A Florida circuit court judge ruled Jan. 29 that Secretary of State Cord Byrd failed his statutory duty to provide weekly updates on the total number of signed, verified petitions for an adult-use cannabis legalization campaign.
Leon County Judge Jonathan E. Sjostrom determined that Smart & Safe Florida, the political committee behind the legalization campaign, established that Byrd had an “indisputable” legal duty to regularly provide signature counts. The lawsuit also names Maria Matthews, director of the Florida Division of Elections, whose website is responsible for updating the signature totals.
Sjostrom found that Byrd had not updated the signature totals on the Division of Elections’ website between Nov. 25 and Jan. 22, despite Florida Statute Section 100.371(15) requiring him to do so weekly based on tabulating signatures verified by 67 county supervisors of elections.
“Section 100.371 makes clear that the secretary relies on the supervisors of elections to reverify petitions in need of correction, leaving the secretary with the purely ministerial duty of calculating the total number of verified signatures,” Sjostrom wrote in Thursday’s order.
The Division of Elections’ website displayed 675,307 valid signatures for nearly two months – well short of the 880,062 signatures required to secure a position on the November 2026 ballot.
Smart & Safe Florida has until Feb. 1 to reach that threshold. The campaign’s proposed constitutional amendment intends to allow adults 21 and older to possess, purchase or use up to 2 ounces of cannabis or 5 grams of concentrate for non-medical consumption in the Sunshine State.
Amid the lawsuit, the state updated the verified signature count to 714,888 on Jan. 23, and then to 760,002 on Jan. 26.
Since the state updated the figure on the Division of Elections’ website, Byrd and Matthews’ legal team argued that Smart & Safe Florida’s complaint was moot.
Sjostrom didn’t see it that way.
“Because one more end-of-week deadline approaches pursuant to section 100.371(14)(g), and because such disputes demand emergency proceedings because of the impending constitutional and statutory timeframes, the court finds the current controversy to be capable of repetition yet evading review,” the judge wrote. “The court hereby grants [Smart & Safe Florida] to the extent it seeks to compel the secretary to comply with [state law].”
According to Sjostrom’s order, state officials must update the valid statewide signature count at least once more before a final determination on whether the committee collected enough petitions to qualify for the ballot.
This order comes after Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the state on Jan. 23 in disqualifying 70,646 of Smart & Safe Florida’s signatures, including 28,752 petitions collected by non-U.S. citizens or non-Florida residents who worked for the campaign, and another 41,894 petitions signed by voters designated as “inactive” under state law.
That appellant ruling in favor of the state came from a three-judge panel of the 1st District, with an opinion that Byrd acted within his specific statutory authority when he provided directions to county supervisors on how they should perform their official duties.
Two days later, on Jan. 25, Smart & Safe Florida entered an emergency motion for a rehearing en banc, meaning the campaign is asking the full 12-judge 1st District Court of Appeal to rehear the case, arguing that the panel’s ruling was flawed.
“With all due respect to the panel, SSF did not allege nor argue that the secretary lacked the authority to provide directions to the supervisors; rather, SSF challenged the effect of the two directions at issue,” Smart & Safe Florida’s general counsel, Glenn Burhans Jr., wrote in the emergency motion.
Smart & Safe Florida argued that signatures collected by non-U.S. citizens/non-Florida residents during a two-month injunction period that prevented a new law from being enforced should not be disqualified.
The campaign also argued that signatures from “inactive” voters who can show up and vote in the next election should not be disqualified either.
“The great irony of [Byrd’s] inactive voter directive is that it prohibits counting the petition of an inactive voter who is nonetheless able to show up at the polls, show their driver’s license or other proof of address, and vote for the initiative,” Burhans wrote. “In other words, an inactive voter can vote on the amendment, but their petition will not count towards placing the measure on the ballot.”
Smart & Safe Florida also included a motion in the Jan. 25 filing for rehearing en banc of the 1st District’s Jan. 19 order, which declined the campaign’s appeal for immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court.
In other words, if the campaign comes up roughly 70,000 signatures short without a favorable rehearing from the 1st District, the matter could go to the state’s Supreme Court.
