Politics
Biden to campaign as extension of Obama’s political movement
Florida
Byron Donalds Secures Endorsement From Gainesville Democrat Cynthia Moore Chestnut, Spotlighting Cross-Party Politics
Longtime Democratic leader backs Republican nominee as state Sen. LaVon Bracy Davis pushes back, renewing debate over the impact of cross-party endorsements in Florida politics
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (FNN) — Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds has secured the endorsement of Gainesville City Commissioner Cynthia Moore Chestnut, a longtime Democrat and former state lawmaker, drawing criticism from fellow Democrats and putting Florida’s history of cross-party political support in the spotlight.
Proud to have the endorsement of Cynthia Moore Chestnut, a longtime public servant who has represented her community at the city, county, and state levels.
I’m honored to have her support as our movement continues to grow across Florida! pic.twitter.com/r0oARJB15o
— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) September 3, 2026
Chestnut announced her support for Donalds on Thursday and followed with a lengthy explanation defending her decision. She said she remains a Democrat but does not believe party affiliation should dictate her vote.
“My endorsement of Byron Donalds is not a betrayal of my values; it is a declaration that Black voters are not political property,” Chestnut wrote.
Chestnut, a former Florida House member, Alachua County commissioner and Democratic Party leader, said she wants to see Florida elect a Black governor in her lifetime.
That gives the endorsement additional historical significance. Donalds, who won the Republican nomination in Florida’s Aug. 18 primary, is seeking to become Florida’s first Black governor, according to The Associated Press.
The endorsement is also notable because Chestnut previously supported Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly before shifting her support to his Republican opponent. Current reporting confirms Chestnut’s endorsement and her subsequent defense of the decision.
Florida Democratic state Sen. LaVon Bracy Davis, who represents Central Florida in the Florida Senate.
State Sen. LaVon Bracy Davis Pushes Back on Donalds Endorsement
Democratic state Sen. LaVon Bracy Davis of Ocoee responded with an extensive public statement saying she was “deeply disappointed” by Chestnut’s decision.
Bracy Davis focused much of her criticism on Donalds’ record on voting rights, including his opposition to federal voting-rights legislation and to the proposed Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Florida Voting Rights Act, which Bracy Davis sponsors.
“I want to see a Black governor of Florida in my lifetime too,” Bracy Davis wrote, while arguing that representation should not be separated from a candidate’s voting record and policy positions.
The disagreement presents competing views of political independence. Chestnut argues that Black voters should not be treated as the political property of either party. Bracy Davis argues that representation should be weighed against a candidate’s record and policies.
Byron Donalds’ Jim Crow Remarks Resurface
Bracy Davis also invoked Donalds’ controversial 2024 comments about Black families during the Jim Crow era.
Donalds said at a Philadelphia event that “during Jim Crow, the Black family was together” while discussing marriage and family structure. Democrats sharply criticized the remarks, while Donalds rejected interpretations that he was praising segregation.
The distinction is important: Donalds did not explicitly say Black Americans were better off under Jim Crow.
Cynthia Moore Chestnut Points to FAMU and Black Representation
Chestnut also cited Donalds’ connection to Florida A&M University and the importance she places on Black representation.
Donalds attended FAMU before transferring to Florida State University, where he earned his bachelor’s degree.
Chestnut, a FAMU graduate, said she respects Donalds’ support for historically Black colleges and universities and also cited shared cultural connections through his Jamaican and Panamanian family background.
Bracy Davis countered that attending an HBCU should not substitute for examining a candidate’s political record.
David Jolly, a former Republican congressman who became a Democrat in 2025, is the Democratic nominee for governor of Florida in 2026. Source David Jolly
David Jolly Was a Republican Before Becoming a Democrat in 2025
Party affiliation adds another dimension to the controversy.
Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly represented Florida in Congress as a Republican from 2014 to 2017. He left the Republican Party in 2018 and became an independent.
Jolly remained unaffiliated for several years before registering as a Democrat in April 2025, as he considered entering the 2026 governor’s race.
He subsequently entered the race and won the Democratic nomination in the Aug. 18 primary. AP described the contest as Donalds, the Republican nominee, against Jolly, a former Republican congressman running as the Democratic nominee.
The circumstances differ from Chestnut’s decision: Jolly formally changed parties; Chestnut says she remains a Democrat while supporting the Republican nominee.
