Debbie Mayfield, a former Florida senator and current State Representative, has filed a lawsuit with the Florida Supreme Court challenging the Florida Secretary of State’s decision that she did not qualify to run for her old Senate seat in the upcoming special election. She is arguing that the Secretary of State overstepped his authority by “disqualifying” her from the ballot and that she is not seeking “re-election” under Florida’s constitutional term limits. However, her legal arguments are fundamentally flawed, and her lawsuit is destined to fail.
Nearly every politico or “expert” that has commented on the case has stated they believe Mayfield will prevail and be placed on the ballot. I fully disagree. Here’s my breakdown of her case, why her claims don’t hold up under scrutiny, and why I believe she will ultimately lose. (You can read her entire lawsuit here.)
Today Gov DeSantis used the executive branch to punish me for endorsing Donald J Trump for President. He has weopanized the Department of State just like Biden weopanized the DOJ against @realDonaldTrump The law is on my side and we will fight for the people of Brevard
The Secretary of State Lacks the Authority to “Disqualify” Her
Mayfield claims that Florida’s election laws limit the Secretary of State’s role to a purely ministerial function—meaning he can only review whether the correct paperwork has been submitted but has no discretion to determine eligibility.
She Is Not Seeking “Re-Election” and Is Therefore Not Barred by Term Limits
Mayfield argues that since she was out of office for a few months and another senator briefly occupied her former seat, she is participating in a “new election,” not running for “re-election.”
She Cites Political Advertising Statutes to Define “Re-Election”
Mayfield attempts to justify her candidacy by referencing Florida’s election laws on political advertisements, which regulate when a candidate can use the term “re-elect” in campaign materials.
She Compares Her Case to James Grant’s Situation
Mayfield claims her situation is similar to that of former State Representative James Grant, whose election was vacated, allowing him to run again without violating term limits.
Why Mayfield’s Arguments Are Wrong and Will Fail
- Advertisement -
1. The Secretary of State Had a Duty to Prevent an Ineligible Candidate from Qualifying
Mayfield’s claim that the Secretary of State lacks the authority to determine candidate eligibility is misleading. She asserts that his role is purely ministerial, meaning he cannot reject a candidate unless a court orders it. However, this contradicts Florida Supreme Court precedent. Frankly, every election official, including Brevard County’s Supervisor of Elections Tim Bobanic, routinely reject candidates for office every single election for various reasons.
- Advertisement -
An easy example to understand is if a candidate fails to pay the qualifying fee by submitting the proper check. It is 100% within the authority and is the duty of the qualifying officer to not qualify that candidate for failing to meet the requirements. They do not require a court order to do so. As most of you know, I filed a lawsuit against Brevard County’s Supervisor of Elections for failing to do just that. Even though the lawsuit was dismissed because the court ruled I lacked the standing to bring it since I wasn’t a candidate, the merits of the lawsuit were sound.
In Plante v. Smathers, 372 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1979), the court held that election officials must enforce constitutional restrictions on candidates and refuse to certify individuals who fail to meet eligibility requirements. The Secretary of State swore an oath to uphold the Florida Constitution, and that duty includes preventing clearly ineligible candidates from appearing on the ballot.
Moreover, there is a critical distinction between being “disqualified” (the word Mayfield repeatedly uses in her lawsuit) and failing to qualify:
“Disqualification” applies when a candidate initially qualifies but is later removed due to a legal issue (such as a criminal conviction or ethics violation).
“Did not qualify” means the candidate never met the requirements in the first place.
Think of it like Usain Bolt in the Olympics. To compete in the Olympics, an athlete must first qualify by meeting the required standards in the Olympic Trials. If a runner fails to meet those minimum requirements, they were never eligible to compete in the Olympics in the first place—they simply “DID NOT QUALIFY.” However, if a runner does qualify and then commits a false start at the beginning of the 100-meter dash, they are “DISQUALIFIED” from the race.
This distinction is crucial. Mayfield was never eligible to appear on the ballot due to constitutional term limits, meaning she did not qualify—she was not “disqualified.” Her claim that the Secretary of State lacks the authority to “disqualify” her is a misleading and incorrect characterization of what actually happened.
Screenshot from the Division of Elections website; notice the word “disqualified” is not present
Mayfield never legally qualified because Florida’s Constitution explicitly bars her from running. The Secretary of State did not “disqualify” her—he enforced the law by recognizing that she was never eligible in the first place.
