The Fine Print

How much power does Gov. Rick Scott really have?

(UPDATE: Florida's voter registration deadline was extended to Oct 18.)

In a federal courtroom on Wednesday, a judge will hear arguments on whether or not the state's voter registration deadline should be extended beyond 5 p.m. due to Hurricane Matthew.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker has already pushed back the Oct. 11 deadline by a day in order to hold the hearing after the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit on Sunday evening. In his ruling granting the one-day extension, Walker said that the deadline amounts to a "severe burden on the right to vote" and he suggested it was unconstitutional.

The party filed the lawsuit after Gov. Rick Scott turned down requests including an informal suggestion from the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton  to extend the deadline. Scott, who is supporting GOP nominee Donald Trump, said the reason he was doing it was that people had already had enough time to register.

It's not clear how hard the governor's office plans to fight to keep the deadline. A spokeswoman for Scott put out a statement on Tuesday that said that the state will accept the judge's decision _ and that the governor would even seek to change the law during the upcoming 2017 session.

But one question that is floating out there - and one that may not be totally resolved after the court hearing - is just how much power does Florida's governor have during emergencies?

Walker in his ruling suggested - but not definitely - that Scott lacked the authority to extend the voting deadline.

In his order Walker wrote that while Secretary of State Ken Detzner was an appropriate person for Democrats to sue since he was the chief election official, he didn't think that applied to the governor. He noted that while Scott has "general emergency powers" those powers may not include any power to alter the voting registration deadline. Those powers generally allow the governor to suspend laws if there is a declared emergency.

Walker pointed out, however, that there is a carve out in existing Florida law that allows the governor to delay or suspend an election due to an emergency. The judge then notes that section of law says nothing about changing the voter registration deadline.

That led Walker to conclude it is "wholly irrational in this instance for Florida to refuse the extend the voter registration deadline when the state already allows the governor to suspend or move the election date."

This was an interesting point brought up by Walker since the lawsuit did not even delve into Scott's emergency power. Instead the lawsuit filed by the party suggested that Scott's decision to keep the deadline amid the disruption, power outages and evacuations that occurred due to Matthew amounted to a violation of federal law and disenfranchisement of voters. Scott himself did not cite a lack of authority as a reason for his decision.

Now the elections emergency law cited by Walker has been used before.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush used it to alter the election in 10 counties following Hurricane Charley in 2004. This move allowed county officials to delay the start of early voting.

It's important to note here that Bush's order came on Aug. 19 - or less than 2 weeks before that year's primary - so it's not completely comparable. But another part of his order gave the secretary of state's office the power to "modify, suspend, amend" any deadlines in the entire election code that could not be complied with due to the emergency caused by the hurricane.

But the truth is that several Florida governors have used their emergency powers in broad ways _ and in most instances they have never been challenged.

And while I'm sure it could be argued that the actions of past governors do not create any legal precedence, this shows that Scott could have had a justification to take action if he wanted.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, for example, used his emergency powers in 2008 to extend early voting hours (a move that privately infuriated some Republicans, but who opted against suing him). Crist even in the final days of his governorship ordered that the state begin to offer extended jobless benefits to Floridians that had been approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Scott himself back in February 2015 _ without the justification of an emergency _ issued an executive order to suspend an 11th grade standardized test that was about to be given to high school juniors that spring. Scott contended that he could do under his "supreme executive power" but then noted that the Legislature would have a chance to repeal the law that authorized the test later that year.

Were these moves legal? That's hard to tell since the actions were never challenged in court.

But what it shows is that there have been instances in the past where Florida's most recent governors have taken action. And not once did they suggest that they lacked the authority to do so.

J.D.'s revenge or Jeb Bush's fault? The insurance staredown explained

Florida may have a new insurance commissioner on Friday, then again it might not.

But Gov. Rick Scott and members of the Florida Cabinet will hold their third meeting in the last few weeks in a yet-another effort to reach a consensus on who should replace the outgoing Kevin McCarty (pictured left with Scott). As has been well-reported, Scott and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater have been unable to reach agreement on who should replace McCarty. That's created a stalemate because Florida law requires both officials to agree on a replacement.

There are so many ways to view this ongoing drama, which has played out in public largely because of the rushed secretive way that Scott pushed out Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey at the end of 2014. In the end the governor and Cabinet were sued over the entire affair which resulted in new policies that were designed to end behind closed doors decisions regarding the hiring and firing of agency officials who report to the Cabinet.

Atwater has painted the standoff as a byproduct of a process that he says was created to make sure that top officials were deliberative in such an important hire.

Ok.

But perhaps it would be good to take a brief history lesson in how we got here, and why in reality, the process now being used has never really been tested before. And along the way, maybe ask the architect of all this what he thinks about his handiwork (he actually kind of blames Jeb Bush.)

It would be tempting to trace all of this back to the Civil War (yes, really) but let's just say that it became recognized that in the '90s that Florida's governor was considered one of the weaker chief executives in the country.That's because the governor shared power with other elected officials - and in some instances had little control over important areas such as education.