The history nevertheless creates an unusual political contrast: a longtime Democrat is supporting Donalds over a Democratic nominee who previously represented Florida in Congress as a Republican.
Byron Donalds Adds $1 Million From Orlando-Based Morgan & Morgan
Chestnut’s endorsement comes as Donalds continues attracting substantial financial support heading into the general election.
A Florida National News review of Florida Division of Elections campaign-finance records found that Morgan & Morgan contributed $1 million to Friends of Byron Donalds PAC on Aug. 26, 2026.
The contribution appears in the committee’s 2026 G1A report and identifies the contributor as “Morgan & Morgan,” with an address at 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor, Orlando.
The same report shows 18 contributions totaling approximately $1.93 million, meaning the Morgan & Morgan contribution accounted for more than half of the money listed in that group of contributions.
Morgan & Morgan was founded by Orlando attorney John Morgan, who has a long history of political involvement and support for Democratic candidates and causes, although his political activity has crossed party lines.
The distinction is important: Florida’s filing identifies Morgan & Morgan — not John Morgan personally — as the contributor of the $1 million.
For Donalds, the developments represent two different forms of support as the general election takes shape: a seven-figure contribution from a prominent Orlando law firm and a cross-party endorsement from a Democratic elected official with decades of experience in Florida politics.
Democratic Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer included Republican Steve Leary among his endorsed candidates for the 2024 election. The Orlando PAC mailer promoted Leary for Orange County Commission District 5 alongside several Democratic candidates. Source Winter Park Voice
Buddy Dyer, Gary Siplin and Victoria Siplin Show Cross-Party Support Is Not New
Chestnut’s decision has generated attention, but Democratic elected officials supporting Republican candidates is not unprecedented in Central Florida.
During the 2024 Orange County Commission District 5 race, Democratic Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer endorsed Republican former Winter Park Mayor Steve Leary.
Political Rivals: Samuel Vilchez Santiago lost the 2020 Florida House District 48 Democratic primary to Daisy Morales, who went on to win the seat. During Morales’ 2022 reelection campaign, Vilchez Santiago supported Rita Harris, who defeated Morales in the Democratic primary. Vilchez Santiago later chaired the Orange County Democratic Party during the 2024 dispute over Morales’ party status. In their 2026 House District 43 rematch, the dispute resurfaced in news coverage and FHDCC attack mailers alleging Morales endorsed Republicans and was expelled from the local party. The mailers identified the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee as the payer and Vilchez Santiago as approving them. Morales disputes the allegations and has challenged them through litigation and an election complaint.
Samuel Vilchez Santiago, then-chairman of the Orange County Democratic Executive Committee, told Winter Park Voice that the organization “sent out texts and mailers alerting voters that Leary is a Republican, not a Democrat.” Vilchez Santiago said those communications were not issued in response to Dyer’s endorsement, but were intended to educate voters.
However, former Democratic state Sen. Gary Siplin and Orange County Commissioner Victoria Siplin, also a Democrat, supported Leary as well.
Those endorsements occurred in an officially nonpartisan county election, an important distinction from the partisan governor’s race, although the candidates’ political affiliations were publicly known.
The examples nevertheless demonstrate that prominent Central Florida Democrats have previously crossed party lines to support Republican candidates.
Then-Orange County School Board Vice Chair Angie Gallo publicly endorses Joel Montilla for Orange County Commission District 5 in a campaign graphic paid for and approved by Montilla’s campaign. Source: Joel Montilla Campaign
Angie Gallo Endorsed Republican Joel Montilla and Served as His Campaign Manager
Another example emerged during the same 2024 Orange County Commission election.
Angie Gallo, an elected Orange County School Board member who served as board vice chair, publicly endorsed Republican Joel Montilla during his campaign for the District 5 commission seat.
Her involvement extended beyond an endorsement.
A Joel Montilla campaign press release dated Oct. 24, 2023, identifies “Angie Gallo — Campaign Manager” in the campaign’s contact information, providing direct campaign documentation of her role.
The campaign subsequently publicized Gallo’s endorsement of Montilla.
The distinction is significant: the documentary record establishes both a formal campaign-management role and a public endorsement.
The Orange County Commission race was officially nonpartisan, although Montilla’s Republican affiliation was publicly known.
