ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Orange County Democratic voters are choosing Tuesday between former Orange County Property Appraiser Rick Singh and longtime court administrator and attorney Roberta Walton Johnson in a competitive primary for Orange County Clerk of Courts, a contest that combines experience, political endorsements and questions about which candidate is best prepared to oversee one of the county’s most important constitutional offices.

The Aug. 18 primary will determine the Democratic nominee for the office responsible for maintaining court records, processing legal filings, collecting and distributing millions of dollars in court-related payments and providing public access to records across Orange County.

The race has taken on additional urgency after Maribel Gomez Cordero withdrew from the contest. Her name remains on ballots already printed, but the Orange County Supervisor of Elections has advised Democratic voters that votes cast for Cordero will not count toward determining the nominee.

That leaves Singh and Walton Johnson competing directly for the Democratic nomination.

WHY IT MATTERS TO ELECTION DAY VOTERS

Tuesday’s decision is about more than name recognition or political endorsements.

The Clerk of Courts manages records and services that residents encounter during some of the most consequential moments of their lives — including criminal and civil cases, traffic matters, family court proceedings, marriage licenses and other court-related transactions.

For Election Day voters who have not yet made a choice, the race presents two distinctly different arguments about experience.

Singh offers voters the experience of having previously won countywide office and managed another Orange County constitutional office.

Walton Johnson offers direct institutional experience inside the Clerk of Courts operation and argues that her legal and administrative background prepares her to lead the office immediately.

SINGH BRINGS COUNTYWIDE ELECTORAL EXPERIENCE

Singh served as Orange County Property Appraiser from 2013 until 2021 after winning countywide elections.

That history gives Singh one of his strongest arguments: Orange County voters already know his name, and he has previously demonstrated an ability to build a coalition large enough to win countywide.

Singh has emphasized executive experience and his record managing a constitutional office while campaigning to return to elected county government.

His previous electoral record, however, cuts both ways.

Singh lost the 2020 Democratic primary for property appraiser to Amy Mercado, giving Walton Johnson an opening to argue that voters should choose new leadership rather than return a former constitutional officer to countywide office.

WALTON JOHNSON CAMPAIGNS ON CLERK EXPERIENCE

Walton Johnson has centered her candidacy on experience directly connected to the office she is seeking.

She serves as general counsel for the Orange County Clerk of Circuit and County Courts, providing her with firsthand knowledge of the agency’s legal responsibilities and operations.

Her campaign can therefore make a simple argument to undecided voters: She already knows the office.

Walton Johnson has also attracted support from prominent political figures, including Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, strengthening her position among Democratic voters who place significant weight on endorsements and institutional experience.

WALTON JOHNSON’S PAST BECOMES CAMPAIGN ISSUE

The campaign has also focused attention on a decades-old criminal case involving Walton Johnson.

Florida Politics reported that the case involved stolen tax-refund checks in Georgia approximately three decades ago. Walton Johnson has described the matter as a mistake from her youth and has pushed back against political attacks surrounding the case and questions about whether it affects her qualifications to serve.

The issue gives Election Day voters another question to consider: how much weight should be given to conduct from decades ago compared with a candidate’s subsequent professional and public-service record?

The increasingly personal attacks surrounding the issue have also generated criticism from Democrats who say the campaign has become unnecessarily divisive.

SINGH’S RECORD ALSO FACES SCRUTINY

Singh enters Election Day with his own political baggage.

His eight years as property appraiser provide him with executive experience, but they also give voters a public record to evaluate.

His 2020 defeat demonstrated that countywide name recognition does not guarantee victory and gives Walton Johnson an opportunity to contrast her current Clerk of Courts experience with Singh’s previous tenure in another constitutional office.

For undecided Democrats, the question may ultimately become whether they prefer previous countywide executive experience or current Clerk of Courts experience.

CORDERO WITHDRAWAL CREATES ELECTION DAY WILDCARD

Cordero’s withdrawal adds an unusual complication.

Because ballots had already been prepared, her name remains before voters. The Supervisor of Elections has warned that votes cast for Cordero will not count in determining the Democratic nominee.

That makes voter awareness particularly important Tuesday.

The remaining campaigns also have an incentive to reach voters who previously supported or considered supporting Cordero. In a close election, even a relatively small bloc of redirected voters could affect the outcome.

