Plaintiffs Scott Bledsoe and Floridians for Medical Rights bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a judgment declaring certain actions taken by the Duval County Sheriff’s Department and the Duval County Supervisor of Elections to be unconstitutional under the First and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to permanently enjoin the challenged actions in the future.

JURISDICTION
1. This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress . . . .

2. This case arises under the Constitution of the United States, and this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

3. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

4. Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts Three and Four, arising under state law, are within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Scott Bledsoe is a natural person and a resident of Orange Park, Florida.

6. Plaintiff Floridians for Medical Rights (“FMR”), is a Political Action Committee, registered in the State of Florida.

7. Defendant Nathaniel Glover is the Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, and is sued only in his official capacity.

8. Defendant Tommie R. Bell, is the Supervisor of Elections for Duval County, Florida, and is sued only in her official capacity.

VENUE

9. All actions complained of herein occurred in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, which is located within the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

FACTS

10. Scott Bledsoe is an activist in a political movement to change the laws of the United States and the several states prohibiting the sale and possession of marijuana.

11. Plaintiff FMR is a political action committee organized for the purpose of soliciting signatures on a ballot initiative designed to amend the Florida Constitution to permit the medicinal use of marijuana.

12. Section 3, Article XI of the Florida Constitution provides for amendment of the Florida Constitution by way of citizen initiatives:The power to propose the revisions or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith. It may be invoked by filing with the secretary
of state a petition containing a copy of the proposed revision or amendment, signed by a number of electors in each of one half of the congressional districts of the state, and of the state as whole, equal to eight percent of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state as a whole in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen.

13. In order for a citizen initiative to be placed on the ballot, the sponsor of the proposed amendment must secure the signature of a certain number of registered voters.

14. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiffs have been involved in a statewide project to solicit signatures for a medical marijuana ballot initiative.

15. Plaintiffs routinely solicit signatures for the medical marijuana initiative at public rallies known as “Hempfests,” at courthouses throughout the State, at polling stations where elections are being conducted, and at other public places.

16. FMR is the political action committee registered with the State of Florida which has been authorized to promote the medical
marijuana ballot initiative and to take actions designed to secure the requisite number of signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot. FMR has collected thousands of signatures in support of the medical marijuana initiative and expects to have the initiative placed on the ballot at the election to be conducted in the year 2000.

17. The timing of this medical marijuana initiative is important as the movement has gained momentum throughout the country and has successfully passed similar initiatives in a number of other states.1

18. Bledsoe has assisted FMR in collecting signatures in the past and he will continue to do so in the future.

19. As part of his efforts, Bledsoe regularly speaks with electors and potential electors regarding the medical marijuana initiative and the legalization of marijuana in general. Bledsoe regularly distributes literature from such organizations as FMR and Florida Cannabis Action Network, Inc.

20. Plaintiffs concentrate their efforts to secure signatures at polling stations because those persons appearing at polling stations are far more likely to be registered voters and because elections-oriented issues are especially appropriate at such times and places.

21. On November 3, 1998, FMR had tables set up at polling stations throughout the State, including Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach, Gainesville, Tampa, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale. The purpose of these tables was to solicit signatures for the medical marijuana initiative. Signatures were obtained for the medical marijuana initiative without incident except for the actions complained of which occurred in the City of Jacksonville.2

22. The office of the Supervisor of Elections has designated the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church, at 4001 Hendricks Avenue, Jacksonville, as an official polling station for Duval County, Precinct 5E.

23. On November 3, 1998, at approximately 2:30 P.M. FMR, Bledsoe and several other individuals set up a table on a sidewalk at the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church. The table was set up for the purpose of obtaining signatures for the medical marijuana initiative.

24. Plaintiffs’ table was located 150 feet from the entrance to the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church polling station along a wide arched sidewalk near Hendricks Avenue.

25. Plaintiffs did not impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, were not unruly or disruptive and did not accost or harass voters coming into the polling station. Plaintiffs complied in all respects with the requirements of §102.031(3), Fla. Stat. and all other provisions of Florida and federal law.

