Escambia County has two GOP candidates that the Supervisor of Elections office initially reported as qualified to run but later were found to not correctly fill out the required state ethics form, which led to them being bounced off the ballot.
- John R. Johnson wanted to run for the County Commission District 3, but he used the incorrect state ethics form and paid his qualifying fee with a cashier’s check.
- Bruce Childers did not submit a complete Form 6. On Facebook, he blames a Supervisor of Elections employee whom he alleges told him and his wife that the Form 6 he submitted was completed. He says Supervisor of Elections Robert Bender has the power to put him on the ballot.
Childers
Bruce Childers posted this on his Facebook page:
This may take a bit, but I think I owe it to my friends and the citizens of this county to tell what happened.
On Wednesday, June 12, I filed to run for the office of Supervisor of Elections. Qualifying for that office ended Friday, June 14. We were assisted by the senior qualifying officer. When we went to file our forms we filed a receipt, or summary page of our Form 6, the financial disclosure form, which included the “watermark” (an opaque image which is added upon the completion of electronic filing). We were told at the time that is all we needed to file. The qualifying clerk carefully initialed each item filed, including the blank for financial disclosure, indicating she accepted as complete the financial disclosure, and stated at the time, “this (meaning the receipt from the Division of Elections where we filed the financial disclosure, Form 6) was what was needed.”
Pam, who was with me, asked the qualifying officer what she needed to fulfill the Form 6 requirements since this is a new process for candidates.
The qualifying officer responded by drawing a a square in the air with her fingers indicating one page and responding, “All we need is the page with the watermark. That is sufficient.”
We gave her that and completed our filing. We went to the bank to open a campaign account (ironically you can’t do anything until you file, including opening an account, and you need a check drawn on your campaign account to be able to file).
We came back, gave them the check and upon leaving I again asked if there was anything else we needed, to which she responded, “You’re complete… You’re all good.”
We checked later that evening and the Supervisor’s website indicated I was “Qualified.” Their website continued to show me as qualified. This information was disseminated to the local newspaper and the public in general.
Acting on the belief, and in reliance on the representations of the SOE’s senior qualifying officer that I had successfully qualified for election, I spent over $50,000 of my own money for billboards, signs, campaign material and hiring elections consultants.
On Thursday, June 20, I received an email from the qualifying officer, not even from Robert Bender himself, that I was disqualified because I “failed to provide a copy of the full and complete financial disclosure Form 6.”
It should be noted that between June 12 and Friday June 14, the last day of qualifying, no one from the SOE called, texted or emailed me that my paperwork was deficient. F.S. 99.061 (7)(b) states, “The qualifying officer shall make every reasonable to effort to notify the candidate of the missing or incomplete items and to inform the candidate that all required items must be received by the close of qualifying.”
F.S. 99.061 (5)(c) states, ” In determining whether a candidate is qualified, the filing officer shall review the qualifying papers to determine whether all items required to be filed have been properly filed and whether each item is complete on its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified.”
In other words, it was incumbent on the SOE to attempt to notify me that the receipt itself was not enough; the entire Form 6 was required.
Now, at this point, I have to say I am an attorney. I read statutes. The statutes in this case are a bit (to say the least) ambiguous. F.S. 112.3144 (4) states, “A candidate not subject to an annual filing requirement does not file with the commission, but may complete and print a Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests to file with the officer before whom he or she qualifies.”
That word ‘may’ sounds permissive not mandatory, to me. I guess I believed, to my detriment, the qualifying officer knew her job, knew the requirements every candidate must meet to be properly qualified. I still am baffled by the fact they did not contact me, notwithstanding they had a statutory to do so. Maybe I shouldn’t be, I don’t know.
I say all this to tell you, all of this did not need to happen. This could easily have been remedied by just accepting my financial disclosure, or at the least by letting me know I needed to file the Form 6 – before the qualifying period had lapsed.
This impugns the integrity of the office of Supervisor of Elections. The citizens of this county should be able to trust that the election process works for them, that the elections are fair and not subject to the caprice of the Supervisor of Elections.
You see, constitutional officers have discretion. The SOE is the sole arbitor of whether a candidate has properly qualified. It is not up to the Commission on Ethics or the Division of Elections – it is up to the SOE.
For those who know the history between Robert Bender and my wife over his 58% pension, you have probably read between the lines. I will leave it at that. In closing I will say that while the damage to me is personal, there is no injustice done to the public in allowing me to remain on the ballot.
In fact, to the contrary, to continue to allow the Supervisor of Elections caprice to stand will effectively disenfranchise the citizens of this county from the opportunity to vote for and elect the best person to represent them as their Supervisor of Elections.
John R. Johnson
Johnson alleges a state employee told him that Form 6 was only for incumbents when he tried to fill out the form online.
He had to use a cashier’s check because PenAir Credit Union no longer issues counter-checks. However, PenAir Credit Union told us that they still offer counter-checks.