WHAT UNDECIDED VOTERS ARE DECIDING

For voters entering the polling booth without a firm preference, the contest can be distilled into several questions:

• Does Singh’s experience winning and managing a countywide constitutional office outweigh his 2020 defeat and controversies associated with his previous tenure?
• Does Walton Johnson’s direct experience inside the Clerk of Courts make her better prepared for the specific job?
• How much weight should voters give political endorsements?
• How should voters evaluate controversies and attacks involving each candidate?
• Which candidate is more likely to effectively manage the Clerk’s office while maintaining public confidence in its operations?

Those questions could be especially important among voters making their decision in the final hours.

NO CLEAR PUBLIC POLLING LEADER

Unlike higher-profile statewide contests, the Clerk of Courts race has not been accompanied by extensive independent public polling.

That makes claims that either candidate is decisively ahead difficult to independently substantiate.

Singh’s countywide electoral history and name recognition could give him an advantage among voters who recognize his name on the ballot.

Walton Johnson’s direct Clerk experience and political endorsements could counter that advantage, particularly among Democratic voters familiar with county government.

The absence of reliable public polling makes turnout — and each campaign’s ability to get supporters to the polls — especially important.

WHY TURNOUT COULD DECIDE IT

County constitutional-office primaries generally receive less public attention than races for governor, Congress or the Legislature.

That means relatively small differences in turnout can have an outsized impact.

Singh and Walton Johnson do not necessarily need to persuade every Democratic voter in Orange County. They need to turn out their respective coalitions while winning enough undecided voters to create a countywide plurality.

With Cordero no longer an active candidate, the effectiveness of each campaign’s Election Day organization could prove decisive.

THE BOTTOM LINE FOR VOTERS

Tuesday’s Democratic primary offers Orange County voters two candidates with substantially different résumés.

Rick Singh is asking voters to return a former countywide constitutional officer to public office, emphasizing executive and electoral experience.

Roberta Walton Johnson is asking voters to promote someone already working within the Clerk of Courts operation, emphasizing legal knowledge, continuity and direct institutional experience.

The choice ultimately comes down to what Democratic voters value more: a former elected executive with countywide campaign experience or an attorney with direct experience inside the office she wants to lead.

Polls close at 7 p.m. Tuesday, and voters in line by 7 p.m. are permitted to cast a ballot.

The Democratic nominee will move on from Tuesday’s primary to the Nov. 3 general election.

FLORIDA NATIONAL NEWS ELECTION 2026
Florida National News will continue covering the 2026 Florida primary election and Orange County races as results become available.

Morales campaign says complaint filed before separate defamation lawsuit asks state investigators to examine disputed statements, candidate-approved political mailer and $50,000 in PAC contributions days before HD 43 Democratic primary

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Former Florida state Rep. Daisy Morales has asked the Florida Elections Commission to investigate whether Democratic primary opponent Samuel Vilchez Santiago committed possible election law violations involving allegedly false statements about Morales and disputed political communications sent to House District 43 voters, according to the Morales campaign.

The Morales campaign said the election-law complaint was filed before Morales subsequently filed a separate defamation lawsuit against Vilchez Santiago and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee.

The state election complaint seeks an independent investigation into three disputed representations about Morales: that she was “expelled from the Democratic Party,” “endorsed Republicans” and sided with or supported “MAGA Republicans.”

Morales disputes those representations.

With the Aug. 18 Democratic primary three days away, the campaign says the timing makes preservation of evidence and an independent review particularly important because the disputed communications allegedly reached voters while ballots were being cast.

“The people of House District 43 deserve the truth before they cast their votes,” Morales said. “I am asking the Florida Elections Commission to independently examine the evidence, determine what my opponent knew and when he knew it, and determine whether Florida election law was violated.”

STATE INVESTIGATION: FOLLOW THE FACTS

A central question raised by the complaint is whether Morales was formally and validly expelled from the Democratic Party, according to her campaign.

Rather than relying on competing political accounts, Morales wants state investigators to examine underlying records, including applicable party bylaws, written charges, notices, meeting agendas and minutes, voting records, resolutions, correspondence, appeals and state-party records.

The complaint asks investigators to determine who initiated any disciplinary action, what authority governed it, whether required procedures were followed, whether a vote occurred and whether a final expulsion was actually entered, the campaign said.

“If I was properly expelled, produce the records,” Morales said. “Show the charges, show the notice, show the authority, show the vote and show the final action.”

The complaint also asks investigators to determine whether Vilchez Santiago or others possessed information contradicting the expulsion representation before it was communicated to voters.

CANDIDATE-APPROVED MAILER RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE

The Morales campaign said another significant issue is a challenged political mailer indicating that it was approved by Vilchez Santiago.