26. Plaintiffs set out literature on their table describing the initiative and providing information regarding uses for cannabis hemp and the laws governing marijuana.

27. Plaintiffs set out a sign reading “SIGN FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM: FLORIDA MEDICAL MARIJUANA BALLOT INITIATIVE STOP JAILING SICK PEOPLE AND THEIR DOCTORS.

28. The sidewalk leading to the polling place was, on November 3rd, a traditional public forum.

29. Plaintiffs’ activities were protected under the First Amendment as core political speech.

30. The Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church was selected by Plaintiffs because it is believed to be one of Jacksonville’s largest and most active polling stations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs believed that they would be afforded access to a large number of registered voters.

31. On November 3, 1998, Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church was a registered polling station for Duval County Florida (Precinct 5E) and voters did make use of that polling station for the 1998 general election.

32. A few minutes after Plaintiffs set up their table, an unknown individual who claimed to be affiliated with the Church approached Bledsoe and demanded that Plaintiffs leave because the Church was “private property.”

33. The unknown individual grabbed Plaintiffs’ sign and attempted to remove it.

34. Bledsoe told this “church worker” that Plaintiffs were not interfering with the electoral process and that they had a right to collect signatures and distribute literature.

35. The “church worker” left, then returned approximately ten minutes later with an individual who was identified as a poll worker.

36. The poll worker informed Plaintiffs that they had to leave immediately because the Church was private property.

37. Bledsoe told the poll worker that he had a right to collect signatures on petitions and to distribute literature.

38. Bledsoe requested that the poll worker call the Supervisor of Elections to confirm Plaintiffs’ right to be at the polling station.

39. The poll worker left and returned a few minutes later.

40. The “church worker” appeared and again demanded that Plaintiffs leave the Church premises.3

41. The poll worker then intervened to calm the “church worker” down, but did not direct him to cease his activities or advise him that Plaintiffs had a right to solicit signatures and distribute literature.

42. The “church worker” then went to the Pastor of the Church, Jack A. Snell, to complain about Plaintiffs’ table.

43. Approximately 20-30 minutes later, Deputy Tom L. Martin, a Duval County Deputy Sheriff, approached Plaintiffs’ table and advised Bledsoe that “The pastor of the church has asked that you leave.” Deputy Martin did not advise Plaintiffs that they were too close to the polling station or otherwise violating any laws of the State.

44. Bledsoe told Martin that Plaintiffs had a constitutional right to solicit signatures for the medical marijuana ballot initiative and to distribute literature concerning this issue. He further stated that they were beyond the 50 foot limit specified by Florida law and that Plaintiffs were otherwise conducting themselves lawfully.

45. Bledsoe asked Martin to contact the Supervisor of Elections to determine if Plaintiffs were within their rights to remain at their location.

46. Martin responded that “You have two choices, you can leave or be arrested.”

47. Plaintiffs immediately packed up their table and left under threat of arrest, at approximately 3:10 P.M.

48. Plaintiffs’ actions in soliciting signatures for the medical marijuana initiative, discussing those issues with voters and distributing
literature concerning the initiative and marijuana laws in general are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the highest form of political speech. Such activities are also protected by the Florida Constitution and by Florida and federal laws.

49. Plaintiffs’ actions in soliciting signatures for the medical marijuana initiative and discussing those issues with voters are actions
directly related to the electoral process and the right of the citizenry to vote on issues of common concern and are protected by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such activities are also protected by the Florida Constitution and by Florida and federal laws.

50. The laws of the United States and the State of Florida protect political speech at polling stations.

51. Under Florida law, the Supervisor of Elections is required to train election personnel to ensure that the process at polling stations is orderly and in accordance with law:

§102.012(8), Fla. Stat. - The supervisor of elections shall conduct training classes for inspectors, clerks and deputy sheriffs prior to each first primary, general and special election for the purpose of instructing such persons in their duties and responsibilities as election officials. ...

