Authority to Prevent and Respond to Certification Abuses
State Officials Can Issue Opinions, Advice, and Directives
Upon the request of the governor or other state official, Florida law requires the attorney general to give an official opinion and legal advice, in writing, on any question of law relating to the official duties of the requesting official. Fla. Stat. § 16.01(3). Likewise, the secretary of state, as the state’s chief elections officer, has authority to issue written directives to county supervisors of elections related to the performance of their official duties. Fla. Stat. § 97.012(16). And in response to written requests, the State Department’s Division of Elections provides advisory opinions representing the Division’s interpretation of election law as applied to a particular set of facts or circumstances; such opinions are binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. Fla. Stat. § 106.23(2).
Prior to the election, state officials may choose to exercise these authorities to emphasize the mandatory, nondiscretionary nature of election certification and the importance of timely completing postelection processes.
Florida Election Law Establishes a Mandatory Duty to Certify Elections
In Florida, state law is clear: county canvassing boards have a mandatory duty to certify election results. See, e.g., State ex rel. H. Bisbee, Jr. v. Bd. of Cnty. Canvassers of Alachua Cnty., 17 Fla. 9, 22 (1878) (“Their duty . . . is simply to canvass and add up the returns as ordered, and to make and forward the certificates required by law.”). See also generally Robert W. Lee, Florida Canvassing System, 26 Nova. L. Rev. 851 (2002) (describing the historical evolution of canvassing and certification as mandatory election duties in Florida).
Before the canvass and certification take place, state law sets forth certain responsibilities for canvassing boards, such as “examin[ing] the tabulation of the ballots cast” and “determin[ing] whether the returns correctly reflect the votes cast.” Fla. Stat. § 102.141(3). But as the Florida Supreme Court has explained, these duties do not include any “judicial discretion” to look behind the election returns for suspected fraud or irregularities. Gough v. State ex rel. Sauls, 55 So. 2d 111, 116 (Fla. 1951). In other words, county canvassing boards are “without authority to judge the legality or validity of the returns or the votes cast” and must instead leave such questions to the appropriate court proceedings, i.e., the election contest process. Gough, 55 S0. 2d at 116. For this same reason, state law directs that county canvassing boards must make the canvass from the returns as delivered by the precincts and shall “not change the number of votes cast for a candidate . . . as shown by the returns.” Fla. Stat. § 102.141(3).
Florida law is also clear with respect to the timing of certification. If the Department of State does not receive returns from a county canvassing board by the 13th day following the general election — November 16, 2026 — state law instructs that “such returns shall be ignored and the results on file at that time [i.e., the unofficial results] shall be certified by the department.” Fla. Stat. § 102.112(3).
If the Department of State does not receive the returns from a county canvassing board by the requisite deadline due to an emergency, the Elections Canvassing Commission is responsible for setting the deadline by which they should be received. Fla. Stat. § 102.112(4). State law defines an emergency as “any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether accidental, natural, or caused by human beings, in war or in peace, that results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial damage to or loss of property to the extent it will prohibit an election officer’s ability to conduct a safe and orderly election.” Fla. Stat. § 101.732(3).
At the state level, Florida law imposes similar restrictions on the Elections Canvassing Commission. When “determining the true vote,” the Commission does “not have authority to look beyond the county returns.” Fla. Stat. § 102.131. Indeed, as early as 1876, the Florida Supreme Court held that state certifying officials “are authorized to enter no judgment, and their power is limited by the express words of the statute,” which permits them only to “sign[ ] a certificate containing the whole number of votes GIVEN for each person for each office, and therein declaring the result as shown by the returns.” State ex rel. Drew v. McLin, 16 Fla. 17, 43–44 (1876). Instead, if the Commission “is unable to determine the true vote for any office . . . [it] shall so certify and shall not include the returns in its determination, canvass, and declaration.” Fla. Stat. § 102.131.
State Officials and Other Affected Parties Can Obtain a Writ of Mandamus
If further action is needed to enforce certification, a writ of mandamus is available to compel “the performance of any and all official duties where the official charged by law with the performance of such duty refused or failed to perform the same.” State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Fla. 200, 206 (1933). Florida state courts have long held that election certification is a mandatory duty that can be compelled by a mandamus action. See, e.g., Drew, 16 Fla. at 43–44 (“The duty to count these returns has been enforced by mandamus so repeatedly in the courts of the several States of the Union, that the power of the courts in this respect has long since ceased to be an open question.”); State ex rel. Clendinen v. Dekle, 173 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla. 1965) (“That mandamus is the proper remedy [to compel certification] . . . is clearly established by many precedents of this Court.”). See also Gough, 55 So.2d at 116 (collecting cases). And under state law, the secretary of state is required to bring a mandamus action when necessary to enforce the performance of any duty under the state’s election laws, including the duty to certify elections. Fla. Stat. § 97.012(14) (referencing chapter 102 of the election code, which encompasses election certification).
When brought by the secretary of state, a mandamus action to enforce election certification must be filed in the Circuit Court of Leon County and, when brought less than 60 days before or “during the time period after the election and before certification,” the court must “set an immediate hearing” and give the matter “priority over other pending cases.” Fla. Stat. § 97.012(14)(a)–(b). An appellate court hearing the matter must do the same. Fla. Stat. § 97.012(14)(a).
In addition to the secretary of state, an aggrieved candidate or voter can also bring a mandamus action to compel certification in state court. See, e.g., Mayfield v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of State, 402 So.3d 1002 (Fla. 2025) (mandamus action brought by candidate to seek placement on special election ballot for state senate seat); State of Fla. ex rel. Charles Scott v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Jefferson Cnty., 17 Fla. 707, 714 (1880) (“The writ of mandamus may . . . issue on the relation of a private individual, to redress a wrong personal to himself, or, on the relation of one who, in common with all other citizens, is interested in having some act done, of a general public nature, devolving as a duty upon a public officer or body who refuses to perform it.”) (quoting People ex rel. William Stephens v. Halsey, 37 N.Y. 344, 347 (1867)).
Courts Have Tools to Enforce Court Orders If an Official Still Refuses to Certify
Rule 1.570 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides several solutions if an ordered party refuses to comply with a court order to certify an election. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c). First, the party seeking enforcement of the court’s judgment can file an affidavit that the judgment has not been performed, after which the clerk will issue a writ of attachment against the delinquent party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c)(1). The delinquent party “shall not be released from the writ of attachment until that party has complied with the judgment and paid all costs accruing” due to their failure to perform the act. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c)(1).
If the delinquent party cannot be found, “the party seeking enforcement of the judgment shall file an affidavit to this effect and the court shall issue a writ of sequestration against the delinquent party’s property” until the party complies with the judgment. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c)(1). The court may also hold the disobedient party in contempt. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c)(2). Additionally, the court may choose to appoint another individual to carry out the court order. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570(c)(3).
State Officials Can Impose Penalties Against Rogue Certifying Officials
In addition to the penalties for refusing to follow a court order, refusing to certify an election in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions could violate several state criminal laws and result in charges. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 104.051(2). County state attorneys generally have authority to prosecute criminal conduct that takes place within their jurisdictions. Fla. Stat. § 27.02(1). The attorney general also has general authority to intervene in criminal actions. Fla. Stat. § 16.01(4).