Morales wants investigators to determine what Vilchez Santiago reviewed before approval, what documentation supported the disputed statements, whether contrary information was available and whether corrections were sought before the communication was distributed.

“When a mailer says it was approved by my opponent, that creates important questions that an independent investigation can answer,” Morales said. “What exactly did he approve? What evidence did he review? What did he know about the disputed statements before approving them?”

The Morales campaign acknowledges that proving a statement false would not, by itself, establish a violation under the statute cited in the complaint. The investigation would also have to examine evidence concerning the required actual-malice standard, including what Vilchez Santiago allegedly knew when a statement was made or caused to be made.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: $50,000 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

The complaint also asks state investigators to examine reported $50,000 in contributions from Central Floridians for Change PAC to the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, according to the Morales campaign.

The campaign expressly says the contributions themselves are not being presented as evidence of wrongdoing.

Instead, Morales wants investigators to examine campaign-finance reports, expenditures and communications to determine whether records establish any connection between the money and the development, production or distribution of the challenged political communications.

“I am not asking investigators to assume that a political contribution was illegal,” Morales said. “Follow the money, follow the communications and follow the approvals. If there is no connection, the evidence will show that. If there is a connection, determine what it was and whether it has any significance under Florida election law.”

According to the campaign, the complaint also requests review of any independently supported issues under Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, including campaign-finance reporting, political advertising, expenditures and committee activity.

WHY THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION?

The Morales campaign said the complaint principally invokes Section 104.271(2), Florida Statutes, which addresses false statements made by candidates about opposing candidates during an election.

Under the provision cited by the campaign, an aggrieved candidate may file a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission alleging that an opposing candidate, with actual malice, made or caused to be made a false statement about that candidate.

The statute provides for an expedited hearing process and authorizes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 if a violation is established.

Morales’ complaint also asks investigators to consider other provisions of Florida election law if evidence independently supports additional violations, according to her campaign.

“I am not asking the Commission to punish ordinary political criticism,” Morales said. “Candidates can criticize each other’s records, votes and positions. My complaint asks a different question: Were false factual statements knowingly made or caused to be made about an opposing candidate to influence voters?”

PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE

With the election approaching, the Morales campaign says investigators should preserve and examine records capable of establishing who developed the disputed statements, who approved them and what they knew before those statements reached voters.

The requested evidence includes emails, text messages, campaign and political committee communications, mailer drafts and proofs, source materials, approval records, invoices, contracts, expenditure records, vendor communications, mailing records and party disciplinary documents.

“The election may be over in days, but the responsibility to preserve evidence does not end on Election Day,” Morales said. “The records should be protected now so investigators can establish what happened.”

ELECTION COMPLAINT CAME BEFORE DEFAMATION LAWSUIT

The Morales campaign emphasized that the Florida Elections Commission complaint was filed before the separate civil defamation lawsuit against Vilchez Santiago and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee.

The proceedings seek different legal determinations.

The election complaint asks state election authorities to determine whether conduct involving the disputed campaign statements violated Florida election law.

The defamation lawsuit separately asks a state court to determine whether allegedly defamatory statements caused legally actionable harm to Morales.

“The sequence matters,” Morales said. “I first sought an independent election-law investigation because these statements were being used during an active election. The lawsuit followed because the same alleged conduct raises separate civil questions involving my name and reputation.”

“These are two different legal processes,” Morales added. “The Elections Commission should determine whether election law was violated. The court should determine the civil claims before it. Both should make their decisions from evidence, not politics.”

‘LET THE EVIDENCE DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED’

Morales said she wants investigators to make findings based on documentary evidence rather than competing campaign allegations.

“Preserve the records. Produce the documents. Follow the money. Determine who developed the statements, who approved them and what they knew before those statements reached voters,” Morales said.

“This election belongs to the voters,” she added. “Give them the facts and let independent institutions do their jobs.”

According to the Morales campaign, the complaint asks the Florida Elections Commission to determine legal sufficiency, investigate the alleged conduct, examine relevant communications and financial transactions, determine what participants knew and when, and impose any authorized penalties or make appropriate referrals if warranted by the evidence.

The allegations remain subject to investigation and adjudication. No finding that Samuel Vilchez Santiago, the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, Central Floridians for Change or any other person or entity violated Florida election law is asserted in this article.

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Former Florida state Rep. Daisy Morales filed a defamation lawsuit Friday against her Democratic primary opponent, Samuel Vilchez Santiago, and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, escalating a bitter Florida House District 43 contest just four days before the Aug. 18 Democratic primary.