Gallo’s involvement provides additional context for questions about when cross-party political activity becomes subject to internal Democratic Party rules.
Rep. Yvonne Hayes Hinson, D-Gainesville, Rep. Daisy Morales, D-Orlando, Rep. Tray McCurdy, D-Orlando (in front) and Rep. Angie Nixon, D-Jacksonville, protest on the Florida Seal as debate is halted in the House of Representatives Thursday, April 21, 2022, at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. The session was halted by the protest, but continued after a brief recess. Phil Sears AP
Former Democratic State Rep. Daisy Morales Adds Context to Party-Loyalty Debate
Former Orlando state Rep. Daisy Morales, a Puerto Rican Democrat, provides another Central Florida example relevant to the debate over party loyalty and political independence.
In 2022, Morales, a Puerto Rican lawmaker known for working across party lines, represented a Central Florida district with a significant Puerto Rican population.
On April 21, 2022, Morales joined Black Democratic lawmakers protesting a congressional redistricting map backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on the Florida House floor.
The demonstration received state and national attention.
The Miami Herald reported that several Black Democrats disrupted debate and that Democratic lawmakers sang “We Shall Overcome,” temporarily forcing the House into recess.
The Herald identified Morales alongside Democratic Reps. Yvonne Hinson, Travaris McCurdy and Angie Nixon in its reporting and accompanying photograph.
Morales carried a sign declaring:
“Legislators serve the people. Not your party.”
The Herald reported that McCurdy, Nixon and Rep. Felicia Robinson sat in the center aisle while more than a dozen Democratic colleagues gathered around them in solidarity. The Republican-controlled House later approved the congressional map 68-38 along party lines.
The demonstration also received national coverage.
NBC News, in reporting preserved through syndication, identified Morales as the Hispanic representative participating in the demonstration and subsequently issued a correction after initially identifying another lawmaker.
The episode placed Morales alongside Black Democratic lawmakers in one of the Legislature’s most visible protests of the 2022 congressional redistricting fight.
FNN also reported on the demonstration at the time, describing Democratic lawmakers as temporarily shutting down House proceedings while protesting the congressional map.
Two years later, Morales became involved in an Orange County Democratic Party dispute over an alleged loyalty-oath violation connected to the 2024 Orange County Commission District 5 election.
Morales disputes that she endorsed Republican Joel Montilla, maintaining that her involvement was limited to joining his campaign-launch host committee. Montilla has separately told FNN that Morales did not endorse him.
That creates a notable factual contrast with Gallo: Montilla’s own campaign documentation identifies Gallo as his campaign manager, and she subsequently publicly endorsed him.
The available record does not, however, establish that Morales and Gallo were subject to identical Democratic Party membership requirements, loyalty provisions or disciplinary authority.
Democratic state Rep. Jose Alvarez, center, speaks on the Florida House floor alongside Democratic state Rep. Susan Valdés, left, and Republican state Rep. Fabián Basabe, right. Source: Florida House
State Rep. Jose Alvarez Crossed Party Lines, Then Withdrew His Support
Cross-party support has also occurred in partisan legislative politics.
Democratic state Rep. Jose Alvarez of Kissimmee endorsed Republican state Rep. Fabián Basabe for reelection in 2025, saying his decision reflected his experience working with Basabe rather than their different party affiliations.
Alvarez later rescinded the endorsement in July 2026 and called for Basabe to resign following a civil jury verdict involving two former House employees.
The episode nevertheless provides another recent example of a Central Florida Democrat publicly supporting a Republican candidate.
Cross-Party Support and Democratic Party Discipline Are Different Questions
The examples involving Chestnut, Dyer, the Siplins, Gallo, Morales and Alvarez highlight an important distinction between cross-party political support and internal party discipline.
Being a registered Democrat or Democratic elected official does not necessarily make someone subject to the same county party loyalty oath, bylaws or disciplinary procedures.
That distinction is part of an unresolved dispute involving former state Rep. Daisy Morales, who filed a defamation lawsuit and sought a Florida Elections Commission investigation challenging campaign claims that she endorsed Republicans and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party. The allegations remain unresolved, and no finding of an election-law violation has been established.
The comparison with Angie Gallo is notable. The documentary record establishes Gallo’s formal role in Republican Joel Montilla’s campaign and her public endorsement, while Morales disputes endorsing Montilla — and Montilla has independently said Morales did not endorse him.
