Key Points

  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a Broward County judgment disqualifying incumbent Tamarac Commissioner Morey Wright Jr. as a candidate for the District 2 seat.
  • Wright never designated a primary campaign depository or properly appointed himself deputy treasurer, so his qualifying-fee check was not properly drawn on his campaign account under section 99.061(7)(a)1.
  • A completed treasurer-and-depository form under section 99.061(7)(a)5. is a basic qualification requirement, and the substantial compliance doctrine does not apply to it.
  • The clerk's acceptance of facially incomplete papers filed on the last day of qualifying did not excuse the defects, because the clerk had no statutory duty to notify the candidate of missing items filed that day.
  • No motions for rehearing are permitted, and the mandate issued immediately.

A Florida appeals court on Oct. 28 upheld a judgment that removed incumbent Tamarac City Commissioner Morey Wright Jr. from the ballot. The court ruled that gaps in the campaign paperwork he filed on the last day of qualifying disqualified him, even though the city clerk had accepted the papers and declared him qualified.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment by Judge Michael A. Robinson of the Broward County circuit court in a per curiam opinion, and Judges May, Shepherd and Shaw concurred. The ruling is a win for Mike Gelin, Wright's only opponent for the District 2 seat, who sued to challenge Wright's qualification. "We affirm because the trial court correctly determined that Wright failed to comply with basic qualification requirements," the court wrote.

The decision treats a candidate's form appointing a campaign treasurer and designating a campaign depository as a basic qualification requirement. Basic requirements are strictly enforced, like paying the qualifying fee. A candidate cannot invoke substantial compliance to save an incomplete form. The court also held that a clerk's acceptance of facially incomplete papers filed on the last qualifying day does not cure them.

According to the opinion, Wright filed the state treasurer-and-depository form, known as Form DS-DE 9, with the city clerk on Oct. 2, 2025. That form named Michelle Webb as treasurer and listed Wells Fargo bank. But Wright left blank item 18, which asked whether the bank was a primary or a secondary depository.

On the last day of the qualifying period, Wright filed a second Form DS-DE 9. He also personally signed a check for the qualifying fee drawn on a Wells Fargo account named "Morey Wright Campaign." The new form did not say whether he was appointing a treasurer or a deputy treasurer. Items 18 through 24, which called for the depository designation and the bank's name and address, were entirely blank. Wright checked a box accepting appointment as "deputy treasurer" but did not sign item 29, where the treasurer or deputy treasurer signs to accept the appointment.

Gelin filed suit on Sept. 9, 2026, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After a non-jury trial on Oct. 9, the trial court found that Wright had not met basic statutory qualification requirements and entered judgment on Oct. 14 disqualifying him. On appeal, Wright argued that he had substantially complied with the statute and that the trial court erred in concluding he had not properly designated himself deputy treasurer before he signed the check.

The panel relied on section 99.061(7)(a) of the Florida Statutes. That section requires a candidate to file, by the end of qualifying, "[a] properly executed check drawn upon the candidate's campaign account" and "[t]he completed form for the appointment of campaign treasurer and designation of campaign depository." Citing the Florida Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Wright v. City of Miami Gardens, the panel called the fee provision a "true bright line" rule.

The court also called "instructive" the Supreme Court's Aug. 11, 2026, decision in Amador v. Secretary, Florida Department of State. In Amador, the justices held that the "candidate's campaign account" means the "primary campaign depository" a candidate must designate under state law. Wright's papers never made that designation. "Because Wright had never designated a primary campaign depository, and because he did not properly appoint himself as deputy treasurer, the fee was not paid by a check properly drawn on the primary campaign account," the court wrote. It added that state law requires such checks to bear "[t]he signature of the campaign treasurer or deputy treasurer," and that "Wright's check was not signed by either."

Rejecting Wright's substantial-compliance argument, the panel cited the Florida Supreme Court's 1972 decision in State ex rel. Siegendorf v. Stone, which recognized that the doctrine does not reach basic requirements, "i.e., paying a proper fee, the filing of necessary qualifying papers and registering to vote." The court pointed to its own 2025 decision in Pedraza v. City of Miramar, which extended that principle "to substantive statements in election qualifying papers." The completed treasurer-and-depository form falls in the same category, the panel held: "Section 99.061(7)(a)5. is unambiguous and must be enforced as written."

Nor did the clerk's acceptance excuse the defects, the court held. State law describes a filing officer's review of qualifying papers as "a ministerial function," the panel noted, quoting Pedraza. The law requires the officer to "make a reasonable effort to notify the candidate of the missing or incomplete items" only when papers arrive "prior to the last day of qualifying." Because Wright filed on the last day, the court wrote, the clerk had no duty to warn him or to ensure "whether each item contained in the form was correctly completed."

In a footnote, the panel noted that the Supreme Court's 2016 Wright decision had recognized a constitutional exception where a fee check was rejected by bank error outside the candidate's control. "No such error or exception applies here," the court wrote. Having found two independent defects, the panel declined to decide whether Wright also complied with the separate requirement of a written oath on dual citizenship.

"Wright's completion of some sections of his Form DS-DE 9 did not suffice to meet the qualification requirements," the court wrote. "Disqualification may be a harsh result, but we must enforce the law as written."

Lawyers for Wright included Joseph S. Geller of Greenspoon Marder LLP. Gelin was represented by Dedrick D. Straghn of Straghn Law, PLLC.

The court directed that "[d]ue to the election's timing, no motions for rehearing are permitted," and that "[t]he mandate shall issue immediately." The trial court's judgment disqualifying Wright from appearing on the ballot therefore stands.