The lawsuit, Case No. 482026CA008697A001OX, was filed in Orange County’s Ninth Judicial Circuit and assigned to Circuit Judge Michael Deen. Morales’ 23-page complaint asserts two counts — defamation/libel and defamation by implication — arising from statements distributed to Democratic voters during the HD 43 campaign.

The complaint was electronically filed at 12:33 p.m. Aug. 14 and names Vilchez Santiago individually and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, or FHDC, an affiliated party committee, as defendants.

Morales seeks damages exceeding $50,000 for jurisdictional purposes and asks a jury to determine compensatory damages, along with other damages and relief allowed under Florida law.

The lawsuit contains allegations that have not been adjudicated. The filing represents Morales’ claims, and Vilchez Santiago and FHDC will have an opportunity to contest them in court.

Political Mailer at Center of Lawsuit

At the heart of the case is a political mailer the complaint says FHDC paid for and distributed to Democratic voters while expressly advocating Vilchez Santiago’s election.

According to the lawsuit, the mailer represented as historical fact that Morales “endorsed Republican candidates and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party (DEC).”

Morales alleges that statement was false and materially misleading.

The complaint challenges both parts of that assertion: whether Morales endorsed Republican candidates and whether she was expelled from the Democratic Party.

Morales Disputes Republican Endorsement Claim

The dispute traces in part to the 2024 Orange County Commission District 5 campaign of Republican candidate Joel Montilla.

Morales’ name appeared on a host-committee invitation connected to Montilla’s campaign launch. But the complaint says Morales denies that participating on the host committee constituted an endorsement.

More significantly, the lawsuit says Montilla himself publicly stated Morales did not endorse his candidacy and that Morales agreed only to participate on the campaign kickoff host committee.

According to the complaint, Montilla also said the host committee included Democrats and Republicans and that his campaign separately identified actual political endorsements.

The lawsuit alleges the FHDC mailer nevertheless told voters Morales had “endorsed Republican candidates.”

Morales argues that the plural word “candidates” materially expanded the accusation from one disputed alleged endorsement into an assertion that she had supported multiple Republicans. The complaint alleges there was no truthful factual basis for that broader statement.

What Does ‘Expelled’ Mean?

The second major dispute involves Morales’ status with the Orange County Democratic Executive Committee.

The complaint acknowledges that information available to Morales reflects an OCDEC membership record identifying a vacancy associated with an “Oath Loyalty Violation.”

But Morales disputes that the record establishes either that she endorsed Republican candidates or that she was “expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party.”

The lawsuit argues that a vacancy or loss of membership within a county Democratic executive committee is not necessarily the same factual proposition as being expelled from the Democratic Party.

Morales alleges the mailer eliminated that distinction and presented the broader characterization as established historical fact.

According to the complaint, combining the two claims conveyed an additional message to Democratic voters: that Morales endorsed Republicans and was expelled from the Democratic Party because of those endorsements.

Complaint Points to Vilchez Santiago’s Prior Statements

Morales’ lawsuit also alleges the underlying Montilla accusation existed before FHDC distributed the 2026 mailer.

According to the complaint, correspondence involving an Orlando Sentinel reporter attributed to Vilchez Santiago the allegation that Morales had endorsed Montilla and linked the alleged endorsement to her status within OCDEC.

The lawsuit notes that Vilchez Santiago formerly served as chairman of the Orange County Democratic Executive Committee and alleges that role gave him knowledge of and access to information concerning Democratic Party membership, loyalty requirements and internal party proceedings.

The complaint does not claim that similarity between Vilchez Santiago’s alleged earlier statement and the mailer, standing alone, proves he authored the FHDC communication.

Instead, Morales alleges his earlier communication is circumstantial evidence relevant to his knowledge, participation, approval, republication, motive and state of mind.

Credit: Attorney Joel Montilla

Credit: Winter Paark Voice

Selective Enforcement Alleged

Morales also alleges that her treatment was materially inconsistent with the treatment of other prominent Democrats who supported or participated in campaigns involving Republicans.

The complaint alleges that Angie Gallo, a Democrat and Orange County School Board member, served as campaign manager for and publicly supported Montilla but was not subjected to comparable disciplinary consequences.

The filing also alleges that Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, a Democrat, publicly endorsed Republican Steve Leary during the 2024 Orange County Commission District 5 race.

It further alleges that Orange County Commissioner Mike Scott, a Democrat, appeared on Montilla’s host committee and spoke at a Montilla campaign event. Morales alleges Scott also was not subjected to comparable disciplinary consequences.

