Gary Stein for Congress Fl., 20th District

August 30th, 2016: Stephen Hobbs, Sun Sentinel

Brenda Snipes easily won her fourth term as Broward's Supervisor of Elections on Tuesday, defeating businessman David Brown.
Snipes' name will appear on the November ballot, but she only faces two write-in candidates who qualified to run but whose names will not be listed ....

Part 4, Wikipedia article on Alcee Hastings impeachment con't:

                                                                                                       Hastings faces punishment
Hastings indicted for conspiring to solicit a bribe

In December 1981, Hastings and Borders were indicted on charges that they conspired to solicit a bribe from the Romanos. At the trial, Hastings pleaded not guilty and claimed Borders was lying about the entire affair. He also claimed that the prosecution in the case was discriminating against him on the basis of race, and that the Reagan administration singled him out for prosecution because of his previous rulings opposing the government's treatment of Haitian refugees in Florida. (Edward Cody, "Jury Acquits Judge Hastings In Bribery Case," Washington Post, February 4, 1983)

Justice Department attorneys Reid Weingarten and Robert Richter felt that the key piece of evidence in the trial was a wiretapped phone conversation Hastings had with Borders in which he stated, "I've drafted all those ah, ah, letters, ah, for him, and everything's okay. The only thing I was concerned with was, did you hear if, ah, hear from him after we talked?" According to Weingarten and Reid, this conversation featured coded language in which Hastings was essentially saying that he had drafted an order restoring the Romano brothers' seized funds and was inquiring whether Borders had heard from Frank Romano. (Edward Cody, "Jury Acquits Judge Hastings In Bribery Case," Washington Post, February 4, 1983)

Hastings insisted, however, that the letters in question were going to authorities and friends in Columbia, S.C. on behalf of Hemphill Pride, a friend and former lawyer who was attempting to regain his legal license. Hastings said he wrote the letters, but never sent them because he later thought it would be unethical for a judge to do so. During the trial, Hastings produced several draft letters to support his claim. The government, however, charged that these were concocted after the indictment. Indeed, Pride said he had no knowledge of the letters and was not even eligible for reinstatement. (Edward Cody, "Jury Acquits Judge Hastings In Bribery Case," Washington Post, February 4, 1983)

Ultimately, Hastings was unanimously acquitted (found not guilty) in early 1983. Borders, however, was convicted and sent to prison. [19] [20] (Spencer Rich, "Impeach Hastings, House panel says," Washington Post, July 27, 1988)

Appeals court investigation
In spite of Hastings' not guilty verdict, Terrell Hodges, the chief federal judge of Florida's Middle District, and Anthony Alaimo, a Georgia judge, filed a complaint with the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals urging a separate investigation into the matter. The Eleventh Circuit complied, hiring former Justice Department attorney John Doar to lead an investigative team made up of the appeals courts judges and three U.S. District judges. After an investigation that lasted nearly four years, Doar came back with an extensive report suggesting that Hastings had not only solicited a bribe, but also lied repeatedly under oath at his trial. [21] [22] ("Judge's Impeachment Urged," Washington Post, June 19, 1983)Type your paragraph here.

Yusef Lateef, Love Theme From Spartacus, and  ... Part 5: Hastings impeachment, continued here

....the plaintiff/voter ...and congressional candidate in 20th, now living 1 block south and few hundred yards west in new 23rd district .... as surprised as anyone to see Wasserman-Schultz signs. Who knew?

Snipes "prepare(s)" voters for "a successful election experience".  

 Who the heck knew the new boundaries, part 2: renovations to Bldg. 94, Unit 307 ... FROM INSIDE THE 23RD DISTRICT!

Petitioner Pro – Se

In her official capacity as Broward County Elections Supervisor

        Definition: A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the                       government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.




                                                                  Petitioner Gary S. Stein, asserts through petition:
1.  I am a resident of Broward County Florida and registered voter therein.
2.  I was redistricted from Florida’s 20th Congressional District to Florida’s 23rd Congressional District without being given the minimal required individualized notice required under the Fair Districting Amendments contained in Fl. Con. Article III. Sec 20.
3.   For reasons discussed in my attached brief, individualized notice of redistricting constitutes a fundamental right under the Florida Constitution, and is subject to Substantive Due Process.
4.    I am seeking a writ of mandamus directed to Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes invalidating the primary results for the 2016 Broward Election and further enjoining similar Due Process violations.

                                                                              BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
The contention that Election Supervisor Snipes violated the Petitioner's rights under the Fair Districting Amendments to the Florida Constitution by failing to provide particularized notice to parties affected by the redistricting is not su generis or self-advancing.  It is a well established principal in Florida Constitutional Law that "parties who face deprivation of fundamental rights by means of a governmental action are entitled to fair notice prior to the governmental action." See Gulf Development Corp v. Ft. Lauderdale, 354 So. 2d 57 (1978) Srygley v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 82 So. 3d. 1211 (2012), Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d. 463 (1976) 

Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has reiterated that voters have a right to disclosure of all election processes to the extent that "that the voter should not be misled and that he have an opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote.... All that the Constitution requires or that the law compels or ought to compel is that the voter have notice of that which he must decide.... What the law requires is that the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot," Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (1982) at 155. 
        Even before the 2010 Fair Districting Amendments, in  Fl. Const. Art. III Sec. 20 and Art. III Sec. 21, voters affected by redistricting possessed the recognized to be apprised fair notice of the redistricting decisions as they pertained to their individualized interests. "The voter is entitled to fair notice of the decision which they should make," Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (2000) at 15 quoting Askew v. Firestone, which held that "fair notice is actual notice in the election context," Id. at 155. 

            The somewhat novel legal question which arises after the codification of the Fair Districting Amendments is: "How have the Fair Districting Amendments effected the requisite level of notice to the individualized effected voters that the Florida Supreme Court recognized in Armstrong and Askew to exist at common law ?" When pre-existing common law rights are incorporated into a textual body like the Florida Constitution, they become fundamental rights subject to the State Supreme Court's interpretation of Substantive Due Process.
                In the case at bar, Petitioner Stein's right to notice that he was redistricted from the 20th to 23rd Congressional District emanated directly from the constructs of the Fair Districting Amendment, which incorporated the prior common law right to notice as a fundamental state constitutional right. Therefore a substantive due process analysis is warranted to discern whether plaintiff suffered violation of a fundamental right. "The first prong of a substantive due process analysis is whether a fundamental right existed, United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). The fundamental right is therefore subject to judicial review under strict scrutiny. The question then becomes whether the governmental act which infringes on the fundamental right is justified by a compelling governmental interest, 

which is narrowly tailored to accommodate that interest by the least restrictive means. Id at 173   The claim cannot be laid that an interest could exist, sufficient enough, to allow the wholesale disregard of a recently adopted constitutional provision. This would allow the exception to swallow the whole rule. Compelling interests only exist where the necessities of governmental administration can not be accomodated by any other means than vis-a-vis the sacrifice of the fundamental right. Providing the constitutional required notice to less than 100 residents can not be claimed to be negated by a compelling governmental interest. The de minimis logistical and financial burden which such individualized notice would impose is not negatable to the extent that it would allow a fundamental right to be circumvented.