Voters in 1998 were asked to approve a sweeping overhaul of Florida government. This proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission  did a number of things that has generated a lot of debate since then. The education commissioner was changed from an elected to an appointed position. A new State Board of Education (appointed by the governor) became responsible for hiring the commissioner. The governor and Cabinet, which used to be the state education board, no longer had that responsibility. The Secretary of State went from an elected position to an appointed position. And the elected positions of Treasurer and Comptroller would be merged into one new one: the chief financial officer.

As the commission was crafting this proposal, the plan was to also remove the agriculture commissioner from the Cabinet but an uproar from agricultural interests nixed this idea. That eventually created flareups because that leaves four voting members when the governor and Cabinet meet - and leading to discussions on how to weight certain votes so a decision can be made.

Flash forward to 2002: State legislators were under the gun to come up with new laws to put all of these above reforms into action (The amendment did not go into effect immediately). The changes in education, particularly in higher education, sparked an enormous firestorm.

When it came to creating the chief financial officer position, a key argument began to quickly emerge: Should the CFO have complete sway over the regulation of both the insurance and banking sectors - and invariably the large amount of campaign donations that would come from those seeking influence over such important parts of the state economy? In the past, the two jobs were split between the comptroller and treasurer. The treasurer was in essence the insurance commissioner. This led to a public tug-of-war between Comptroller Bob Milligan and Tom Gallagher, who was treasurer and planned to run for CFO.

It was state legislators, including a powerful Republican from Polk County, Rep. J.D. Alexander that came up with the compromise: The jobs of insurance commissioner and banking commissioner would be picked by the governor and the new shrunken Cabinet. And furthermore, there was this addition: The job of insurance commissioner would require BOTH the governor and CFO to agree on who they wanted for the job. The law also states that both elected officials must also agree to fire someone from the position.

Since this was created in 2002 there's been only person to hold the job of appointed insurance commissioner: McCarty. And he's been an ultimate survivor - thanks in no part to the bifurcated law that Alexander helped draw up. CFO Alex Sink wanted to fire him, but then-Gov. Charlie Crist refused to go along. Then during the storm over Bailey's departure it came out that Scott wanted him gone. But Atwater at the time refused to concur and McCarty remained in place until he submitted his resignation earlier this year.

Alexander himself tried to change the law that allowed McCarty to remain in place, saying he was wrong in how they crafted it. He pushed a bill to require that the commissioner be subject to a confirmation vote every two years. It failed to pass.

Now here we are - in a situation that has really not happened since the law took effect.

McCarty was supposed to resign effective May 2 - but then he offered to stay on until 45 days after a successor is chosen - to ensure that Florida has someone in place during hurricane season that starts June 1. Scott's own general counsel, however, maintained that McCarty couldn't do this because the governor and Cabinet had accepted his resignation and could not alter that date without - t'dah - a vote where both the governor and CFO agree. Not so fast, maintained Atwater's team: All the governor and Cabinet did was set a schedule to appoint a replacement. They never "formally" accepted it.

So how does Alexander view all this and how his creation has fared? Well, you could say he waxed a bit poetic about it all, but it sounds as if he is calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam to assert themselves more. (So far Bondi and Putnam have called on Atwater and Scott work out their differences.)

"The genius of the American system of government isn't just democracy but of divided government,'' he said in a message. "Consequently, I wanted the CFO to have the lead over mgt of financial services and insurance. We were forced by the governor of the day to give more authority to his office. An unfortunate outcome of a four member Cabinet. At this point, hopefully the other Cabinet officers will weigh with a choice and consensus will prevail."

Alexander explained that "the governor in my opinion has plenty of power, the constitution seems to give principle authority to the CFO in these matters." He added that the decision all those years ago to keep the agriculture commissioner on the Cabinet "complicated" matters and required them that the governor be given a supervote on certain decision.

"The answer is to lose or gain one Cabinet member," he added. "In the order to pass a bill the governor required a larger role. It was part of the compromise, which we knew had this potential. My guess is the pressure will build and this will be resolved."

Guess we will know if that's true by mid-day Friday.

Bondi's fantasy dilemma

It's only been a few short months since the start of football season - which is what helped bring the ever-expanding world of daily fantasy sports into the spotlight.

Now with the Super Bowl right around the corner - and a new legislative session about to commence - one key question remains:

What, if anything, does Attorney General Pam Bondi plan to do about the murky legality surrounding fantasy sports in Florida.

Let's scroll back.

It was back during the summer that the big players in daily fantasy - FanDuel and DraftKings _ started hiring lobbyists in Tallahassee as the same time they were starting a huge national ad campaign. Their moves came as a legal theory began to emerge that fantasy sports - the idea of selecting players in various sports and winning money based on their performance - was not allowed under Florida law.