Morales is not asking the court to decide how a political party should enforce its internal rules or whether those Democrats should have been disciplined.

Instead, the complaint says the comparisons are being offered as circumstantial evidence relevant to motive, knowledge, intent, reckless disregard and the truth or falsity of the narrative later presented to voters.

Actual Malice Will Be a Key Legal Issue

Because Morales is a candidate for public office and the challenged statements concern her candidacy, the complaint expressly alleges constitutional actual malice.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants published or caused publication of the challenged representations either knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.

Among the circumstances Morales cites are Montilla’s denial; campaign materials distinguishing host-committee participation from a formal endorsement; the transformation of one disputed alleged endorsement into an assertion involving multiple Republican “candidates”; and Vilchez Santiago’s former position as OCDEC chairman.

The complaint also points to the difference between a county executive committee membership consequence and the broader assertion that Morales was expelled from the Democratic Party.

Morales alleges evidence involving the defendants’ internal communications, sources, research, contacts with OCDEC and campaign personnel, editorial and approval processes, coordination and publication decisions remains principally in the defendants’ possession and would be further developed through discovery.

Two Defamation Counts

Count I — Defamation/Libel: Morales alleges Vilchez Santiago and FHDC published, republished, supplied, authorized, approved, caused to be published or materially participated in publishing factual statements concerning her to third parties.

Count II — Defamation by Implication: Morales alternatively argues that even if defendants contend individual portions of the communication were literally accurate, the publication as a whole created a materially false and defamatory factual impression.

The complaint alleges the overall message conveyed that Morales knowingly endorsed multiple Republican candidates, violated her Democratic Party loyalty obligations and was formally expelled because of those endorsements.

The complaint cites the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, which recognized defamation by implication under Florida law.

Credit: FNN

FNN Fact-Check Becomes Part of Court Filing

The lawsuit also cites an Aug. 11 Florida National News fact-check examining the FHDC mailer.

According to the complaint, FNN reviewed campaign materials, correspondence, legislative records, contemporaneous Democratic Party materials and a written response from Montilla.

The complaint says the reporting found no evidence supporting the broader assertion that Morales endorsed additional Republican candidates.

FNN rated the claim that Morales “endorsed Republican candidates” as “Mostly False” and ultimately rated the mailer’s overall factual message “Mostly False.”

The complaint expressly acknowledges that FNN’s journalistic rating is not binding on the court and does not independently establish liability.

Instead, Morales cites the underlying information — including Montilla’s denial, the distinction between host-committee participation and endorsement, the lack of identified evidence of multiple Republican endorsements and documentation concerning her party status — as evidence she says is relevant to falsity and knowledge or reckless disregard.

More Than $50,000 at Issue

The complaint states that Orange County Circuit Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because Morales seeks damages exceeding $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Morales alleges the challenged communications injured her reputation, political standing and candidacy.

She asks the court for compensatory damages in an amount determined by a jury, general or presumed damages to the extent permitted by law, consequential and other recoverable damages, taxable costs, applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and other relief the court considers appropriate.

The complaint does not establish that Vilchez Santiago or FHDC committed defamation. Liability, damages and the truth or falsity of disputed factual issues remain matters for litigation.

Defendants’ Response

Florida National News requested comment from Samuel Vilchez Santiago and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee regarding the allegations in the lawsuit. Responses were not immediately available before publication.

Lawsuit Lands Four Days Before Aug. 18 Primary

The timing puts the lawsuit squarely into the closing days of the Democratic primary.

Morales and Vilchez Santiago will face Democratic voters for the Florida House District 43 nomination Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2026.

It is not their first primary contest.

The complaint states that Morales defeated Vilchez Santiago in the 2020 Democratic primary for Florida House District 48. Morales subsequently won the general election and served in the Florida House. The two are now opposing candidates for the Democratic nomination in District 43.

The lawsuit alleges the challenged statements were distributed during the active election campaign to voters deciding whether to nominate Morales or Vilchez Santiago. Morales alleges their effect was to portray her as disloyal to the Democratic Party, dishonest about her political affiliations and unfit for Democratic voters’ support.

Now, with four days remaining before Election Day, a political dispute that had unfolded through party proceedings, campaign advertising and competing public claims has moved into the courts.

The central factual questions raised by Morales — whether she endorsed Republican candidates, whether she was expelled from the Democratic Party, what Vilchez Santiago and FHDC knew, and how the disputed statements came to be published — are now part of Case No. 482026CA008697A001OX before Circuit Judge Michael Deen.

The defendants have not been found liable, and the allegations remain to be tested through the judicial process.