Florida voters will decide the U.S. Senate special election on November 3, choosing who will serve the remaining two years of the term vacated by Marco Rubio. Republican incumbent Ashley Moody and Democratic challenger Angie Nixon offer substantially different answers on public safety, immigration, healthcare, taxes and the reach of federal government. Their differences involve both policy and how they exercise judgment when challenged. This guide brings together The 101 Report’s issue-by-issue coverage so readers can compare the major-party nominees before voting.

Moody approaches the race as a former federal prosecutor, circuit judge and Florida attorney general who supports President Donald Trump’s agenda. Nixon approaches it as a Jacksonville state representative, former union organizer and progressive challenger campaigning on expanded public benefits and greater economic security. Neither a professional biography nor a campaign label resolves the choice. Their proposals, recorded actions, explanations and unanswered questions provide a more useful basis for comparison.

Nixon vs. Moody at a Glance

The table summarizes the reporting linked below; it does not describe every position either candidate holds. Nixon’s Florida House votes and Moody’s U.S. Senate votes concern different legislation and different levels of government. A campaign proposal is also different from an enacted law or a demonstrated result.

Police, Crime and Public Safety: Where Their Records Differ

Moody has the stronger documented backing from major law-enforcement organizations in this series. The Florida Police Chiefs Association reaffirmed its endorsement on July 10, and her campaign also lists support from the Florida State Fraternal Order of Police and Florida Police Benevolent Association. Her experience inside prosecution and the courts reinforces a campaign focused on enforcement and punishment. Those endorsements establish organizational support, rather than agreement by every officer or proof that every proposed penalty reduces crime.

Nixon emphasizes community violence prevention, treatment for substance use and ending private prisons and detention centers. She has distinguished ending for-profit incarceration from abolishing prisons altogether and has rejected defunding police. Voters should evaluate those stated positions rather than automatically assign her every policy associated with organizations supporting her. The unresolved question is how her proposed alternatives would protect victims and handle people who present a serious or repeated threat.

One concrete difference involves Nixon’s March 11 vote against CS/SB 156, the Officer Jason Raynor Act, which passed the House 103–8. The legislation expanded mandatory life imprisonment to specified officer-manslaughter cases and also changed provisions concerning resistance to arrest and police authority. Her vote establishes opposition to the package; it does not identify which provision motivated her. Moody’s repeated support for stronger federal capital-case aggravating factors involving officers points in a different sentencing direction.

Read the full comparisons: Police, private prisons and public safety — Part V and Officer killings, punishment and police endorsements — Part VII.

Café Resistance and the Difference Between Historical Context and Accountability

The confrontation over Nixon’s Café Resistance bookstore introduced a separate question about public judgment. Critics challenged a display that included people convicted of killing officers, while Nixon defended its historical purpose. The dispute concerns what the display and her explanation communicate about those convictions, the victims and political resistance. It should be evaluated alongside her record rather than treated as a substitute for it.

A candidate can discuss historical discrimination or dispute a conviction, but a specific claim of wrongful conviction requires specific evidence. Moody likewise should accurately describe Nixon’s statements and distinguish criticism of a display from proof that her opponent endorses violence. Voters can assess Nixon’s judgment without making an unsupported claim about her intentions. Clear explanations from both candidates would serve the public better than escalating labels.

Immigration, ICE and Border Security: A Choice About Enforcement

Nixon proposes abolishing ICE and rebuilding legitimate enforcement functions under new oversight. Her platform also calls for a deportation moratorium pending an audit and broader paths to citizenship. Moody has supported enforcement funding, police partnerships with ICE and legislation expanding expedited removal. These approaches would change how immigration law operates within Florida communities as well as at the border.

Moody’s introduced removal bill includes categories based on gang or terrorist-organization involvement as well as specified convictions. That distinction makes identification standards and opportunities to challenge mistakes important parts of the proposal. Nixon, meanwhile, needs to define the duration and exceptions for her proposed pause and explain how investigations would continue during an agency transition. Both should distinguish citizens, lawful residents, asylum applicants, people with temporary protections and people subject to valid removal orders.

Read the full comparison: ICE, deportation and border security — Part IX.

The Economy and Taxes: Who Pays for the Promises?