§102.031(3)(e), Fla. Stat. - Each supervisor of elections shall inform the clerk of each precinct of the area within which soliciting is unlawful, based on the particular characteristics of that polling place. ...

52. Under Florida law, the Sheriff of Duval County is specifically required to appoint deputies for each election precinct to ensure that the process at polling stations is orderly and in accordance with law:

§102.031(2), Fla. Stat. - The sheriff shall deputize a deputy sheriff for each precinct who shall be present during the time the polls are open and until the election is completed, who shall be subject to all lawful commands of the clerk or inspectors, and who shall maintain good order . . . .

53. Defendants and their various deputies, agents and appointees have an affirmative obligation both to permit the exercise of Plaintiffs rights of free speech and participation in the electoral process and to maintain order so as to prevent others from interfering with Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

54. The actions of Deputy Martin, acting under acting under color of state law pursuant to authority delegated to him by the Sheriff, violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to solicit signatures for an election initiative, to discuss political issues of concern to the electorate, to distribute literature concerning their political cause, to petition the government for redress of grievances, and to otherwise participate in the electoral process.

55. The actions of Deputy Martin, acting under acting under color of state law pursuant to authority delegated to him by the Sheriff, further violated the rights of the registered voters and others in Duval County who wish to participate in the petition process to amend the Florida constitution. Without the signatures of electors from Duval County and elsewhere in the State, the citizens of Florida will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue of great public importance.

56. The Supervisor of Elections, acting under color of state law through the poll worker assigned to the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church, violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to solicit signatures for an election initiative, to discuss political issues of concern to the electorate, to distribute literature concerning their political cause to petition the government for redress of grievances, and to otherwise participate in the electoral process.

57. The Supervisor of Elections, acting under color of state law through the poll worker assigned to the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church, further violated the rights the registered voters and others in Duval County who wish to participate in the petition process to amend the Florida constitution. Without the signatures of electors from Duval County and elsewhere in the State, the citizens of Florida will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue of great public importance.

58. At all times pertinent hereto the Defendants were, and are, acting under color of state law and authority.

59. Plaintiffs intend to continue their attempts to solicit signatures for the medical marijuana ballot initiative and to distribute literature regarding marijuana-related issues in Duval County. In particular, Plaintiffs intend to solicit signatures and distribute literature at polling places within Duval County at upcoming federal, state and local special and general elections. Plaintiff will again solicit signatures and distribute literature at the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church, so long as the Church continues to be listed as a polling station for Duval County.

60. Plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, have made demand upon the Defendants to adopt such policies and conduct such training courses as may be necessary to prevent violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights at polling stations in the future.4

61. Plaintiffs also attempted to make use of the limited administrative procedures available for processing election complaints. In particular Bledsoe made a formal complaint to the Internal Affairs Unit of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and directly with the Supervisor of Elections.

62. The Supervisor of Elections made no response whatsoever to Plaintiffs’ complaint and demand letter.

63. The Sheriff made no response to Plaintiffs’ demand letter. However, the Internal Affairs Unit issued a letter claiming that the
Deputy’s “actions adhere to Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures.”5

64. Plaintiffs have a reasonable fear that the same policies and procedures which resulted in the deprivation of their constitutional rights will be applied against them during further elections at the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church and elsewhere in Duval County. This fear is based on the fact that Defendants have refused to change their existing polices and procedures coupled with the near certainty that Plaintiffs’ political activities will again bring them into contact with Defendants and their deputies, pointees and agents at polling stations.

COUNT ONE — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Federal constitutional rights)

65. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1-64, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

66. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs’ rights to solicit signatures for a constitutional ballot initiative and to distribute related literature at polling stations in Duval County.

67. Plaintiffs have a right to have this Court declare their rights under the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants’ actions, policies and procedures.

COUNT TWO — PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Federal constitutional rights)

68. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1-64, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

69. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right under federal law to solicit signatures for a constitutional ballot initiative and to distribute literature at polling stations on election days.