#notreadbypamchilders
I do have a question, and this has to do with the M8 report of the campaign of Pamela Lynn Childers in 2020 for Circuit Clerk and Comptroller, where the 2,200 signatures to be verified when 2,130 valid were required to be valid to qualify, when one chose that route, and much circumstantial evidence suggests Pam Childers did not have the minimum valid signatures, because she pays the fee this time, but also the encounter I had with Chris Heaney, or who identified himself as such, and a female employee, in the back of the SOE office in November 2020 soon after the general election when I sought to go through the signature slips, much of what I say is in the public record of the state of Florida where my due process rights have been interfered with, I have already notified appropriate persons, that, as I still proceed in a quo warranto action in re: 2020 as a defacto assistant attorney general of the state of Florida (this is the law of Florida on the subject), I am taking that to the Northern District of Florida, generally for a writ of certiorari based on the handling of what began as a petition for quo warranto and writs of mandamus in 2023, in Circuit-Civil in Escambia County, basically on denial of republican government in the state of Florida, in a matter that is justiciable, namely the state of Florida not abiding its own laws and due process requirements because they didn’t like the outcome of what proper due process would be, namely, that if Pam lacks the minimum valid signatures, I am rightful Circuit Clerk having been the only eligible candidate as a qualified write-in.
To the extent that the qualified write-in provision of state law as best I can tell arises from the Jim Fair era, as an answer to his argument, Fair being a former Supervisor of Elections of Hillsborough County, who spent much of his life fighting qualifying fees in Florida, having read some of his cases in the 1970s he deployed wrongful arguments, I do believe at that time had he used Dillon v. Fiorina (D.NM 1972) he would have won at least in federal races, but Mr. Fair was called crazy when he was not when it was political retaliation, he spent years trying to get his dignity back from that, what happened to Fair is prima facie evidence, especially as the state of Florida acknowledged it then, that fraud and misuse of those processes do indeed occur.
But the qualified write-in provision was the answer to Fair, a way for eligibility for election without having to pay money, in effect no one as far as I know of has been elected qualified write in, maybe a few have for minor offices, but that was the purpose of the law, in Florida, there are no random write-ins counted, all 4,605 votes I won in 2020 were my own and on election night I had 4,600 votes and P.C. Wu was down to Jennifer Brahier by 5, Wu opted not to conduct an audit, after the first automatic recount showed that Wu picked up 2 votes, and I picked up 5, I honestly believe Wu chose not to audit as an audit of the election would have uncovered Pam short the minimum valid signatures and I am sworn in as Circuit Clerk January 5, 2021 and I even took this matter to former U.S. Attorney Lawrence Keefe as early as November 2020. I took it to state officials as well.
Therefore, if Pam lacked the minimum valid signatures, someone knows that answer, the slips I saw in 2020 all correspond to the summer of 2019, Heaney said 309 were invalid and that “there was a check for other signatures, it will be updated in the report, she was right at the minimum required number” and that of course, there were no other reports filed, I took that then as a reference to a defense Senate President Childers took in his trial when he was tried in the 2000’s, I will only say, the way I look at the 1992 term limits amendment, I believe he was eligible for re-election to that seat for another term, but I honestly think had he been willing to run down to the House of Representatives, he could have won a term as he could have gotten precisely the district he wanted, and could have been the rare freshman member who was a House Speaker.
That is at least what I would have done, because 30 years in Tallahassee, and the sentiment there against term limits among old timers, he could have drawn a district for himself that gives him another 8 years at minimum, might have been possible to do this, and say elect his wife to the Senate seat of his at the same time.
But I honestly believe, those were the real slips, on my own I would have struck more than the 71 I need to strike, my estimate is, between 125-150 and in this I have been consistent for over 3 years.
Ultimately, Pam has qualified for re-election unopposed. I have qualified for ECUA District 3. There is a question of whether I rightly sit on ECUA District 2 because the P7 of Benson says she paid $25 in August 2022, almost two months after the deadline, I questioned that in 2022 and SOE staff told me she paid by a check June 6, 2022 and when I tried to have David Stafford levy fines (after the third day, they are $500 a day), Stafford’s response was “Lois filed no late reports.”
When I brought this up again to Supervisor of Elections Bender, he emailed me the photocopy of what I will say is an alleged June 6, 2022 check (as there is a conflict between Bender and Stafford on this), and thusly I have asked him to assess the fines, where, with the campaign account closed, responsible party would be R. Scott Benson.
If Benson did not have the fee, in 2022, while I paid, then only I was eligible to receive votes, only I qualified as a candidate, only the Florida Democratic Party qualified a candidate, namely me, and as such if this is the case, I should be notified, with 30 days to establish myself as an elector in District 2, as I am an elector in District 3 at the time, and in fact, I was then, I qualified under the 2001 law regulating the independent special district of ECUA, Governor DeSantis signed the Salzman bill a week after qualifying closed, meaning it could not apply to 2022 qualifying, I believe it is invalid because it was the same bill as 2021, where in 2021 it had an effective date in the future, whereas in 2022 it had a retroactive effective date and there was no severability clause, I believe proper operation of Florida law renders the 2001 law as still the law governing ECUA.
