Legal Challenges Ahead of Primary Election

CAMPAIGNING IS IN FULL SWING AND THE POLITICAL BATTLES ARE ONLY PLAYING OUT ON DEBATE STAGES. AND IN CAMPAIGN ADS. BUT IN THE COURTROOM AS WELL. WGCU HOST AND REPORTER JOHN DAVIS JOINS US NOW FOR A LOOK AT SOME OF THESE LEGAL CHALLENGES AND HOW THEY COULD IMPACT WHAT VOTERS ACTUALLY SEE ON THEIR BALLOTS. JOHN, WHAT HIGH-PROFILE LEGAL BATTLES HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING? >> SO ONE AND THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY BEEN SETTLED, INVOLVES THE CASE OF A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR CHALLENGING ANOTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR IS ELIGIBILITY TO EVEN BE ON THE BALLOT BASED ON RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND THE OTHER LEGAL CHALLENGE, THIS ONE IS STILL PLAYING OUT IN THE COURTS. THIS ONE CONCERNS AMENDMENT 3 THAT VOTERS ARE GOING TO DECIDE IN NOVEMBER. THIS IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL THAT STATE LAWMAKERS PUT ON THE BOWDEN A SPECIAL SESSION THAT IF APPROVED WOULD DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND FLORIDA AND THE OPPONENTS IN THAT CASE ARE ARGUING THAT THE BALLOT SUMMARY, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, WHAT VOTERS WOULD ACTUALLY SEE WHEN THEY'RE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST IT IS BIASED AND MISLEADING. AND AGAIN, THAT ONE STILL PLAYING OUT. IT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, HOW PROPERTY HOMESTEAD, PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS OR KIND OF CENTRAL TO BOTH OF THESE LEGAL CASES. HOW DOES THAT? >> HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION COMING TO PLAY WITH THE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR. >> RIGHT. SO IT IN THIS CASE THAT WAS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JAY COLLINS WHO WAS CHALLENGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF JAMES FISHBACK IS KIND OF BILLED HIMSELF AS LIKE THE ANTI ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. AND THAT'S VERY CROWDED. GOP PRIMARY. HE WAS SAYING THAT BECAUSE FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR TO HAVE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED PRIMARY RESIDENCE IN FLORIDA FOR A MINIMUM OF 7 YEARS. SO THEY WERE POINTING OUT IN COURT THAT OUR FISH BACK ACTUALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IN 2020 AND HE DID VOTE THERE. HE ALSO BOUGHT A CONDO IN DC IN 2021. AND LISTED THAT CONDO AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND MORTGAGE PAPERWORK. FISHBACK HAS SAID THAT WAS A MISTAKE. HE WAS JUST DOING A KIND OF HASTILY. HE BOUGHT THE CONDO BECAUSE IT'S NEAR WHERE HIS PARENTS LIVE. AND THAT WAS REALLY MORE OF AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY. NOW, AGAIN, THE JUDGE DID ULTIMATELY DECIDE THAT COLLINS'S TEAM DIDN'T PROVE THAT FISHBACK EVER INTENDED. DCS HAS PERMANENT RESIDENTS. BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT FISHBACK DID RECEIVE A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX BREAK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IN DC IS NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY IT WORKS IN FLORIDA. IT'S NOT JUST INTENDED AS A TAX BREAK FOR ANY PROPERTY OWNER. IT SPECIFICALLY FOR PROPERTIES THAT FUNCTION AS A PRIMARY RESIDENCE. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT ACCUSING JAMES FISHBACK OF COMMITTING TAX FRAUD, BUT BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE INTENT WAS THERE. BUT I DO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT ALL THIS CAME OUT IN THE CASE AND WITH HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS JUST IN GENERAL LOOMING SO LARGE THIS ELECTION CYCLE, THE MORE OF HIS PRIMARY OPPONENTS HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, REALLY JUMPED ON THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, EITHER HE CAN RUN FOR GOVERNOR IN FLORIDA AND HE'S ELIGIBLE. OR THAT DC CONDO WAS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE. BUT BOTH THOSE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME AND HE DID PREVAIL IN COURT. HE DID. YES. SO WHAT ABOUT THE LEGAL CHALLENGE? >> OVER THE BALLOT LANGUAGE OF AMENDMENT 3. >> SO IF I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REHASH WHAT AMENDMENT 3 IS ALL ABOUT, BUT JUST VERY BRIEFLY RIGHT NOW, FLORIDA'S HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IS $50,000. THIS WOULD INCREMENTALLY INCREASE DOWN TO $250,000 BY 2028. IT'S GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION BECAUSE, OF COURSE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT KNOWING WHERE THAT DEDICATED FUNDING IS GOING TO COME FROM TO FUND LOCAL ESSENTIAL SERVICES, BUT BASICALLY OPPONENT. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY 2 LEGAL CHALLENGES HERE THAT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED BECAUSE THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE SO SIMILAR AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT IS GOING TO GO BEFORE VOTERS IS BIASED AND MISLEADING LIKE THE TITLE, FOR INSTANCE, IS SAVE OUR HOMES FROM EXCESSIVE PROPERTY TAXES. I'M NOT MAKING A JUDGMENT HERE, BUT I THINK ANYBODY COULD SEE. YOU KNOW, MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE SAVE OUR HOMES. AND NEXT, YOU KNOW, WELL, THAT'S FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING WOULD DO THAT AND DECIDING THAT EXCESS OF THAT PROPERTY TAXES ARE EXPENSIVE, BUT IT'S ALSO AN INDIVIDUAL VALUE JUDGMENT. BUT IN ORDER TO READ THIS BALLOT LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET INTO WHAT IT IS. SO IN THIS CASE. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT THE JUDGE KIND OF GAVE BOTH PARTIES A DEADLINE OF THE END OF DAY MONDAY, JUST EARLIER THIS WEEK TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, FILE WHAT THEY'RE BASICALLY. BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO BE. SO I WOULD EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO SEE A RULING IN THAT CASE PRETTY QUICKLY. INTERESTINGLY, ONE OF THE LEGAL CHALLENGES WAS BOUGHT BROUGHT ON BY A NONPROFIT GROUP THAT WAS JUST CREATED TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. HAVE THE OTHER ONE WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT BY A PAIR OF FORMER LAWMAKERS, REPUBLICAN FORMER STATE SENATOR JEFF BRANDES AND DEMOCRATIC FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEN DIAMOND. SO JUST INTERESTING THAT THEY'RE KIND OF HAVING A BIPARTISAN SHOWING AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS. >> AND JOHN, WHAT WOULD THE OUTCOME BE IF EITHER SIDE WINS? >> WELL, SO IF THE STATE WINS THAN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AS IT IS, IS WHAT MOTORS WOULD SEE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. BUT IF THE JUDGE SIDES WITH THE PLAINTIFFS, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REWRITE OUR BALLOT LANGUAGE WITH ME IN MIND WITH WHAT THE COURT LISTED AS PROBLEMS WITH IT. AND EVEN THEN FOLKS AREN'T SO CERTAIN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD PRODUCE A REVISED BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SATISFY PLAINTIFFS. AND IF THAT HAPPENS, THEY WOULD HAVE 10 DAYS TO FILE ANOTHER CHALLENGE. AND THAT'S 10 DAYS OUT FROM WHEN HE WOULD ACTUALLY FILED A NEW BALLOT LANGUAGE WITH THIS DEPARTMENT OF STATE. >> AND YOU WILL KEEP US UPDATED US ON EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. THANK YOU, JOHN DAVIS.