Florida’s courts just delivered a knockout punch to the idea that out-of-state leniency can trump Sunshine State rules.
The Tampa Free Press reported that the First District Court of Appeal has upheld Governor Ron DeSantis’ decision to remove Christopher "Doc" Bailey from the Crescent City Commission, proving once again that Florida plays by its playbook when it comes to who qualifies for public office.
In a nutshell, the court ruled that Florida isn’t obligated to honor Missouri’s restoration of Bailey’s civil rights after his federal felony conviction, backing DeSantis’ move to declare Bailey’s seat vacant.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this legal saga. Bailey, convicted of a federal felony back in 1995 in Missouri, saw his civil rights restored there in 2000 upon completing probation. Missouri might have given him a clean slate, but Florida wasn’t buying it.
Fast forward to November 2022, when Bailey, now a Florida resident, won a seat on the Crescent City Commission.
That victory was short-lived, as Governor DeSantis swooped in with an executive order on August 7, 2023, yanking Bailey from his post faster than you can say "disqualification."
Why the boot? The Florida Constitution is crystal clear: anyone with a felony conviction can’t hold office unless their civil rights are restored by the state’s Board of Executive Clemency. Bailey hadn’t even applied for that restoration here, so DeSantis saw no reason to let him keep the seat.
Bailey didn’t take this lying down, oh no. He argued that under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, Florida had to respect Missouri’s restoration of his rights. Nice try, but the court wasn’t swayed by that progressive-leaning logic.
On Wednesday, the First District Court of Appeal dropped its unanimous decision, affirming a lower court’s ruling against Bailey.
The three-judge panel, led by Judge Lewis, made it plain: Florida doesn’t have to swap its laws for another state’s, especially on something as serious as who gets to govern.
The court’s opinion cut through Bailey’s argument like a hot knife through butter. It pointed out that the Full Faith and Credit Clause isn’t a free pass to override Florida’s authority, particularly when dealing with federal convictions that fall under a unique legal umbrella.
Even more damning, the court noted that a later Missouri statute would likely disqualify Bailey from holding office there too. So much for hiding behind out-of-state rules—Florida’s standards aren’t up for negotiation, and that’s a win for state sovereignty over federal overreach.
Bailey’s challenge came in the form of a writ of quo warranto, a fancy legal term for questioning someone’s right to hold office.
But Judge Rowe, in a concurring opinion, threw a polite jab, suggesting this wasn’t even the right tool for Bailey’s fight—perhaps a declaratory judgment would’ve been smarter.
Rowe’s point wasn’t just nitpicking; it underscored that Bailey’s case was more about disputing DeSantis’ decision than proving the state lacked power. It’s a subtle reminder that even in defeat, the legal process matters as much as the outcome.
Still, the core ruling stands firm: Florida calls the shots on restoring civil rights for federal felons. This isn’t about personal grudges—it’s about ensuring that state law, not some distant statute, governs who represents Floridians.
For conservatives, this decision is a breath of fresh air in a world often muddled by woke attempts to dilute state power.
It’s not about punishing Bailey personally but about protecting Florida’s right to set its standards without bowing to other states’ softer policies.
The message is loud and clear to anyone with a federal rap sheet eyeing public office in Florida: get your civil rights restored here, or don’t bother running. DeSantis and the courts have drawn a line in the sand, and it prioritizes local accountability over imported excuses.