As a Constitutional Officer, the Secretary of State has a sworn duty to uphold and enforce the Florida Constitution. If he were to knowingly qualify a candidate who is clearly ineligible—such as a convicted felon who has not had their rights restored—he would be violating both the Constitution and his own oath of office. His role is not merely ministerial; it includes ensuring that candidates meet constitutional requirements before appearing on the ballot. Similarly, Mayfield herself swore the same oath of office, however she seems to be more cavalier about honoring it.
2. The Term “Re-Election” Applies to Mayfield, and She Is Violating Term Limits
Florida’s constitutional term limits are crystal clear:
“No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to [certain offices] if, by the end of the current term, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years.” (Fla. Const. Art. VI, § 4(b))
It is not disputed that Mayfield served eight consecutive years in the Florida Senate (2016-2024), meaning she cannot appear on the ballot for re-election to the same seat.
Her claim that this is not a re-election because she briefly sat out is legally absurd. The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that term limits apply to the office itself—not just the person holding it (Ray v. Mortham, 742 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1999)).
If her argument were accepted, any term-limited politician could game the system by stepping away for a few days, having an ally temporarily occupy the seat, and then running again when the ally suddenly resigned form it. This would completely gut the voter-approved term limits that were established in 1992. In her lawsuit, Mayfield references having run for and won another office, but that point is entirely irrelevant. Consider this: If she had never run for another office and had simply retired, and then the person who won her former seat resigned immediately after taking office—just as Randy Fine did when he stepped down to run for Congress—would anyone seriously believe she could legally step in and reclaim the seat without violating term limits? That would amount to serving three consecutive terms in the same office, making a mockery of the constitutional restriction voters overwhelmingly approved.
3. Political Advertising Rules Do Not Define “Re-Election” in the Constitution
One of Mayfield’s weakest arguments is her attempt to redefine “re-election” based on Florida’s political advertising statutes.
Florida Statute §106.143(6), Fla. Stat., states that candidates cannot use the word “re-elect” in campaign ads unless they have previously been elected to that office.
This statute has absolutely no bearing on candidate eligibility or constitutional term limits. It is merely a truth-in-advertising provision designed to prevent candidates from misleading voters into believing they previously held an office when they did not. Furthermore, the statute regulates the use of the term ‘re-elect,’ while the constitutional term limits provision explicitly refers to ‘re-election’—two distinct words with entirely different meanings. Mayfield’s attempt to conflate the two is a misinterpretation of both the law and the Constitution.
In fact, an official Florida Division of Elections opinion from April 4, 2001 (DE 01-02) explicitly states that a person who was appointed to an office can legally advertise themselves as “re-elect”—even though they were never elected in the first place.
This proves that political advertising rules do not define “re-election” in a constitutional sense. The Florida Constitution must be interpreted using the plain and ordinary meaning of its words, not a marketing regulation.
The term ‘re-election’ is not explicitly defined in Florida Statutes. When a statutory or constitutional term lacks a definition, courts apply the ordinary meaning, typically derived from dictionary definitions. Standard dictionary definitions define ‘re-election’ as seeking election to an office previously held. Mayfield is attempting to be elected to the same Senate seat she just termed out of (held) a few months ago. Regardless of how she tries to reframe it, her candidacy clearly constitutes ‘re-election’ under any reasonable interpretation of the term.
4. The James Grant Case Does Not Apply
Mayfield’s comparison to James Grant’s case is another false equivalency.
Grant’s election was vacated due to a court ruling, meaning his time in office was legally nullified.
He never served eight consecutive years before running again, so term limits did not apply.
Mayfield’s situation is entirely different—she did serve eight consecutive years and is trying to return for the very next term of that office, violating the clear text of the Florida Constitution.
Mayfield Will Lose Her Lawsuit
Mayfield’s legal arguments are flimsy at best and deceptive at worst. She is attempting to twist statutory advertising rules into a loophole that would effectively erase term limits, allowing career politicians to manipulate the system and stay in power indefinitely. Ironically one of her arguments is just that—career politicians have been jumping back and forth between the two legislative bodies after terming out over and over again. The “no one’s ever been caught before” is certainly not a compelling defense.
The Florida Constitution’s language is clear, unambiguous, and voter-approved. Term limits apply to the office, not just the person holding it. Mayfield failed to qualify because she was never eligible in the first place.
The Florida Supreme Court has consistently upheld strict enforcement of term limits, and her lawsuit will inevitably fail. The Supreme Court has ordered the Secretary of State to file their response to Mayfield’s lawsuit no-later-than this coming Monday. I have a strong suspicion that his arguments will look very similar to the ones I just made.
The bottom line? Mayfield’s political career has reached its constitutional limit—just as Florida voters intended.
