~4
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
deputy again picked up the mail at the post office, at which time
this registered item was delivered to him; however, the deputy
did not arrive at the Clerk's office with the registered item
until 12 :30 P.M.
Subsection 99.061 (3), F. S., provides, among other things,
that candidates for county office shall file their sworn state­
ments, etc., with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the county not
later than noon March 15 of the year in which the primary is
held.
In State ex rel Vining VS. Gray, etc., Fla., 17 So. 2d. 228, at a
time when our law required a candidate for State Senator to qualify
not later than February 1, our Court held that where the application,
oath and fees of a person seeking to qualify as a candidate for
said office did not reach the Secretary of State until 1 :00 A.M.
on February 2 because of lack of diligence of the transportation
company and delay of said person in delivering them for trans­
portation until after 12 o'clock noon on February 1, the Secretary
of State was not required to place such candidate's name on the
primary election ballot. In State ex rel Taylor vs. Gray, Fla., 25
So. 2d 492, a person sought to qualify as a candidate for nomination
for public office in the primary, filed proper qualifying papers
before the deadline but, by error of both the person and the officer
receiving such papers, did not pay the amount of qualifying' fee
required; and on the authority of State ex rel Vining vs. Gray,
supra, the Court held that the person attempting to qualify had
not met the requirements of law prior to the deadline and hence
should not be listed as a candidate by the Secretary of State.
A distinction is to be drawn between the present situation
and that found in the Vining Case. There was no lack of diligence
on the part of these persons seeking to qualify as is mentioned in
such case. On the third day prior to March 15 they mailed their
papers at St. Petersburg. The registered item was in the Clear­
water post office available for the Clerk on the second day prior
to March 15. It was actually delivered to a deputy clerk p'rior to
the deadline.
In my opinion these two candidates for the party offices
mentioned delivered to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of their
county for filing the mentioned qualifying papers within the
time prescribed by §99.061, F. S. Hence, the question is answered
in the affirmative.
GENERAL, PRIMARY, SPECIAL, BOND AND
REFERENDUM ELECTIONS
March 3, 1954.-054-53.
COUNTY BOND ELECTIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS-VOTING
MACHINES-REQUIREMENTS
QUESTIONS: 1. Maya bond election, held on the same day
a primary election, be conducted with the use of paper ballots
w hen the county is otherwise required to use voting machines?
f"S
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
~ime
Juty
:tem
ngs,
~ate­
not
y is
at a
:llify
don,
for
\.M.
~tion
'ans­
tary
the
., 25
ttion
.pers
ficer
, fee
rray,
had
lence
:ttion
:ence
~d in
their
lear­
orior
)}' to
fices
their
the
'ered
{
~ day
Lllots
les?
95
2. When a bond election is held in conjunction with a pri­
mary election, how are the total number of persons participating
in the bond election determined?
3. When a bond election is held at the same time as a pri­
mary election in a county where voting machines are used, to
what extent should the elections be separated and distinguished
from each other?
To: Mrs. Easter L. Gates, Supervisor of Registration, Browat"d
County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida:
In the absence of any special or local law to the contrary,
§101.32 F. S., governs as to the adoption and use of voting
machines in a county. That section, as well as §101.36 F. S., in­
dicates that once the voting machines are provided for any county
they are to be used at any and all special, primary, and general
elections. Since the laws applicable to general elections are
also applicable to bond elections' unless other provision is made
in §§100.201 through 100.351, the requirements as to the uniform
use of voting machines are applicable to bond elections.
As to the second question it is intended by §100.281, F. S.,
(also Art. IX, §6, Fla. Const.), that a majority of the freeholders
who are qualified electors in a county must participate in a bond
election, and that a majority of those participating must be in
favor of the bond issue in order for it to carry. Although a bond
election can be held in conjunction with a primary election
(§100.261, F. S.), it is a separate general election in the sense
that all qualified freeholders may participate regardless of party
affiliation. Even though the question as to the issuance of the
bonds is permitted to be dealt with at the same time that a pri­
mary election is being held, an elector who is qualified to partici­
pate in both elections may actually participate,' or vote, in only
one. In determining the number of freeholders participating in
a bond election held under the circumstances here described, the
only accurate method is to total the number of votes cast for
and against the bond issue. It is hardly reasonable to say that
vne has participated in an election when he did not register a
vote in the election.
Section 100.271, F. S., contemplates that election officials shall
perform dual service when a bond election is held in connection
.with a regular primary election, but since they are separate
elections they should be so treated by the election inspection
boards. Each inspector and clerk should take a separate oath
in regard to each election, and the two elections should be treated
in all other respects as though they were each being held on
different days. In that regard it would also be necessary for
an elector who is qualified to vote in bond elections to sign two
signature identification slips, one for each election. The slips
should be deposited in separate boxes when the voter hands them
to the' person in charge of the voting machine to which he is
, assigned, and they should be handled after the election in the
same separate and distinct manner.
Insofar as absentee voting is concerned, a Yoter who is elig­
ible to vote in both elections and who requests ballots for both
96
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
elections on separate application blanks should be sent separate
absentee ballot forms, one ballot being the primary ballot of
his party, the other being a ballot containing the question as to
the issuance of the bonds. The regular primary ballot cannot
include the bond question since all persons qualified to vote
the primary ballot of a given political party will not necessarily
be qualified to vote on the bond question, and since the law
governing the preparation of primary election ballots does not
authorize and could not reasonably contemplate the appearance
of such an issue on a primary ballot. See §§101.141, 101.161,
101.181, and 101.191, F. S.
Upon consideration of the foregoing it is my opinion that
your questions should be answered as follows;
1. Even though it might simplify the conduct of a bond
election held under the circumstances described in this question
if paper ballots were allowed in the determination of the bond
question, the law does not contemplate the use of any voting
device in such counties other than the authorized voting machines.
2. The total number of qualified freeholders participating in
a bond .election held in conjunction with a primary election in a
voting machine county, can be correctly determined only by
totaling the number of votes actually registered for and against
the issuance of the bonds.
3. The proposed bond election and the regular primary elec­
tion should be kept separate and distinct in all phases of the
c.onduct of both, to the extent indicated in the preceding discus­
sion and to a similar extent in regard to any other particulars
that may not have been mentioned herein. The necessity for this
distinction, and the extent of it, can be recognized when it is
understood that the bond election is not a party issue which can
be determined in a party primary and must therefore be con­
ducted as though it were a general election in which all quali­
fied voters can participate regardless of party affiliation.
September 16, 1953.-053-244.
MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION-FREEHOLDER REQUIRE­ MENTS-§100.241 (1), F. S.-GRACEVILLE, CITY OF
QUESTIONS: 1. Mayan otherwise qualified voter, whose
only property consists of homestead exempt property, be properly
registered as a free-holder and permitted to vote in a bond elec­
tion called for the purpose of obtaining the approval by the
freeholders of the city of the issuance of bonds for water and
sewerage improvements?
2. Mayan otherwise qualified woman voter be properly
registered as a freeholder and permitted to vote even though only
ber husband's name is sbown on the deed to their property?
.To: Honorable J. M. Cooper, President, City Council, Graceville,
Florida:
From the copy of the ordinance of the City of Graceville by
which the above mentioned bond election was called, it appears