Fair, 70°
Weather sponsored by:

Judge rules in judge’s favor

Hoover appeals removal from ballot

Wesley LeBlanc
Posted 6/27/18

GREEN COVE SPRINGS – A candidate for Clay County Court Judge is appealing a lower court judge’s ruling that would prevent her from running against Clay County Judge Kristina Mobley, in what will …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Don't have an ID?


Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.

Non-subscribers

Click here to see your options for subscribing.

Single day pass

You also have the option of purchasing 24 hours of access, for $1.00. Click here to purchase a single day pass.

Judge rules in judge’s favor

Hoover appeals removal from ballot


Posted

GREEN COVE SPRINGS – A candidate for Clay County Court Judge is appealing a lower court judge’s ruling that would prevent her from running against Clay County Judge Kristina Mobley, in what will be Mobley’s first time having an opponent after being appointed by Gov. Rick Scott on July 23, 2015.

Mobley’s opponent, Lucy Ann Hoover of Middleburg, filed an appeal against Seventh Judicial Circuit Judge Howard Maltz’s June 21 ruling that said she was not eligible to run against Mobley. Maltz handed down the ruling after hearing arguments in the case on June 19 in a Clay County courtroom. Mobley’s original complaint also challenged Supervisor of Elections Chris Chambless’ decision to allow Hoover on the ballot.

“We are on solid ground with the discretionary authority vested in a constitutional office, like that of Chambless as detailed by the Florida Division of Elections 2016 Supervisor’s Handbook and the 1974 Bayne v. Gibson case, which has stood for over 40 years,” Hoover said. “And furthermore, I truly believe that this is the right thing to do. I have to go with that belief and I have to have faith that this is the right thing to do, mainly for the people of Clay County.”

Judge Maltz ruled that Hoover simply did not file her documents on time, therefore, she missed the official deadline to qualify and should not be on the ballot.

“Fla. Stat. 105.031(5)(a) makes clear that in order for Hoover to have qualified for the judicial race at issue, in addition to being present at the Clay SOE office before the noon deadline, she had to submit all her qualifying paperwork by the deadline. The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Hoover failed to meet the statutory requirements to qualify because her Form 6 Financial Disclosure was not received by Ms. Hogan, the Clay SOE filing officer, before the noon May 4, 2018 deadline,” states the ruling. “There were no exceptional or special circumstance that prohibited Hoover from meeting the deadline – only the fact that she waited until the last minute to begin the process.”

Unlike Hoover, Chambless said the judge’s ruling was not ambiguous and he will move on and prepare the ballot for the August Primary until he gets orders to do otherwise as a result of Hoover’s appeal.

“The judge’s orders were clear so, at this time, we are going to comply with the order,” Chambless said. “Qualifying ended last Friday at noon, and the ballot is currently being coded as we speak, so we will continue with the judge’s orders until there is something that changes.”

Not only does Hoover feel this case is important for the people of Clay County, but she believes it will matter to all of Florida as well.

“I truly believe that we have a very good legal argument on this matter and its really best that this case goes to the district court of appeal because this is the kind of issue that is going to affect statewide policy,” Hoover said. “It’s going to have much broader implications than Clay County – it could affect the entire state.”

As far as the appeal goes, Hoover and her team plan to continue forward with the same arguments presented during the June 19 court session. Despite choosing not to appeal, Chambless still believes his original decision to allow Hoover to qualify weren’t necessarily wrong.

“I guess, first and foremost, I did not expect the verdict that would side with the plaintiff for the mere reason that everything we do is to ensure that the process is open and transparent,” Chambless said. “I never contemplated that the law was to require me to look at the timing of the candidate completing the document in such an uber-critical way, Hoover’s documents being 12 minutes late.”

On May 29, Mobley filed the complaint against Hoover and Chambless, stating that she believed Hoover’s name should not be on the ballot because Hoover failed to properly, accurately and punctually qualify on time.

Mobley’s office referred comments to her lawyers, Paul Renner and Michael Fackler. Renner was unavailable for comment as he was out of the country and, at press time, Fackler, has not returned calls for this story.