This theory - which has been explored by South Florida attorney Daniel Wallach and further expanded in a paper penned by Wallach and Tallahassee attorney/lobbyist Marc Dunbar - says a key impediment is a 1991 opinion authored by then-Attorney General Bob Butterworth that concluded spending $100 on a season-long fantasy football team was illegal gambling.

It was shortly afterwards - some of it sparked by national reports of a DFS employee participating in a contest on a rival's website - that a backlash began to mount for the two big companies in other parts of the country. Nevada ruled that fantasy websites needed to shut down or be licensed, while the attorney general in New York said they were illegal gambling and is trying to shutter them.

Move to Florida and there are apparent signs of some prosecutors getting involved, namely that U.S. Attorney Lee Bentley in Tampa has reportedly launched his own investigation according to Wallach and others. There are also civil lawsuits being filed. And there was a key development in that arena when Law360 reported earlier this week that State Attorney Bernie McCabe has taken an interest in the issue.

McCabe, whose jurisdiction includes Pasco and Pinellas counties, filed a memo supporting an effort to remand the case against FanDuel and DraftKings back into state court because he asserted that the state was in fact the "real party of interest" in this case.

But it's hard to pin Bondi or her office down on how the state's top legal officer (and whose office houses the statewide prosecutor) views the evolving situation even as other law-enforcement officials take action.

Bondi has said she still supports the 1991 Butterworth opinion and has made no moves to rescind it or repeal it. But beyond that Bondi and her office continue to defer questions.

"Our office engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and we both agreed the matter should be handled federally,'' said Bondi spokesman Whitney Ray late last year "Also, our office is in regular contact with U.S. Attorney Lee Bentley, and we have full confidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office will handle the matter appropriately."

Additionally, so far Bondi has remained fairly quiet about whether she supports efforts by the fantasy effort to put in laws that would regulate the industry. Sen. Joe Negron and Rep. Matt Gaetz have sponsored bills to do so for the upcoming session that kicks off next Tuesday and FanDuel is increasing its workforce in anticipation of the new law being put in place reported the Orlando Sentinel.

(It's worth pointing out that even though the Negron and Gaetz bills directly affect his agency, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam has also not been exactly clear whether he's a fan or not of either version.)

The big giants in the fantasy sports industry are being primarily represented in Florida by mega-lobbyist Brian Ballard and his firm. Ballard is of course a big-time fundraiser who is now supporting Marco Rubio for president and also lobbies on behalf of Donald Trump.

But late last August one of the other lobbyists who signed up to represent the fantasy companies was well-known GOP consultant Marc Reichelderfer. He is friends with Bondi and has done campaign work on her behalf.

When asked about it directly last fall, Bondi said she was unaware that Reichelderfer had begun representing the fantasy sports industry.

Some of Bondi's interactions with lawyers, lobbyists and how her office has handled such cases has drawn scrutiny, most notably in articles that appeared in the New York Times. So it can be argued that it's important for voters and citizens to know what her office is - or isn't doing on this.

Bondi during her five-year stint in office been very selective about what issues she will - or won't - engage in.

She once took a stance against casino gambling, but yet other times she has refused to take a position on bills even if they directly impact her agency operations. Bondi is also as of now remaining fairly quiet about what she thinks about the $3 billion compact negotiated between Gov. Rick Scott and the tribe (and which could allow a new casino in South Florida.)

With another session dawning, it will be interesting to watch whether or not the state's top legal officer weighs in on the various legal issues that surrounding gambling or gaming. Or if she will remain in a neutral (and silent) corner.

(This post has been updated to note that FanDuel is expanding its workforce in Florida.)

Lawsuits, politics, and the House-Senate cold war: Why the real fight over redistricting may be yet to come

There's no doubt when the Florida Legislature kicks off its second special session of the year on Monday that lawmakers have the potential to bring a tsunami of changes to the state's political landscape.

Legislative staff and lawyers drew up a "base map" that has already riled some because of the way it divides Sarasota and Leon counties. U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown responded by going to federal court and asking a judge to block the state from changing her district from one that stretches from Jacksonville to Orlando to one that runs across the northern end of the state to west of Gadsden County. Brown asserts that changes would adversely impact minority voting rights and run afoul of federal law.

If adopted the plan could alter and end the Congressional careers of U.S. Reps. Gwen Graham and Dan Webster while resurrecting Charlie Crist yet again.

But there are a lot of signs that any efforts to make serious changes to this map may be quickly rebuffed by the GOP leaders in charge of the Legislature.

Take for example the rules rolled out for the session.

No lawmaker can propose just altering part of the map - they must introduce a entire new plan.

Additionally, in an effort to deal with any potential charges of partisan influence Senate President Andy Gardiner and House Speaker Steve Crisafulli will require that anyone who offers an amendment to be prepared to identify anyone who had a hand in it as well as "be able to provide a non-partisan and incumbent-neutral justification for the proposed configuration of each district, to explain in detail the results of any functional analysis performed to ensure that the ability of minorities to elect the candidates of their choice is not diminished, and to explain how the proposal satisfies all of the constitutional and statutory criteria applicable to a Congressional redistricting plan."