70. The actions, policies and procedures of the Defendants have caused a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights Those policies and procedures
also fail to protect those rights from the actions of third parties.

71. Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in the future.

72. Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to carry out their statutory duties to educate, train and monitor staff at polling stations to insure that violations of constitutional rights do not continue to occur.

73. A permanent injunction, prohibiting the enforcement of the Defendants’ current policies and procedures relative to political action at polling stations, would not be contrary to the public interest.

COUNT THREE — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Florida constitutional rights)

74. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1-64, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

75. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs’ rights to solicit signatures for a constitutional ballot initiative and to distribute related literature at polling stations in Duval County, Florida.

76. Plaintiffs have a right to have this Court declare their rights under Article I, Sections 1, 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants’ actions, policies and procedures.

77. Plaintiffs further have a right to have this Court declare their rights under Florida statutes and case law pertaining to election day soliciting and the obligation of the Defendants to secure Plaintiffs’ rights.

COUNT TWO — PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Florida constitutional rights)

78. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1-64, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

79. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right under Florida law to solicit signatures for a constitutional ballot initiative and to distribute related literature at polling stations on designated election days.

80. The actions, policies and procedures of the Defendants have lead directly to the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

81. The actions, policies and procedures of the Defendants have also lead indirectly to the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as Defendants
have failed to take steps mandated by statutes which are necessary to protect Plaintiffs’ rights against the actions of third parties.

82. Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating Plaintiffs’ rights under the Florida Constitution.

83. Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to carry out their statutory duties to educate, train and monitor staff at polling stations to insure that violations of constitutional rights do not continue to occur.

84. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an irreparable injury. The harm which would be suffered by the Plaintiffs without an injunction — the loss of their rights to speak, to assemble and to exercise their electoral rights — exceeds any conceivable harm the Defendants would suffer.

85. A permanent injunction, prohibiting the enforcement of the Defendants’ current policies and procedures relative to political action at polling
stations, would not be contrary to the public interest. Similarly, a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to carry out their statutory duties to education, train and monitor staff at polling stations would not be contrary to the public interest.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Scott Bledsoe and Floridians for Medical Rights demand the following relief:

A. that this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;

B. that this Court enter a judgment declaring the Defendants’ policies and procedures to be unconstitutional under the First and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

C. that this Court enter a judgment declaring the Defendants’ policies and procedures to be unconstitutional under Article I, Sections 1, 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution;

D. that this Court enter an injunction permanently prohibiting the enforcement of the Defendants’ current policies and procedures concerning political action at polling stations on election days;

E. that this Court enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to carry out their statutory duties relative to the education, training and monitoring of staff at polling stations;

F. that this Court award Plaintiffs their recoverable costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

G. that this Court award Plaintiffs all other relief in law and in equity to which they may be entitled.

RICHARD L. WILSON GARY S. EDINGER
Florida Bar No. 212997 Florida Bar Number 0606812
3610 Dubsdread Circle 305 N.E. 1st Street
Orlando, Florida 32804-3052 Gainesville, Florida 32601
(407) 649-9225 (Fax) 423.8727 (352) 338-4440 (Fax) 337-0696

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DECLARATION
(28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, SCOTT BLEDSOE, do declare as follows:

1. I have read the foregoing Original Complaint, and all of the facts alleged in the Complaint are true and correct.

2. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: December , 1998.

SCOTT BLEDSOE

1 In elections on November 3rd, medical marijuana initiatives received landslide approval in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

2 The City of Jacksonville is consolidated with Duval County, except for incorporated municipalities within the County.

3 The “church worker” became irate and vocal and stated to Bledsoe that he “will kick your skinny ass.” Plaintiffs took no action in response to this threat.

4 A copy of the demand letter sent to the Sheriff of Duval County is attached as Exhibit “A” to this Complaint. A copy of the letter sent to the Duval County Supervisor of Elections is attached as Exhibit “B.”

5 Exhibit C.