Whether the two were subject to the same party rules and disciplinary authority remains a separate factual question. Their situations can therefore be compared politically without assuming they constituted identical violations of Democratic Party rules.
Cynthia Moore Chestnut Says She Remains a Democrat
Chestnut has made clear that she does not consider supporting Donalds a departure from the Democratic Party.
“This endorsement does not mean I have stopped being a Democrat,” she wrote.
Instead, Chestnut framed her decision as an exercise of political independence and argued that Black voters should not be expected to support candidates solely on the basis of party affiliation.
Bracy Davis sees the endorsement differently, arguing that Donalds’ record on voting rights and other issues conflicts with principles Chestnut has advocated during decades in Democratic politics.
Their disagreement has transformed a single gubernatorial endorsement into a broader discussion about representation, party loyalty, policy and political identity.
What Comes Next: Will Other Democrats Follow Chestnut?
Chestnut’s endorsement now raises a broader question heading into the general election: Will other Democratic elected officials or longtime party leaders cross party lines and publicly support Donalds?
For now, Chestnut represents a notable individual endorsement rather than evidence of a broader Democratic movement toward the Republican nominee.
But the question carries added significance because of the historic nature of Donalds’ candidacy.
The Associated Press reported after the Aug. 18 primary that Donalds won the Republican nomination and is seeking to become Florida’s first Black governor. AP also placed Donalds among a historically significant group of Black major-party gubernatorial nominees running across the country in 2026.
Donalds has emphasized that winning the general election will require more than support from within his Republican base. After the primary, he told reporters that President Donald Trump’s endorsement was important but would not, by itself, carry him through the general election.
Chestnut has placed greater emphasis on the historic dimension. In explaining her endorsement, she explicitly cited her desire to see a Black governor of Florida during her lifetime.
That makes what happens next worth watching: whether Chestnut’s endorsement remains an individual cross-party decision or whether additional Democratic elected officials, party figures or other traditionally Democratic political supporters make similar choices before November.
The 2026 contest already presents an unusual political contrast: Donalds is seeking to become Florida’s first Black governor, while Jolly represented Florida in Congress as a Republican, left the GOP in 2018 and became a Democrat in 2025. Chestnut, a Democrat with decades of party involvement who says she remains one today, has chosen to support Donalds.
Whether other Democrats follow Chestnut remains an open question.
Florida
Democratic Leaders Condemned Susan Valdés’ GOP Switch; Orange Democrats Later Appear Alongside Her
Florida
[COURTS & LAW] Paula Stark Court Record Could Impact Daisy Morales, James Bush III Defamation Lawsuits Against FHDCC
Stark’s Leon County Election Fight, Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade and Morales’ Orange County Defamation Lawsuit Could Put FHDCC’s Legal Status Under Scrutiny in Three Florida Courts
ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Three Florida court cases. Three counties. One political committee — and an unresolved legal question that could affect two pending defamation lawsuits.
Court records obtained and reviewed by Florida National News show the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee (FHDCC) sought permission to become a Party Defendant in Republican state Rep. Paula Stark’s Leon County election lawsuit in June 2026.
Less than a month later, FHDCC took a different procedural position in former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III’s Miami-Dade defamation lawsuit, arguing that it is an unincorporated political organization that lacks the capacity to be sued in its own name.
That position is supported by a sworn affidavit submitted by State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of FHDCC, describing her authority over committee funds and legal matters and stating the committee’s position that it cannot be sued as a political committee.
Now, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales has named FHDCC as a defendant in a separate defamation lawsuit in Orange County.
The cases involve different parties, claims and legal issues. FHDCC’s attempt to intervene in Stark’s case does not establish that the committee has capacity to be sued in Bush or Morales.
But the developing record presents a significant question: FHDCC affirmatively asked one Florida circuit court to allow it to become a Party Defendant, then later argued in another that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
FHDCC Asked to Become a Party Defendant in Stark Case
Stark, a Republican state representative from St. Cloud, sued after election officials determined she failed to qualify for reelection to House District 47.
Her case, Paula Stark v. Cord Byrd, et al., Case No. 2026-CA-1311, was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County before Circuit Judge Joshua M. Hawkes.
On June 25, 2026, attorney Mark Herron filed a motion on behalf of FHDCC and Democratic House District 47 candidates Jorge Figueroa and Anthony Nieves.