In other words not an easy task.

"We don’t have the know-how in terms of creating maps, we’re not map experts," said House Democratic Leader Mark Pafford. "And I don’t know if anybody really knows where to begin."

Sen. Jeff Clemons added that he expects most senators to move with caution because of the proscriptive nature of the July ruling from the Florida Supreme Court. It was that ruling, which not only threw out the current congressional map, but included specific suggestions such as reconfiguring Brown's district from a North-South configuration to one that runs East to West.

Sen. Bill Galvano, the top Republican guiding the redistricting efforts in the Senate, contends that the rules were not intended to dissuade anyone from offering up changes.

"We want to make sure we have a full record and that the reasons for amendments or proposals within the map are clear, delineated and on the record,'' Galvano said.

He also said it would be wrong to assume that the "base map" won't be fully discussed and vetted. Galvano added that he expects legislators to need all 12-days that have been set aside for the session.

But the political reality is that many legislators don't have a vested interest in what happens to these congressional districts.

Yes, it's true that the new map could lead to a shrinking of the GOP advantage in the Florida delegation.

But the real showdown in the Legislature isn't during this upcoming session - it's the special session planned for late October

That session _ when lawmakers will be forced to redraw the Senate districts _ will much more wide open. To begin with: While the state Supreme Court gives great insight to how the high court thinks about some of the logic used by the Legislature for congressional districts there's still wiggle room left for the state Senate seats.

"These congressional maps are going to be a good opportunity to learn what's important in relation to drawing the Senate maps,'' Clemons said.

And as had been reported elsewhere putting all 40 seats in play during a presidential year could tip the balance of what happens in the unresolved battle between Sen. Jack Latvala and Sen. Joe Negron for the 2017-18 Senate presidency.

That could prompt the Florida House to use its leverage especially since there are rumblings that there is still a divide between the leaders of the two chambers.

It wasn't by accident that the settlement over the lawsuit against the Senate included wording that absolved the House of any wrongdoing and placed all blame on the Senate GOP leaders. There's probably no way that the House leaders would have accepted the settlement without that crucial acknowledgement.

Of course the "Fair Districts" amendment prevents drawing lines to aid incumbents or people of a particular political party. But that won't stop all 160 legislators from being able to look at the maps themselves and reach their own private conclusions about what the political fallout will mean if certain configurations are adopted.

But this ongoing federal litigation may also come into play prior to that special session.

The lawsuit filed in Pensacola aims to wipe out the amendment as it has been interpreted by the state Supreme Court because it violates free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  It won't impact this special session, but if a judge issues an injunction by October that blocks state officials from relying on the Fair Districts amendment, it could really shake up that special session. (Worth noting: The lawyer who is working on this case used to be the general counsel for the Florida House.)

Justin Levitt, a Loyola University professor who tracks redistricting cases, says federal judges are usually "skeptical" about free speech claims but he also said he expects the lawsuit to be taken seriously.

And what about Brown's legal argument?

He's not sure how that will proceed. First all, he notes that Brown is asking the court to block a new congressional district that has yet to be adopted. But he adds that while the federal Voting Rights Act does aim to protect the rights of local populations to choose a representative of their choosing there can still be multiple ways to meet the goal. Right now the "base map" keeps Brown's district with a black voting age population of 45 percent - down slightly from the existing 48 percent in the district.

"The Voting Rights Act does not force Florida to choose one over the other,'' Levitt said.

So where does that mean? It means that the next 12 days are just the pre-season to the real contest - and political infighting - that may lay ahead in the fall.

For once Rick Scott follows the Charlie Crist playbook

One of the many things that Republicans, including those in Florida, have complained about President Barack Obama is his use of executive power, most recently of course seen in his executive order dealing with immigration.

Florida is one of the more than two dozen states that late last year joined the lawsuit filed by Texas challenging the president's actions.

At the time Attorney General Pam Bondi contended that her decision to join the other states was not about immigration but to undo what she termed "unwarranted presidential overreach."

"This lawsuit is about President Obama-yet again-overstepping the power granted to him by our United States Constitution," Bondi said.

She then added: "The powers granted to the President are expressly laid out in the United States Constitution, yet President Obama has decided to ignore those parameters."

In Tallahassee this week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott exerted his own kind of executive authority, and one that could theoretically also be challenged as "overreach."

Scott issued an executive order on Tuesday that authorized Education Commissioner Pam Stewart to suspend an 11th grade standardized test that was about to be given to high school juniors this spring.

Scott took the action in response to a testing investigation undertaken by Stewart at his urging last year while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart in her summary of that investigation suggested getting rid of the test even though it was just approved last year and was included in a bill (HB 7031) that repealed mention of Common Core in state law.

The wording of Scott's order was interesting.

First off, Scott asserts that his authority to give Stewart the power to suspend the test is vested in the state constitution. The language he cites is from the first part of Article IV, which states that the governor "has supreme executive power."

