The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 104
ELECTION CODE: VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 104.20

104.20 Ballot not to be seen, and other offenses.—Any elector who, except as provided by law, allows his or her ballot to be seen by any person; takes or removes, or attempts to take or remove, any ballot from the polling place before the close of the polls; places any mark on his or her ballot by which it may be identified; endeavors to induce any elector to show how he or she voted; aids or attempts to aid any elector unlawfully; or prints or procures to be printed, or has in his or her possession, any copies of any ballot prepared to be voted is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.—s. 55, ch. 4328, 1895; s. 2, ch. 4536, 1897; GS 3835; RGS 5897; CGL 8161; s. 8, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 40, ch. 71-136; s. 35, ch. 77-175; s. 623, ch. 95-147; s. 19, ch. 2002-281.

Note.—Former s. 99.34.

F.S. 104.20 on Google Scholar

F.S. 104.20 on Casetext

Amendments to 104.20

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 104.20

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S104.20 - ELECTION LAWS - SHOW REMOVE MARK BALLOT VOTING VIOLATIONS - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

BROWN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 386 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.D.C. 2019)

. . . . § 104.20. . . . . § 104.20(a)(3), (c). . . . Id. § 104.20(b). . . . have given over $ 1,000 "for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications," 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . .

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 316 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), which requires disclosure, in relevant part, of "the name and address of each person . . . calendar year, which was made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications ." 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . . Congress even anticipated the circumstances that the FEC faced when it promulgated 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . . For that reason, the FEC had "a gap" to fill when promulgating 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), Van Hollen I . . .

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9). . . . limited to donations "made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications ." 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . .

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., 285 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . 29 Challenged Ingredients constitute "[n]utrient vitamins and minerals[ ] in accordance with 21 CFR 104.20 . . . added to a food that replaces traditional food in the diet to avoid nutritional inferiority," 21 C.F.R. 104.20 . . .

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 243 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), because the plaintiff showed that he was “unable to obtain disclosure of information . . . Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] because of the allegedly unlawful restrictions imposed by 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . .

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9) (requiring disclosure of qualifying donors only if the donation “was made for the purpose . . . Cir. 2016) (upholding the specific-purpose requirement in 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9)). . . . See 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(7) & (9); Van Hollen, Jr., 811 F.3d at 501-502. . . . See 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9); Van Hollen, Jr., 811 F.3d at 501. . . .

VAN HOLLEN, JR. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 811 F.3d 486 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . However, it concluded that it was “in no position to assess the parties’ arguments on whether § 104.20 . . .

VAN HOLLEN, JR. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 421 U.S. App. D.C. 36 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . However, it concluded that it was “in no position to assess the parties’ arguments on whether § 104.20 . . .

DELAWARE STRONG FAMILIES, a v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE,, 793 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), which contained an earmarking limitation. . . . The opinion does not mention earmarking and 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) is not cited. . . . calendar year, which was made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . .

VAN HOLLEN, Jr. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 74 F. Supp. 3d 407 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), which narrowed the disclosure requirements set forth in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform . . . The Court struck down 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) at the first level of the Chevron analysis, and it did . . . The Court now concludes that the promulgation of 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) was arbitrary, capricious, . . . It promulgated 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), which included the following language: If the disbursements . . . Í1 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(7)(i), (c)(8) (2014). . The Court was sharply divided on this point. . . .

SCHUETTE, v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY BAMN, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (U.S. 2014)

. . . Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Advance Release of Selected 2013 Digest Tables (Table 104.20 . . .

SCHUETTE, v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (U.S. 2014)

. . . Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Advance Release of Selected 2013 Digest Tables (Table 104.20 . . .

CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, v. VAN HOLLEN, Jr., 694 F.3d 108 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), a regulation promulgated by the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), that purports . . . The disputed regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), was promulgated by the FEC in 2007. . . . of information under the BCRA because of the allegedly unlawful restrictions imposed by 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . . Unfortunately, as the parties’ arguments in this case have revealed, the agency’s adoption of § 104.20 . . . Therefore, the court is in no position to assess the parties’ arguments on whether § 104.20(c)(9) is . . .

CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, v. MADIGAN,, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9) (emphasis added). . . .