Nixon supports a 5% annual tax on individual wealth above $1 billion and connects higher taxes on the very wealthy to expanded public benefits. Moody emphasizes lower taxes, investment and economic growth. Their disagreement concerns how much revenue Washington should collect and how much responsibility it should assume for household costs. It also concerns whether government should rely more heavily on public provision or private markets.

Nixon should explain the administration, legal structure and revenue assumptions behind a wealth tax, alongside the cost of the programs she would finance. Moody should explain how tax reductions and spending commitments fit together without worsening the federal debt. Neither a promised benefit nor a promised tax cut is a complete fiscal plan. For families, the useful comparison is the combined effect on taxes, wages, services and out-of-pocket expenses.

Read the full comparison: Taxes, billionaire wealth and economic policy — Part I.

Healthcare: Medicare for All or Private Coverage and Savings Accounts?

Nixon supports Medicare for All, placing much greater responsibility for healthcare financing with the federal government. Moody favors retaining private insurance, expanding consumer choice and using health savings accounts alongside a narrower federal safety net. Those approaches would distribute costs and decision-making differently among taxpayers, employers, insurers and patients. The consequences reach households, hospitals and Jacksonville’s local safety-net responsibilities.

A useful comparison asks what each plan would require a family to pay in total, rather than considering premiums or taxes alone. Nixon needs a transition and financing plan, including how existing coverage and provider payments would change. Moody needs to explain how people with low incomes or expensive chronic conditions would obtain affordable coverage and care. Both approaches should be judged by access, financial protection and results.

Read the full comparison: Healthcare and its Jacksonville consequences — Part II.

Childcare: Expanding Access and Protecting Existing Assistance

Nixon supports universal, high-quality childcare and prekindergarten, with limits on family costs and higher compensation for workers. Moody introduced the Stop Child Care Scams Act to strengthen oversight of federal childcare assistance and address improper payments. Nixon’s emphasis is expanding access, while Moody’s proposal emphasizes protecting existing assistance. Those objectives address different problems and should not be presented as interchangeable solutions.

Parents need available places as well as help paying for them. Nixon’s proposal requires details about cost, staffing and provider capacity, while stronger fraud controls alone do not establish how Moody would expand supply. Voters should ask both candidates what a family could expect to change, when and at what public expense. Neither has supplied a complete Jacksonville-specific capacity plan in the reporting reviewed for this series.

Read the full comparison: Childcare costs, access and proposals — Part III.

Abortion: Access, Restrictions and Federal Authority

Nixon supports abortion access and voted against Florida’s 2023 legislation establishing a six-week restriction with specified exceptions. Moody, as attorney general, challenged the legal sufficiency of the proposed 2024 abortion-rights amendment; the Florida Supreme Court allowed it onto the ballot. In the Senate, she has supported legislation addressing care following a live birth after an attempted abortion. Those actions establish different priorities, but they do not identify every federal gestational limit or exception either candidate would support.

The federal question is what Congress should protect, restrict or leave to states. Voters should ask about gestational limits, emergency care, exceptions, contraception, IVF and conscience protections. They should also distinguish restrictions during pregnancy from requirements concerning an infant born alive. Specific legislative commitments provide more information than either candidate’s political label alone.

Read the full comparison: Abortion protections, restrictions and conscience — Part VI.

Israel, Gaza and U.S. Military Assistance

Nixon said in an August interview that she opposed sending Israel money or weapons at that moment. Her platform also calls for protecting Palestinians and Israelis and applying human-rights standards to military assistance. Moody has voted against advancing resolutions that would block specified arms transfers to Israel. Their records therefore indicate a meaningful difference over how Congress should use military aid as an instrument of foreign policy.

The details matter because offensive weapons, defensive cooperation and humanitarian relief serve different purposes. Nixon should explain which aid she would suspend and what conditions would restore it. Moody should explain what limits, oversight and civilian-protection requirements she would support. Neither a present-tense suspension proposal nor votes on particular transfers establish every decision a senator would make in a future conflict.

Read the full comparison: Israel, Gaza and military aid — Part IV.

