Broward Judge Halts Illegal Campaign Flyer






Broward judicial candidate Corey Amanda Cawthon had a rare win Friday against dirty tricks campaigning.

Broward County Circuit Judge William Haury called campaign flyers entitled A Better Florida For All Broward Voter’s Guide illegal and ordered their distribution halted immediately. Cawthon’s opponent was endorsed along with other candidates in the “voter’s guide” published by the group A Better Florida For All.

The judge noted that A Better Florida For All is not registered with the state and thus can not legally distribute campaign material.

Another flyer from the group falsely connects Cawthon with Brett Kavanaugh and other conservative U. S. Supreme Court justices, but the judge did not rule on this piece.  A Better Florida For All has been linked to County Commissioner Dale Holness, who was not named in Cawthon’s suit.

Cawthon had requested an injunction stopping distribution of the endorsement flyers.  Her lawyer is Andrew Schwartz of Boca Raton.


Corey Amanda Cawthon



A Better Florida For All has been handing out endorsement flyers at Early Voting locations, although the committee has been warned that its campaign material is illegal. See this previous story.  And this story.

The flyers “unlawfully interfere with the upcoming November 6, 2018 election by the way of illegal electioneering…,” Haury ruled.

The injunction which was granted is here: Certified Copy Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief





6 Responses to “Broward Judge Halts Illegal Campaign Flyer”

  1. Knowing All says:

    Don’t forget that Dale Holness is the slim behind this tactic.

  2. Caution says:

    @a Is Right. If you see Holness, run the other way.

  3. zigy says:

    I guess we had better vote for his other candidate mr starts with a G I guess, hes the mayor of traillerhassee. lol don’t you just love elections where we all play the game with integrity…. lol

  4. Hearing that ... says:

    Hearing today that the Miramar Police was “enforcing” the injunction at early voting in the city and seizing the cards as “illegal.”

    I’m fine with the injunction, and fine with the judge holding violators in contempt of court ……. but as a civil libertarian I have major concerns about the police questioning campaign workers about their literature and “seizing” any campaign materials the police officers deem to be “illegal.” Maybe well intentioned, but not something police should be doing.

  5. Kevin Tynan says:

    And they did not even show up to defend themselves

  6. SAM FIELDS says:

    Because the defendants did not show a horrible precedent was granted allowing for prior restraint of speech.

    In 1931 in Near v Minnesota the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint of speech is limited to imminent harm and obscenity. By imminent harm they were talking about things like troop movements during war with D-day plans being the type of they they are referring to.

    The New York Times Pentagon Papers case showed how far NEAR goes.(ha, ha)

    NEAR in no way protects the writer from punishment after the publication and thus it would not protect any of the parties in this matter if they broke the law

    If I had known about this case when it was going on I might have filed an amicus

    It leaves a black eye on the First Amendment