VAN HOLLEN, Jr. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 851 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9), which was promulgated in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. . . . making the disbursement, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year. 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . . Thus, new section 104.20(c)(9) does not require corporations and labor organizations making electioneering . . . Id. • The complaint alleges that as result of the promulgation of 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), “corporations . . . The complaint alleges that the regulation promulgated by the FEC, 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), violates . . .

CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INC. v. TENNANT, v., 849 F. Supp. 2d 659 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

. . . . § 104.20(a)(3)).) . . .

CITIZENS UNITED, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . § 104.20(c)(9). Section 311 is a disclaimer provision. 2 U.S.C. § 441d. . . .

McCONNELL, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. a v. v. Of v. v. v. v. v. v. G. v., 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003)

. . . Explanation and Justification of 11 C.F.R. 104.20, Reporting Electioneering Communications, 68 Fed.Reg . . . Independent Expenditures; Final Rules, 68 Fed.Reg. 404, 419 (Jan. 3, 2003) (to be codified at 11 C.F.R. § 104.20 . . .

D. SIMPSON, v. STATE, 712 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . , approximately $130 for her stress-related illness suffered a year after her daughter’s death and $104.20 . . .

In VARSITY SODDING SERVICE, INC. PNC BANK, N. A. v. VARSITY SODDING SERVICE, INC., 191 B.R. 306 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . account receivable in the total amount of Forty-Four Thousand One Hundred Four and 20/100 Dollars ($44,-104.20 . . .

A. SAVERING, v. UNITED STATES, 18 Cl. Ct. 704 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . 72.14 9/12/83 2.5 40.08 11/14/83 2.5 40.08 12/5/83 2.5 40.08 Total 1983 59.0 $945.71 1/6/84 6.5 $16.03 $104.20 . . .

NEWS- PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. d b a v. FIRESTONE, D., 527 So. 2d 223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . See e.g., § 104.061 (providing penalties for corrupt influence of electors); § 104.20 (prohibiting any . . .

J. VAUGHNS, Jr. J. VAUGHNS E. E. R. L. Jr. R. L. D. A. Jr. A. A. n, J. n, Jr. K. A. J. s Mr. J. Mr. J. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY A. s E. T. Dr. W. V. Dr. J. J. Jr. E. S. s Dr. W. s II Sr. Jr. B. A. Jr. s s J. Jr. A. s Jo T. J. s, 770 F.2d 1244 (4th Cir. 1985)

. . . The average per hour rate overall worked out to $104.20 per hour. . . .

J. VAUGHNS, Jr. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY,, 598 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Md. 1984)

. . . their original submission, plaintiffs asked for compensation for 6,055.3 hours at an average rate of $104.20 . . . Plaintiffs’ suggested average hourly rate of $104.20 per hour uses as its base, with two exceptions, . . .

In FUZZY THURSTON S EAU CLAIRE LEFT GUARD, INC., 33 B.R. 579 (Bank. W.D. Wis. 1983)

. . . lease payments to Midway for the months of September, October and November of 1979 — totalling $26,-104.20 . . .

WOLGIN v. ATLAS UNITED FINANCIAL CORPORATION S. BLUMENFELD v. ATLAS UNITED FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 397 F. Supp. 1003 (E.D. Pa. 1975)

. . . 12/15/73 2.083 125.00 12/31/73 2.083 119.80 1/15/74 2.083 114.60 1/31/74 2.083 109.40 2/15/74 2.083 104.20 . . .

W. v. J. v., 43 T.C. 429 (T.C. 1965)

. . . 772.16 649.64 2,867.48 710.66 (31.01) 60.22 49.62 ' 266.59 655.69 348.84 1,091.87 7,331.76 1,072.75 104.20 . . .

v., 33 Cust. Ct. 568 (Cust. Ct. 1954)

. . . overhead of 182.82 per centum for the period from January 1, 1946, to July 31, 1946, or a total of $104.20 . . .

HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CO. v. CITY OF SULPHUR, OKL. CITY OF SULPHUR, OKL. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CO., 123 F.2d 566 (10th Cir. 1941)

. . . on the bond of Hugh Cushenberry, another commissioner, the sum of $562.50 which had been applied, $104.20 . . .

v., 22 B.T.A. 1287 (B.T.A. 1931)

. . . The actual cost of $104.20 of the additional 10 shares is the basis as to them. . . .