The filing was expressly titled “Motion to Intervene as a Party Defendants in Pending Election Case” and asked Hawkes to permit FHDCC, Figueroa and Nieves to intervene as Party Defendants under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230.
FHDCC also described itself in the motion as an affiliated party committee established under Section 103.092, Florida Statutes, to support Democratic candidates for the Florida House.
The committee asserted that the outcome of Stark’s lawsuit would affect the resources FHDCC would expend in the House District 47 election.
Herron signed the filing as “Attorney for the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee.”
Herron also serves as FHDCC treasurer. His dual role could become relevant if the Bush or Morales defamation lawsuits reach discovery concerning the committee’s organization, finances or decision-making. Any potential testimony would depend on Herron’s firsthand knowledge and applicable attorney-client and other legal protections.
Hawkes Denied FHDCC Intervention
FHDCC did not succeed in becoming a party to Stark’s case.
In his July 8 Order on Petition for Mandamus, Hawkes explained that he denied FHDCC intervention because the committee’s asserted interest amounted to “just a financial stake.”
Hawkes instead allowed Figueroa and Nieves to intervene because their candidacies and political positions were directly affected by whether the primary would remain closed. The written order consequently identifies Figueroa and Nieves — not FHDCC — as intervenors.
That distinction is critical.
The Stark record establishes that FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant. It does not establish that the court accepted FHDCC in that capacity. Hawkes expressly denied the committee’s request.
Hawkes ultimately denied Stark’s request for ballot relief. In his analysis, he also referenced an argument advanced by “counsel for Intervenors.”
The Stark litigation was subsequently closed.
Why Stark Matters
Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC has legal capacity to sue or be sued.
He rejected FHDCC’s intervention because its asserted interest in the election dispute was insufficient.
But the underlying motion remains significant because it establishes that FHDCC, through counsel, affirmatively invoked a Florida court’s jurisdiction and asked to participate as a Party Defendant.
That record could become relevant if FHDCC maintains in other courts that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade
While Stark’s election litigation was unfolding in Leon County, FHDCC was facing a different legal battle in Miami-Dade.
Former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III filed a defamation lawsuit in August 2025 against Edge Communications, LLC, Strong Community, FHDCC and state Rep. Ashley Gantt.
The case, James Bush III v. Edge Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 2025-015569-CA-01, was assigned to Section CA31 of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and Circuit Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens, according to the court’s Case Management Order.
The order, signed Oct. 11, 2025, established July 8, 2026, as the deadline for summary judgment and dispositive motions, resolution of certain pretrial matters and mediation. It projected an Oct. 6, 2026 trial date.
On July 8 — the same day Hawkes issued his Stark ruling in Leon County — clerk defaults were entered against FHDCC and other defendants in Bush’s lawsuit, according to filings previously reviewed by FNN.
FHDCC moved to set aside its default on July 15.
Bush then filed a Motion for Final Default Judgment on July 29 seeking $1 million, plus costs, against the defaulted defendants.
The distinction is important: Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment. The court has not entered a $1 million judgment based on the records reviewed for this report.
FHDCC Argues It Cannot Be Sued in Its Own Name
FHDCC’s response to the Miami-Dade default creates the central comparison with the Stark record.
In its Motion to Set Aside Default, FHDCC argued that it is a 527 political unincorporated organization that lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.
The committee cited Larkin v. Buranosky, a 2008 Florida appellate decision involving unincorporated political organizations.
That remains FHDCC’s legal position, not a determination by the Miami-Dade court.
But the timing creates a significant comparison:
June 25 — Leon County: FHDCC asks to enter litigation as a Party Defendant.
July 8 — Leon County: Hawkes denies FHDCC intervention.
July 15 — Miami-Dade County: FHDCC argues that its organizational status prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Those positions are not automatically contradictory. Intervention and capacity to be sued are distinct legal questions, and Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC possessed capacity to sue or be sued.
But the records could invite scrutiny of how FHDCC characterizes its legal identity and litigation authority in different proceedings.
FHDCC Chair Hunschofsky Submits Sworn Affidavit
The Miami-Dade dispute took on added significance when State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, submitted a sworn affidavit supporting FHDCC’s effort to set aside the default.
Hunschofsky described FHDCC as a Florida registered political committee affiliated with the Florida Democratic Party but not controlled by it.