Nowhere does Scott contend that there is an emergency that requires him to act now regarding the test.

But the governor kind of acknowledges that he is telling Stewart not to follow the law, saying he is taking action now because the "Legislature will have opportunity to consider repeal of the statutory requirement" that now mandates the test. (It's not clear whether or not lawmakers will in fact do that.)

Florida's governor does not enjoy the same scope of executive power as the president although the governor is arguably more powerful now than two decades ago. Changes in the constitution and state law - especially during the Jeb Bush years - has strengthened the governor's hand.

But usually the only time the governor can suspend or waive the law is when there is an emergency such as a hurricane. Most of the time the governor's executive orders deal with matters as appointing a prosecutor from another judicial circuit to handle a case because another prosecutor has a conflict.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, however, building on Bush's use of executive orders issued executive orders that privately some Republicans grumbled were not legal, most notably his decision to extend early voting hours during the 2008 election (and which Crist said was justified by an emergency).

One top Republican at the time said it would have created a public relations disaster to sue Crist over the order, not to mention it wasn't clear if a court would act quickly enough to block the order from taking effect.

This wasn't the only time, however, Crist would use an executive order in a legally questionable way.

In his final months in office he issued an executive order that extended jobless benefits approved by Congress even though the Legislature had not authorized it. Crist took the action even though past extensions had been passed by state legislators and it was assumed that the benefits would lapse absent legislative action.

Just as it had happened with the voting executive order, no one challenged Crist's authority that time either.

And that's probably what will happen with Scott as well. It's hard to imagine anyone who would go to court to force 11th graders to take a test.

But this could signal a decision by Scott to be more assertive in his use of executive authority despite signs that he may have a tough time getting fellow Republicans in the Legislature to follow his lead during a second term.

And perhaps when Scott greets Obama on the tarmac in Miami today they could regale each other about the use of executive orders.

Pam Bondi, the reporter and the money

Some more inside the Tallahassee bubble news...

Remember the lawsuit that disgraced former House Speaker Ray Sansom filed against the state to recover more than $800,000 in legal fees?

Sansom, if you recall, was charged with manipulating the state budget process in order to obtain $6 million in state money to pay for a hangar at the Destin airport that was really intended to be used by a businessman and major Republican donor.

His trial in 2011 ended when State Attorney Willie Meggs dropped the charges after a judge refused to let a key witness testify.

Sansom filed a civil lawsuit asking for payment of his legal fees. He asserts that his legal fees should be paid by taxpayers because it was connected to his legal duties.

The state, however, has fought this request, saying that despite the charges being dropped that Sansom's action were still "tainted" because he was seeking to do something on behalf of private interests not the public.

Well the trial is coming up soon and the office of Attorney General Pam Bondi has subpoenaed Tampa Tribune reporter James Rosica to testify in the case.

Rosica covered the trial for The Associated Press at the time.

Why is Bondi's office seeking to compel a reporter to appear at the trial? That's not really clear.

A spokesman for the attorney general refused to comment citing the pending litigation.

The subpoena given to Rosica last Friday does instruct him to bring a copy of the March 25, 2011 article he did on the criminal case. That story does note that both Sansom and businessman Jay Odom had agreed to pay restitution to Northwest Florida State College for costs related to the hangar.

During a court hearing in 2013 it was pointed out that Odom wound up paying Sansom's share of the restitution. Sansom's lawyer argued that Sansom never really consented to the payment and that it should not have been viewed as an admission of guilt.

Speaking of the Sansom civil trial....

One interesting tidbit from the legal battle. According to one court filing, Sansom in a deposition has defended his actions as House budget chairman by comparing himself to....John Thrasher.

Sansom noted that while he was speaker Thrasher helped obtain funding for a Florida State University medical school.

For their part attorneys for Bondi's office don't agree with the comparison.

"The difference in the two situations is stark,'' states the filing from last fall. "Mr. Thrasher put an appropriation in for a medical school building, and a medical school building was built. Mr. Sansom placed into the appropriations bill an appropriation for the 'Okaloose Jt Use Emergency Response Workforce Center" for building a hanger at the Destin airport for his campaign contributor, Jay Odom. A finding that this act was within the public interest essentially condones political corruption."

Odom by the way also appears to be a key person for the upcoming trial.

He has been fighting attempts to get him to answer questions related to the entire Sansom incident and the payment he made to the college. The state has also wanted to delve into his friendship with Sansom as well as ask him questions about his businesses.

Filings show that Odom, who was sentenced in 2013 to six months in jail and ordered to pay fines in connection with money he donated to the presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee, has been citing his Fifth Amendment privilege in order to rebuff these questions from the state. His attorneys say the threat of continued prosecution _ including potential racketeering charges_remain real.

From one of the court filings:

"The scope of the federal investigation is broad.