Ultimately, that litigation now will have to go to federal examination, which may end up just remanding it back to state courts with orders to follow due process, I am working on that at this time even as I campaign for ECUA District 3 where to again be clear, I believe ECUA can provide recycling services for the entire county even if Pensacola city still has its own garbage pickup, recycling and garbage are not the same thing.
But there is a question, and this would not affect her election now as she is legally unopposed, and thusly will have a fourth term, state law is any time someone who has held office defacto as a usurper is found not to have been entitled to it, their acts acting defacto when otherwise properly applying the law are not invalidated, and this I want to make clear, but if proper operation of state law says I am rightful Clerk, I should get a sliver of my term but understanding the political situation, I did in fact seek from Governor DeSantis multiple appointments for myself which could not be dual held with Clerk (ECUA seat can be dual held, but cannot hold two different ECUA seats for two different numbered districts at the same time) and I approached both Representative Salzman and also the Governor with the idea that Childers should also be given a state appointment, I thought that was the best way to handle it politically given realities on the ground.
But the question remains, did Pam Childers have 2,130 valid signatures to qualify in 2020 when she turned in 2,200 to verify and when of course, she opted not to even mess with signatures this year?
In the meantime, I understand we have a universal primary contest in my race, and in the race also for ECUA District 1, even if what was to be one for Supervisor of Elections seems not to be occurring based on reporting, but I am focused on my own race, I will simply say I want ECUA to remain an independent special district as Senate President Childers intended, I believe it does work, I believe it is possible to strengthen it, and improve customer service, and I would point out ECUA was intended to be a 7 district board, these districts distinct from County Commission districts, I also wonder to what extent spite against W.D. led to the 2001 bill, as that bill was passed as soon as he was out of the Florida Senate where presumably no effort to pass such a thing would have passed while he was titled “Senator Childers.”
And thusly, people need to keep in mind, that ECUA is set to county districts now, does not mean it was intended to be, it originally had 7 seats, but of course, without a charter, under Florida law a county can have 5 or 7 seats, but for this election it is set at 5 districts, but it is possible for example, to sit on the Pensacola City Council and on ECUA, per dual officeholding provisions, that is state law, more recent Attorney General opinions on this subject include the Rayson opinions under Butterworth and the Sasso opinion under McCollum.
But perhaps now the question can be asked and answered, did Pam Childers have the minimum valid signatures to qualify in 2020?
And then also, how that affects other races, especially Brahier and Wu…..
There are two legal discrepancies in the statement from Bruce that I think are being missed. (I’m also not sure why Bruce didn’t fully transcribe Fla. Stat. 99.061(7)(b) in his public statement)
As I understand it, Bruce never turned in his Form 6 to be reviewed. The Form 6 is a 4 page document with a signature page that states all of a candidate’s assets, liabilities, income etc. If the candidate does not turn in their “full and public disclosure of financial interests” by the end of the qualifying period, the candidate is not legally qualified. I also read the statute as saying the obligation of the supervisor’s office only triggers if they RECEIVE a deficient document, and are aware the document is deficient. It doesn’t sound to me like the officer ever received an actual Form 6 “Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests” from the candidate:
Fla Stat 99.061(5) – At the time of qualifying for office, each candidate for a constitutional office SHALL file a FULL AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of financial interests pursuant to s. 8, Art. II of the State Constitution, which must be VERIFIED UNDER OATH or affirmation pursuant to s. 92.525(1)(a), and a candidate for any other office, including local elective office, shall file a statement of financial interests pursuant to s. 112.3145.
Fla Stat 99.061(7)(b) – IF the filing officer RECEIVES qualifying papers during the qualifying period prescribed in this section which do not include all items as required by paragraph (a) prior to the last day of qualifying, the filing officer shall make a reasonable effort to notify the candidate of the missing or incomplete items and shall inform the candidate that all required items must be received by the close of qualifying. A candidate’s name as it is to appear on the ballot may not be changed after the end of qualifying.
Oh hey and Bruce, since your argument is that Robert Bender should use the power vested in him as a constitutional officer to operate his office on whims, maybe he could just do everybody a favor at this point and remove Pam?
Since he’s all powerful, he wouldn’t even need to refer to any higher authority, and could just state any reason. If I were an omnipotent electoral God with that capacity, I might cite my opinion that she has grown wildly delusional, and actually believes she’s in command of a band of electoral, legal, and social media guerillas storming the proverbial castle and couping Escambia County.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So this wasn’t just a coincidental carelessness, but an orchestrated attempt to find another loophole and preorchestrate another lawsuit?
The Commission on Ethics and the Governor are gonna love this.