As several leftist civic groups crow victory over a federal judges recent suppression of a few elements of Floridas 2011 revisions to its elections laws, a source close to the Department of State (DOS) tells Sunshine State News the lions share of the ruling represents a victory for the state and greater accountability for third-party voter registrants.
On Tuesday Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued an indicative ruling signaling his intention to make permanent a temporary ruling he made on May 31, which barred the state from enforcing a handful of provisions of an elections reform law passed by the Florida legislature in 2011. The ruling is "indicative" because Hinkle technically won't issue his definitive ruling until theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit returns the case to him. The state is terminating its appeal, and the plaintiffs in turn have agreed not to appeal the case in the future.
The provisions Hinkle suppressed in May included the following:
- A reduction in the time third-party voter registrants (i.e. organizations which solicit and collect new voter registrations) have to deliver new voter applications to local elections supervisors after they have been signed, from 10 days to 48 hours.
- Requirements that third-party organizations report to the state Division of Elections (DOE) the names of every employee or volunteer who solicits the filling out of new voter registrations, even if those employees or volunteers are not involved in the actual collection of those applications.
- Requirements that third-party voter organizations each month submit reports detailing the kind and exact number of all state and federal registration forms used by their agents.
These and other provisions were challenged by the League of Women Voters of Florida, the Florida Public Interest Research Group, Rock the Vote, and the American Civil Liberties Union as unduly burdening the right to vote, in violation of the United States Constitution and two federal statutes: the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. They asked Hinkle to issue a preliminary, or temporary, injunction prohibiting enforcement of these matters.
A federal court will typically issue a preliminary injunction, which requires a party to cease or continue a particular course of action while a suit is pending, when the judge determines that a serious harm will occur without the injunction, that the party seeking the injunction is likely to win their case as to the matter for which the injunction is sought, and that the injunction will serve the public interest.
Hinkle determined that Florida had little to no legitimate interest in these provisions, and granted the plaintiffs request that the state be kept from enforcing them until the suit had reached its conclusion. However, he upheld several other elements of the new law and denied plaintiffs request to include them in his injunction:
- New requirements that voter-registration organizations place on the back of each new voter registration application the date the application was filled out along with an identification number assigned to the organization by the Division of Elections
- Requirements that information reported to the DOE be filed electronically
- Provisions allowing the Florida Secretary of State to refer possible violations of election laws to the state Attorney Generals Office
- Changes in the statutory language, from saying the Secretary of State shall waive fines for violations due to impossibility of performance, to stipulating that he may do so.
On Aug. 10, the plaintiffs and the state reached a settlement, and filed a joint motion with the court asking it to dismiss the case after making the terms of his preliminary injunction permanent. Hinkle granted their request Tuesday.
This order is a decisive victory for Florida voters, said attorney Lee Rowland of the Brennan Center for Justice, one of the lawyers who argued the case for the plaintiffs. The Florida legislature has tried repeatedly to stifle access to voter registration opportunities, and once again a federal court has stopped them in their tracks. We are thrilled that voter registration groups can now get back to what they do best expanding our democracy.
Department of State spokesman Chris Cate had a different take.
We are very pleased that the plaintiffs were able to come to an agreement with us that ensures third party voter organizations will be held accountable for turning in registrations on time and properly, Cate said in a statement to Sunshine State News. The most important piece of the new law, its accountability, has now been twice upheld by a federal court. As a result of the 2011 law and the subsequent court rulings, new voter registrants are better protected.
A source from deep inside the DOS, speaking on background, explained the states rationale further to Sunshine State News.
The most important sections of the new law were not enjoined against, the source insisted. We basically agreed to accept the courts injunction against two or three of the provisions, while keeping the eight or nine we thought were most important.
The source said Hinkle's final indicative ruling of permanent injunction actually upheld more of the law than his original preliminary injunction did.
For example, the source said, the preliminary injunction suppressed the entire section 97.0575(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes, which requires that voter-registration organizations provide to the DOE [t]he names, permanent addresses, and temporary addresses, if any, of each registration agent registering persons to vote in this state on behalf of the organization.
The Tuesday compromise leaves this provision of the statutes intact, but requires that it not apply to volunteer registration agents or employee registration agents who solicit but do not collect or handle voter registration applications.
Under the older version of the law, the source continued, there was no way to enforce the 10-day [application-delivery] provision. Since the court upheld the new labeling requirement, and the plaintiffs have agreed to it, we can new ensure applications are filed timely.
The state insists the upheld provisions are necessary to ensure that new voter applications are notdeliveredtovoter-registration offices en masse, especially near a voter-registration deadline, thereby overburdening elections officials;and to ensure that third-party voter registration organizations are held accountable for the applications accuracy and validity.
Ultimately, settlement always include compromises for both sides, the source admitted. But its fair to say we feel we ended up with the better outcome of the injunction.