The federal authorities have gone to extreme efforts to seize virtually all of Mr. Odom's business and personal records and interview, or compel testimony, from a vast number of his friends, family members, employees and associates. Search warrants have been served on him, his businesses and his properties. With those search warrants, the federal authorities seized over 18 boxes (and other containers) of documents, copied the hard drives of eleven computers, and seized financial records relating to virtually every receipt and expenditure by Mr. Odom, or his companies."

The court filing adds that federal investigators have not only focused on the appropriation but the relationship between Odom and Sansom as well as "campaign contributions made by Mr. Odom's businesses to political candidates and causes."

In November, Judge Angela Dempsey ruled that Odom does have a right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, but she did say he needed to order two questions related to his decision to pay the restitution on behalf of Sansom.

Unlikely allies: Democrats and Scott administration defend write-in loophole

Every election year in Florida usually brings its share of litigation (although presidential election years usually have a longer list of lawsuits.)

There's a curious lawsuit now pending in a Leon County circuit court that has prompted a strategic alliance between two normal foes: the Florida Democratic Party and the administration of Gov. Rick Scott.

The lawsuit centers around a write-in candidate, Ronald Bray, who qualified in what is expected to be a contentious state House race between Broward County Commissioner Kristin Jacobs and former Rep. Steve Perman.

The entry of Bray into the race effectively closed the Aug. 26 primary, which for all purposes will determine the outcome of the election since a write-in has never won in Florida.

Florida voters in 1998 approved an amendment that was supposed to open up primary races to all voters regardless of party affiliation if candidates of other parties do not qualify. But a controversial Division of Elections opinion penned by the administration of then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris back in 2000 said that when a write-in candidate qualifies for the general election the primary must remain closed. That means many races in Florida, like this one, are routinely closed by the sudden appearance at the end of qualifying of write-in candidates. Here's a good story about it how it affected the 2012 elections.

Robert Adams, who describes himself as an independent voter in Broward County, filed a lawsuit to remove Bray on the grounds that Bray does not live in House District 96. His lawsuit cites a current state law that requires write-in candidates to live in their district at the time of qualifying.

Adams' lawyers were in court on Monday seeking a preliminary injunction so that Broward County officials would be forced to open up the primary. Judge George Reynolds apparently turned down the initial request, but has accelerated the process in order to render a quick decision. The two sides must file all their legal briefs on the case by this Thursday.

But Reynolds also allowed the Florida Democratic Party to intervene in the case.

And the Democrats are already making an interesting argument: That the law requiring write-in candidates to live in their districts is unconstitutional. The Democrats request to intervene contends this requirement is at odds with the state constitution, which has generally been interpreted to mean that legislators don't have to live in their districts until Election Day. (This argument is also being made by lawyers representing the write-in candidate.)

Also included in the motion is this: "The State Executive Committee of the Florida Democratic Party takes no position regarding the candidacy of the two Democratic candidates who have qualified for nomination and election to the office of State Representatives, District 96 (sic). Its interest in this litigation is in assuring that the provisions of the State Constitution establishing qualifications for candidates for the State House of Representatives are not eroded by adding additional qualifications, not otherwise specified in the State Constitution."

In essence, the Democratic Party wants to keep the primary closed to independents and Republicans. (One could wonder if this hurts or helps a particular candidate in the race.)

And who else wants to keep the primary closed for now? Secretary of State Ken Detzner, who works for Scott.

Attorneys for the Scott administration and state election officials contend in their legal briefs that opening up the primary now would create an "unnecessary burden" on election officials and could potentially disrupt the upcoming election. The legal brief notes, for example, that overseas ballots must be sent out by July 12.

"At this stage in the elections process, the relief requested by Plaintiff has the potential to jeopardize the accuracy and reliability of the election,'' states the department's filing. "Plaintiff’s proposal is to reverse the Supervisor’s current course and, in a matter of days before the Saturday, July 12 mailing deadline, restyle the ballots and reset the mailing to all registered electors."

The state's legal brief also throws out what it calls a "far simpler remedy" if the court does decide to disqualify Bray - conduct the open primary at the Nov. 4 general election.

(As a sidelight - another interesting element of the state's brief is that it argues that state election officials are not able to determine the "truth and accuracy" of someone's residency at time of qualifying so therefore the state did "nothing in error.")

This is the not the only time the state and Democrats have joined sides - they also did during a legal challenge to President Barack Obama appearing on Florida's ballot. But it's still a rare occurrence.

And just as important for Democrats it means that they can't complain when write-in candidates suddenly appear to close off Republican primaries to Democratic voters.

Texting Adam Hollingsworth (a peek behind the curtain)

Adam Hollingsworth, the chief of staff for Gov. Rick Scott and one of the most important people in Scott's inner circle, doesn't really use email for official business.

A random check of his official emails show that Hollingsworth routinely uses his Outlook account to schedule meetings and perform some of the management functions - such as signing on performance reviews - of his staff.

But texting?

On the very least it looks like at one point of time that some official business was done through texts.

But recent emails and messages would suggest that the Executive Office of the Governor has adopted an official policy to discourage the use of text messages.

