- Advertisement -

TALLAHASSEE, FL – In a decisive response to former State Senator Debbie Mayfield’s petition, the Florida Secretary of State has reaffirmed its decision to disqualify Mayfield from running in the upcoming Senate District 19 special election. The response, filed with the Florida Supreme Court, asserts that Mayfield is ineligible under Article VI, Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution, which imposes term limits on state legislators.

- Advertisement -

Mayfield, who previously served eight consecutive years in the Florida Senate, filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto and Mandamus, arguing that the Secretary of State overstepped its authority by refusing to qualify her for the ballot. Her legal team contended that because she left the Senate to serve in the Florida House before seeking re-election, she was not in violation of the constitutional provision.

However, in a forceful rebuttal, the Secretary of State’s office made it clear that Mayfield’s argument was legally untenable. “Petitioner seeks the wrong relief in the wrong forum in her attempt to secure twelve consecutive years in the same Senate seat; that’s four more than the Florida Constitution allows,” the response states.

- Advertisement -

Key Points from the State’s Response

1. Quo Warranto Not Applicable – The response argues that quo warranto is not an appropriate legal remedy in this case, as it is historically reserved for actions concerning state sovereignty or challenges by the Attorney General, neither of which apply to Mayfield’s situation.
2. No Mandamus Relief – The state asserts that mandamus, which requires a clear legal right and a corresponding duty, does not apply because Mayfield’s eligibility is in dispute and she had alternative legal remedies, such as seeking declaratory relief in circuit court.
3. Secretary’s Authority to Deny Ballot Placement – The response highlights that the Secretary of State is not obligated to place an obviously ineligible candidate on the ballot, citing Mayfield’s own admission that she previously held the same Senate seat for the past eight years. The state emphasized that election officials should not be forced to certify candidates who fail to meet constitutional requirements.
4. Timing and Election Administration Concerns – The Secretary’s filing also warns against last-minute judicial intervention, arguing that any court-ordered changes could cause election chaos. “The relief sought would add confusion, increase the chance of error, and cause greater uncertainty in the administration of not one but two separate special elections being administered concurrently,” the response explains.
5. Mayfield’s Own Doubts About Eligibility – Perhaps most damaging to her case, the state pointed to a legal memorandum Mayfield submitted alongside her candidacy paperwork in November 2024, in which she sought an opinion on whether her candidacy was even legal. The Secretary argues that this demonstrates Mayfield was aware of the constitutional issue months in advance but failed to seek proper clarification through the courts or the Division of Elections.

What’s Next?

With ballots for military and overseas voters set to be mailed by February 14, the timeline for resolution is extremely tight. Mayfield’s legal team has pressed for an emergency ruling, but given the state’s strong opposition and the constitutional constraints, her path back onto the ballot appears increasingly unlikely.

This case is expected to have significant implications for future election disputes, particularly regarding how term limits are enforced and the extent of the Secretary of State’s discretion in candidate qualification decisions.

- Advertisement -