By Fallan Patterson
Staff Writer

The Osceola County Supervisor of Elections Office is charging Armando Ramirez more than $1,000 for a public records request to support his lawsuit against the agency, fees he said he was never told about in advance.

The former Osceola County Commission district 2 candidate filed a lawsuit last month against Supervisor of Elections Mary Jane Arrington and the office’s Canvassing Board claiming fraudulent election practices cost him the election. Ramirez’s opponent, incumbent John Quiñones, garnered just 50 votes more than Ramirez to win district 2, however the race was not close enough to trigger Florida’s automatic recount law.

According to Amber Smith, public information officer for the Elections Office, Ramirez made a written public records request Nov. 12 to inspect the provisional, early voting and absentee ballots cast — 1,300 in total — for district 2 in the Nov. 2 election. Because the request was not able to be filled until Nov. 18, Ramirez viewed the ballots then. His lawsuit was filed Nov. 22.

“Mr. Ramirez was told ahead of time that there would be a charge for the sorting of the ballots,” Smith said. “That is not something we would do for an election. It was a special request.”

It took staff 80 hours to go through and separate district 2 ballots from the Elections Office’s filing system for Ramirez's request. While the first 30 minutes staff spends gathering materials for a request are free, any time spend over that half hour is charged to the person making the request at staff salary of $13.50 per hour.

Ramirez’s total bill is $1,080.  

“I was never informed they were going to charge me for my request,” Ramirez said. “I never knew she was going to charge me any money during my attempts of due process of law and ultimately, (for) seeking justice for the myriad of election irregularities that occurred during the Nov. 2 general elections.”

As per state law and the public records policy adopted by the Elections Office, which is the same as the county, the agency can charge for the time staff spends fulfilling a request as well as for copies and discs.

Ramirez requested via email to view provisional, early voting and absentee ballots immediately after the Nov. 12 certification session by the Canvassing Board. However, the ballots were not ready until Nov. 18 when Ramirez brought a photographer and a Spanish radio reporter with him to the Elections Office.

Ramirez claims the rest of the ballots were already in the room and Arrington told him he would not be charged for the day because two staff members were required to observe the ballot review.

“(Ballots) can't leave our custody and (non-staff members) can't touch them,” Smith said.

The staff members then spent two hours holding each ballot up so Ramirez's photographer could snap pictures.

According to Smith, Arrington told Ramirez he wouldn't be charged for the staff members to sit in on his review as a courtesy and had been told the fees would be assessed both over the phone when Ramirez made the request and when he came in to review the ballots and was given the bill.

During the ballot photo session, Quiñones and his lawyer came in to observe the proceedings “out of curiosity.”

“We were just observing what he was doing,” Quiñones said. “I didn't request to see the ballots at all.”

However, Ramirez said Quinones benefited from his review.

“We are required by state law that when one candidate demands to see the ballots that we invite the opposing candidate to review them at the same time,” Smith said via email. “Since Commissioner Quiñones did not make the request, he was not charged.”

The Elections Office stands by the fees charged to Ramirez and as of Thursday, he had not paid them.

“If necessary, I will include this in my lawsuit,” Ramirez said.