates to notify election officials within forty-five days of the election of their desire to be a candidate. If the candidate was qualified, a blank space would appear on the ballot underneath the names of any other candidates for the office. This procedure was described in Sections 99.023, 101.-011(2), and 101.151(5)(a), (b), Florida Stat utes (1975), and was approved by this Court in Pasco v. Heggen, 314 So.2d 1 (Fla.1975). When the Code was revised, these sections were eliminated. Ch. 77-175, § 13, 66, Laws of Fla.
There is no doubt that the election process may be reasonably regulated in order to guarantee "orderly and effective elections." Danciu v. Glisson, 302 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1974). In this case, however, we are confronted not with the procedural regulation of the right to write in the name of a candidate but with its complete abolition. In our view, this is impermissible and constitutes a denial of the right to vote for a candidate of one's choice embodied in Article VI, Section 1, Florida Constitution (1968). This Court in State ex rel. Lamar v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383 (1893), said:
"The distinguishing theory of the ballot system is that every voter shall be permitted to vote for whom he pleases, and that no one else shall be in a position to know for whom he has voted . . [State ex rel. Smith v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 240, 259, 8 So. 1, 5 (1890).] There is no doubt in our minds about the right of the legislature to prescribe an official ballot, and to prohibit the use of any other . . But the legislature cannot, in our judgment, restrict an elector to voting for some one of the candidates whose names have been printed upon the official ballot. He must be left free to vote for whom he pleases, and the constitution has guaranteed to him this right. If the legislature can restrict the voter to some candidate whose name is printed on the official ballot, then it may prescribe such regulations for getting the names of candidates on the ballot as will completely destroy the liberty of choice." 32 Fla. at 579, 14 So. at 393-94 (construing Article VI, Section 6, Florida Constitution (1885)). [Emphasis supplied.]
While we realize that computers and electronic voting equipment have substantially changed the methods by which electors cast their ballots, we believe the right of each elector to vote for a write-in candidate is as important now as it was in 1893. Further, the change by the 1968 Constitution of the section of the 1885 Constitution which was interpreted in Dillon, supra, in no way affects the intent and meaning of the provision and, in fact, strengthens our conclusion in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, although the petition for writ of mandamus in the instant case has been denied, we hold that the complete elimination of the opportunity to be a write-in candidate violates Article VI, Section 1, of the Florida Constitution. We also hold that Sections 13 and 66 of Chapter 77-175, Laws of Florida, are invalid only to the extent they repeal the write-in voting procedure contained in Sections 99.023, 101.011(2), and 101.151(5)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (1975). These repealed sections of the statute are hereby revived and shall remain in force and effect to provide a procedure for write-in candidacies in future elections until properly changed by the legislature. Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla.1952).
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ADKINS, J., concurs.
. Cf. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (in considering the timing of relief in an apportionment case, a court should consider the proximity of an election and the election procedures provided by state law).
. Article VI, Section 1, Florida Constitution (1968), provides, inter alia: "All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote." Article VI, Section 6, Florida Constitution (1885), provided, inter alia: "[A]nd in all elections by the people, the vote shall be by ballot."