She also described her authority within the organization, stating that she is responsible for the allocation of FHDCC funds and for legal actions against the committee and its defense.
Hunschofsky further stated that FHDCC is an unincorporated entity and that the committee understands it “cannot be sued as a political committee.”
She said that after learning Bush had obtained a default, she immediately instructed attorney Juan-Carlos Planas to seek to set aside the default and have the case dismissed based on FHDCC’s position that it cannot be sued under Florida law.
The affidavit represents sworn statements by FHDCC’s chair concerning the committee’s structure and her responsibilities. Her assertion concerning whether FHDCC can be sued is the committee’s legal position; it does not establish that Sanchez-Llorens has accepted that interpretation.
Morales Defamation Lawsuit Brings Question to Orange County
The third case brings the issue to Orange County.
On Aug. 14, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales filed a defamation lawsuit against FHDCC and Democratic House District 43 nominee Samuel Vilchez Santiago.
The case, Daisy Morales v. Samuel Vilchez Santiago and Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, Case No. 482026CA008697A001OX, is pending in the Ninth Judicial Circuit before Circuit Judge Michael Deen.
Morales asserts claims for defamation/libel and defamation by implication arising from political mailers distributed during the Democratic primary campaign.
Among the disputed statements was a representation that Morales endorsed Republican candidates and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party.
Morales alleges the statements were false and defamatory.
Those allegations remain pending. Neither Vilchez Santiago nor FHDCC has been found liable for defamation.
Vilchez Santiago defeated Morales in the Aug. 18 Democratic primary, but the election result does not resolve the civil lawsuit.
Could Stark and Bush Affect Morales?
The Stark intervention record makes the potential Orange County issue clearer.
If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales that it raised against Bush, the Orange County court could be asked to consider a broader record concerning the committee’s legal identity and structure.
That record could include FHDCC’s request to become a Party Defendant in Stark; Herron’s representation of the committee; Hawkes’ denial of FHDCC intervention; FHDCC’s Miami-Dade capacity argument; Hunschofsky’s sworn affidavit; and state records governing the committee’s organization and operations.
None of that evidence establishes the merits of Morales’ defamation claims.
But it could become relevant to a threshold question:
Is FHDCC itself a proper defendant?
And if Florida law ultimately says it is not, another question follows:
Who is the proper party for allegedly actionable conduct undertaken through the committee?
Three Courts, Different Consequences
The issue carries different consequences in each court.
Leon County: FHDCC affirmatively sought Party Defendant status, but Hawkes denied its intervention. Stark’s case is closed, and nothing in the Bush or Morales litigation currently changes that outcome.
Miami-Dade County: The consequences are immediate. Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment while FHDCC is attempting to set aside its default and arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
Orange County: The issue is prospective. If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales, Deen could be asked to examine the developing Stark and Bush records in determining whether FHDCC is a proper defendant.
One Political Committee, Three Florida Courts
The court records do not establish wrongdoing by FHDCC, Herron, Hunschofsky or their attorneys. Nor do they establish the merits of the Bush or Morales defamation claims.
What they do establish is an unusual litigation record involving the same political committee across three Florida circuit courts.
In Leon County, FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant — and Hawkes denied the request.
In Miami-Dade County, FHDCC is fighting a clerk’s default and Bush’s request for a $1 million final default judgment while arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
In Orange County, FHDCC is now a named defendant in Morales’ defamation lawsuit.
The cases could ultimately put a fundamental question under scrutiny:
What is the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee’s legal status — and if FHDCC cannot be sued in its own name, who may be held legally accountable for actionable conduct undertaken through the committee if that conduct is ultimately proven?
Entertainment4 days agoTom Cruise Announces ‘Days of Thunder’ 2 With Anne Hathaway, Surprises NASCAR Fans at Daytona
Entertainment1 day agoLee Brice, Kane Brown, Brantley Gilbert, Brandon Lake and Stephen Wilson Jr. to Headline Audacy’s Stars and Strings in South Florida
Florida5 hours agoByron Donalds Secures Endorsement From Gainesville Democrat Cynthia Moore Chestnut, Spotlighting Cross-Party Politics
Entertainment1 hour agoMiss Texas, Miss Utah and Miss New Jersey Win 2026 Miss America Preliminary Talent Awards