Legal Accusations, Hope Florida and Senate Judgment

Nixon’s calls for Trump’s impeachment and imprisonment raise questions about the evidence and separate legal processes behind those demands. Her accusations that Moody stole money through the Hope Florida arrangement require the same precision. On October 7, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal ordered the grand jury report expunged, with the majority rejecting its basis for declaring the settlement unlawful and condemning unindicted individuals. The ruling was not a criminal trial, and the controversy should not be summarized as either a theft conviction or an acquittal after trial.

Moody still owes voters an explanation of the settlement process, oversight and safeguards concerning money that ultimately reached political advocacy. Nixon owes voters an explanation of the evidence supporting her continued theft accusations after the ruling. Nixon’s tax-payment arrangements, student-loan comments and separate disclosure complaint also deserve accurate treatment rather than being collapsed into proof of criminal conduct. The standard should remain consistent: investigate substantiated questions, distinguish allegations from findings and explain contrary evidence.

Read the full comparison: Trump impeachment, Hope Florida and legal judgment — Part VIII.

Campaign Money, Disclosure and the Final Days

Part X documented Nixon’s stronger third-quarter fundraising and Moody’s larger combined cash balance entering October, using reporting that included related committees. Those are dated comparisons, not claims about money available on October 25. Donations, rally attendance and polling each measure something different. None establishes what the final vote will be.

Campaign reporting also remains an accountability issue. A September 17 FEC notice reviewed for this guide requested additional information from Nixon’s committee and set an October 22 response date, while Nixon subsequently acknowledged mistakes and promised corrections. Such a notice is a preliminary review request, not a final finding of a violation. This guide has not independently established the complete response or the FEC’s disposition, so it does not claim that the campaign missed the deadline or resolved every question.

An October 21 report on UNF polling put Moody at 49% and Nixon at 45%, with 5% undecided. That is one dated survey, not a forecast or an election result. Polls should be read with their field dates, sampling methods and uncertainty. For voters still comparing candidates, the documented policy differences remain useful regardless of which campaign appears ahead.

Read the full comparison: Fundraising, rally crowds, polling and disclosure — Part X.

What Florida’s Next Senator Can Actually Change

A U.S. senator votes on federal legislation and spending, considers nominations, conducts oversight and participates in impeachment trials. A senator does not direct Jacksonville’s police department or unilaterally rewrite Florida’s criminal and abortion statutes. State records remain relevant evidence of priorities and judgment, but implementing federal promises requires congressional support and, ordinarily, presidential approval. Voters should ask which commitments each candidate could pursue through legislation, funding, oversight or constituent service.

For Nixon, the central implementation test is whether large changes to benefits and enforcement come with workable funding, transition plans and public-safety safeguards. For Moody, it is whether enforcement and tax-cut commitments come with fiscal discipline, due process and meaningful independence when allies face scrutiny. Both should explain the evidence behind their assertions and make themselves available for substantive questions. Accountability requires those standards to continue after the campaign ends.

From Election Comparison to Accountability After November 3

This guide closes the series’ issue-by-issue election comparison while preserving the reporting as a reference. The winner will inherit the responsibilities of the office and a public record of promises against which future actions can be measured. The 101 Report’s subsequent coverage will examine votes, legislation, constituent access, spending priorities and responses to oversight questions. The question will shift from what the candidates say they would do to what Florida’s elected senator actually does.

Florida’s general election is November 3, with the state’s mandatory early-voting period running October 24–31. County supervisors provide local locations, hours, sample ballots and voting instructions. This guide compares the Republican and Democratic nominees; voters should consult their official sample ballot for the complete candidate list. Use the Florida Division of Elections and your county supervisor for current election information.

Explore all ten installments in The Nixon vs. Moody Series.

We Welcome Your Thoughts.

Publication sources and update notes

• Candidate background: Moody’s official biography; Nixon’s published priorities.

• Police endorsement: Florida Police Chiefs Association, July 10.

• Officer Jason Raynor Act: official House roll call.

• Childcare: Moody’s Stop Child Care Scams Act announcement.

• Hope Florida: October 7 appellate opinion.

• Campaign reporting: September 17 FEC notice; FOX49’s account of Nixon’s response.

• Polling: October 21 UNF poll reporting.

• Detailed evidence and qualifications appear in the linked series installments.