Consider this Jan. 10 text from Hollingsworth: "EOG staff does not conduct public businss via test messaging. You may contact me at 850-488-5603 or [email protected]."

An Feb. 10 an email from Dawn Hanson, director of administration for EOG, that was eventually forwarded to newly-installed budget director Cynthia Kelly states: "The COS has a no texting policy for the EOG. This practice has been in place for quite awhile and we are in the process of actually turning off the texting features on state phones."

When asked this past week, however, Frank Collins, a spokesman for Scott, said no such policy was in place.

Now all of this comes amid an ongoing public records lawsuit against Scott and other top state officials. The lawsuit filed by Tallahassee attorney Steven Andrews - a persistent critic of Scott - contends that that state officials are flouting the state's public records law. One example is that it took Andrews more than a year to get three months worth of text messages from a former top aide to Scott.

But Scott's Office of Open Government has turned over text messages made by Hollingsworth over the last several months that show that lobbyists and other elected officials would occasionally reach out to Scott's right-hand man via text message.

These texts touch on issues such as Scott's search for a lieutenant governor, appointments and legislative issues that have become debated during the 2014 session.

Rep. Frank Artiles, R-Miami, texted Hollingsworth on Nov. 29 of last year.

"Adam, would the governor support in state tuition for us citizens? It's great PR for Hispanic voters and the students are voters. The fix is simple language adding ''or the last two years in a Florida high school."

A second text states: "Nothing to so with illegal immigrants." Hollingsworth asks if he can call Artiles back about the issue.

(Since this time, Scott has come out in favor of a bill that in fact allows children who came to the United States illegally to receive in-state tuition. But Scott's support is because the Senate version includes his push to get rid of a state law that lets state universities charge tuition above the amount set annually by the Legislature.)

An Oct. 9 text message from Gaston Cantens, a former state legislator who now works for Florida Crystals, states: "Any word on the 3rd DCA apptment? I'm hearing this will be the third hispanic judge to retire from 3rd dca under scott and replaced by anglos." (On Oct. 18 Scott appointed Edwin Scales, a Key West attorney, radio host and former politician and a member of the Florida Bar of Governors to the court. He replaced Judge Angel Cortinas. It would appear that Scales was the second, not third, person appointed by Scott to replace a Hispanic. Scott appointed Cuban-born Ivan Fernandez in 2011 to the court.)

Sept. 18 text from Rep. Marti Coley: "Any news on a Liberty Co. Superintendent? The suspense about the Liberty County Superintendent is killing me."

Randy Miller with the Florida Retail Federation on Sept. 17 of last year wrote: "Enjoyed our tax relief suggestions meeting the other day. The only way to get tax relief directly to Joe Lunchbucket is through sales tax holidays. Expanding the Back to School Holiday from 3 days to 9 days would be a big hit with soccer moms and parents of all stripes. For those without school children, you could institute an Energy-Star Holiday which would have multiple benefits, savings on utility bills and environmental benefits...Great PR for Gov if he pushes this in his budget."

Newly-elected Rep. Mike Hill sent a message to Scott via text through Hollingsworth, telling him on Sept. 4 that "really liked' the governor's tax-cutting speech at Americans For Prosperity and that "it would be an honor for me to carry a tax/fee cutting bill for you."

On the issue of a search for LG there were several, including one from Hillsborough County Commissioner Sandra Murman, who on the short-list at one time.

Murman on Nov. 8: "Hi Adam. Thank you again for coming to Tampa to interview me. I am honored to be considred for the Governor' dynamic team."

A few weeks later hospital executive and former top Jeb Bush aide Alan Levine texted: "Sandy Murman called me Monday. Will call u tomorrow to download. Have you considered Susan Latvala? Squishy R from Pinellas. Happy Thanksgiving!!!"(Latvala, a Pinellas County Commissioner, wound up endorsing Democrat Alex Sink in the battle to replace the late U.S. Rep. Bill Young.)

On Jan. 14 the day that Scott announced the appointment of Carlos Lopez-Cantera as his LG Allan Bense texted Hollingsworth: "Brilliant move today." Bense, the former House speaker, is chairman of the Florida State University board and father-in-law of current speaker Will Weatherford.

An obscure budget panel may be on the verge of tremendous power

This week the 1st District Court of Appeal rendered a really, really important decision. And in some ways the practical effect of the ruling may be not be as important as the court's opinion on the scope and power of the Florida Legislature.

The court overturned a circuit court decision that blocked the privatization of prison health care services in three regions of the state.

If the decision stands it will allow the Department of Corrections to proceed with plans to go ahead with a roughly $230 million five-year contract that had been put on hold by the lawsuit filed by several groups including the union that represents state workers. This means that as many as 2,600 state workers will lose their jobs unless they win them back with the company that holds the contract.

Both the lower court decision and the district court decision turned on a lot of arcane matters. For example - does the law allow the department to contract with private vendors? Was the money that the department wanted to use in fact a "specific appropriation" as required?

