Watch CBS News

Miami Gardens Mayoral Candidate Wants Back On The Ballot

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM: Facebook | Twitter

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami) - A South Florida mayoral candidate barred from the August primary ballot because a bank returned a qualifying check has asked the state's Supreme Court to quickly take up an appeal in the case.

James Wright, who is seeking to become Miami Gardens mayor, has requested that the Supreme Court "expedite" review of a 3rd District Court of Appeal decision last week that kept him off the ballot. The request said Wright could not go on the August 30th ballot but that time would allow him to be placed on the November general-election ballot.

"This emergency motion to expedite is made in good faith as resolution of the issue in this case will greatly impact not only Mr. Wright, but also the voters in Miami Gardens and future candidates for public office in the state of Florida," the filing said.

Wright opened a campaign account in February with Wells Fargo Bank and was issued "starter checks" for the new account. He used one of the checks on June 1st to pay a $620 qualifying fee to get on the August 30 city ballot. But on June 16 --- two weeks after the qualifying period ended --- the city clerk was notified that the check had been returned because the "account number on the check could not be located."

The clerk notified Wright that he had been disqualified as a candidate. Wright, who had enough money in the account to cover the qualifying fee, filed a lawsuit June 30 seeking to get on the ballot. But a Miami-Dade County circuit judge last month rejected Wright's arguments, and the appeals court upheld that decision. The appeals court, however, asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue, which is known as certifying a question to the Supreme Court.

"When a candidate's qualification fee has been returned by the bank for any reason, the statute rather plainly provides a mechanism for a candidate to pay the qualifying fee only within the qualifying period," the appeals-court ruling said. "We recognize the statute produces a harsh result in this case. When an unambiguous statute plainly requires a particular result, though, courts are powerless to fashion a different result under the auspices of fairness."

View CBS News In
CBS News App Open
Chrome Safari Continue
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.