Hector Roos

-1000016pc
Realtor, LP Miami Chair and 1st Amendment Advocate
MY FUNDRAISER

Support Amicus Brief in Closed Primary Lawsuit Appeal to SCOTUS

$1,150.00 raised so far. Help us get to $10,000.00

Currently, 5 to 7 minor political parties in Florida are expected to join an amicus brief in support of Polelle v. Byrd, a significant case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Polelle's Petition for Certiorari has been docketed and amicus briefs are due September 8th. Donors are invited to help offset legal expenses regarding the amicus brief and ensure are well-represented before the US Supreme Court.

This case, brought by Professor Emeritus Michael Polelle (University of Illinois-Chicago School of Law), challenges Florida’s Closed Primary Election Scheme. As an independent voter and taxpayer from Sarasota, Professor Polelle argues that he is unconstitutionally compelled to fund a partisan election system from which he is excluded unless he joins a political party violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In reviewing Florida's closed primary system, we have also found it to be especially harmful to voter choice, political competition and democratic integrity. The scheme:

  1. Promotes a one-party system: In many districts, elections are effectively decided in closed primaries, compelling voters to register with the dominant party just to have a meaningful vote.

  2. Disenfranchises the majority: The “write-in loophole” allows a small subset of partisan voters to determine general election outcomes, nullifying broader public participation into the millions of voters every election cycle.

  3. Harms political diversity and fuels extremism: Minor parties like ours struggle to attract members in this rigged environment, where consensus building is undermined and corruption is incentivized.

  4. Uses public funds to subsidize the major parties: The state-run primary system forces taxpayers including those in minor parties or unaffiliated voters to subsidize the internal candidate selection processes of the major parties. Meanwhile, the system exposes all parties to manipulation by bad actors intent on damaging reputations or disrupting operations.


While the Eleventh Circuit panel acknowledged that Professor Polelle’s constitutional rights were being infringed, it deferred to the government’s interest in preserving the dominance of the two-party system. This is a precedent we believe must be challenged at the highest level. 

This decision by the Eleventh Circuit is different from the one recently reached by the Ninth Circuit in No Labels Party of Arizona v Fontes. In No Labels, the court determined that rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choice supplanted the state interest to regulate who appears in government-run primaries (similar to Florida). It seems that if the Ninth Circuit decision applied to the Florida case then Polelle would have been decided favorably instead.  

We believe this case presents a powerful opportunity to challenge Florida’s exclusionary election structure and to amplify the voices of all political parties and voters.

Professor Polelle writes: "Florida has presented Petitioner, and others like him, with a Hobson’s choice: Either declare for [the dominant] party, regardless of your real political convictions, or lose the right to vote in primaries determining [winners of the] general elections." How can any political party grow when voters are being coerced in this way?

In solidarity for fair elections,

Hector Roos
Chair
Libertarian Party of Miami-Dade
www.LPMiamiDade.org
Call/Text: +1-786-284-5387

Donate

Recent Activity