Let's set aside that for right now.

The decision could have also long-standing ramifications going forward that impacts the power of the Florida Legislature - and those in leadership positions.

Why? Because the court opinion could open the door for the governor and top legislative leaders to make serious budget decisions without ever taking it to the vote of the full Legislature.

That's because one part of the lawsuit dealt directly with whether or not the Legislative Budget Commission had the power to approve the initial transfer of funds that allowed the department to begin the privatization effort. (Some of the history of the LBC _ which is a 14-member panel of lawmakers _ I delved into previously here.)

In short, the commission was created in order to make adjustments to the annual state budget when the Legislature is not in session. The commission can take up budget changes given to them by either the governor or the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

The union attorneys contended the LBC _ which is authorized under the constitution but whose duties are spelled out in law _ was never supposed to be able to make major kind of decisions that should be left up to the entire 160 members of the Legislature. It's no secret prison privatization has sharply divided the Legislature, especially in the Florida Senate where some Republicans have broken ranks and joined with Democrats in opposition. 

Judge John Cooper last December sided with the union.

Cooper in his ruling stated that the budget panel action did not meet a requirement that its vote to approve the privatization effort was "consistent with legislative policy and intent." Cooper's logic turned on the fact that the 2012-13 state budget had a provision that authorized the privatization of health care services for one region of the state. He said that meant that the LBC couldn't on its own expand that privatization effort beyond to the rest of the state.

"Whether to privatize some or all of this state's prison operations is a significant policy decision," Cooper wrote last December. "Under existing law the Legislature weighs in on this policy decision through its appropriations power."

This week the three judges of the appeals court disagreed with Cooper.

And just as significantly, they created a precedent for how the LBC can proceed in the future.

The ruling written by Judge Stephanie Ray _ who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott _ said that in fact the LBC has a great deal of latitude in what it can do.

"The LBC has expertise as an entity composed exclusively of legislators that is charged with the inherently legislative function of appropriations," Ray wrote. "Given the LBC's expertise and unique role within the Legislature, the LBC is entitled to deference in administering its budget adjustment authority."

Ray in her decision made some other significant points. First she stated that just because the Legislature had expressed its intent to privatize in just one region of the state did not mean that privatization couldn't be expanded beyond there. She rapped Cooper for using the concept of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

She also stated that because the LBC and Gov. Scott had agreed on the budget amendment the "circuit court should have accorded deference to this judgment."

One lawyer who has dealt with the LBC has stated this kind of means that the LBC can decide what it can do, and what it can't do in the future.

It remains to be seen if the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and its partners in this lawsuit decide to appeal this up to the full Supreme Court.

But it can be argued that if the decision remains then legislative leaders with the consent of the governor could make significant changes to the budget absent a vote by the full Legislature.

The state law that covers the budget commission states that the budget panel cannot eliminate an existing program or initiate and commence a "new program." But under Ray's ruling it would appear that the commission itself must should be given "deference" in deciding what means.

Charlie Crist's last act of defiance

Lost in the swirl of the holidays - and the impending arrival of Governor-elect Rick Scott - is that the outgoing governor late last Friday used his executive power for one final time in a way that goes beyond the way it has traditionally been used.

Crist essentially ordered that the state begin to offer extended jobless benefits to Floridians that had been approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

So why the big deal? Because until earlier in this year it was assumed that only the Florida Legislature had the power to do this. In fact, legislators the last two years have passed bills authorizing previous extensions.

But Crist back in September - and now on his way out the door - circumvented state lawmakers and did it himself.

Now to be sure, without Crist's actions, there would have been a lag between Congressional action and the state extending the benefits. Yet if one just reads the executive order that ordered the extension you can see that Crist is trying to justify his executive power, by noting "substantial injury" to Floridians and that the extension is "vital to the welfare and economic security of Floridians."

But what the executive order does not say is that there is an actual emergency that justifies his decision to issue it. Florida law gives a governor tremendous power to waive normal rules and laws, but only if there is a declared emergency. Instead Crist's executive order points out that it is his "constitutional duty" to take care that laws are faithfully executed.

It appears that neither the Florida House or Florida Senate intend to challenge the decision.

Crist's action is a reminder that one part of his legacy will be how he expanded the power of the governor.

Crist throughout his four years in office issued executive orders and used his budget-veto pen in a way that legislators contended was likely illegal. But state lawmakers failed to challenge the legality of these actions because doing so would have provoked a political backlash. Some previous examples include Crist’s use of emergency powers to extend early voting hours in 2008 and his decision to veto a two-percent pay cut for state employees in 2009.

In only one major instance - when Crist unilaterally signed a compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida - did the Legislature follow through and actually sue the governor. The state Supreme Court sided with lawmakers and made it clear that Crist did not have the power to let the tribe sidestep existing gaming laws. This led to an impasse that was not eventually resolved until this past year.

More importantly, however, is whether or not Scott intends to use the precedent created by Crist during his four years in office.