Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 1 of 59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDATALLAHASSEE DIVISIONFLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES AND
YOUTH UNITS OF THE NAACP, DISABILITY RIGHTS Civ. No.
___________FLORIDA, and COMMON CAUSE,
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT FORv.
DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE
LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State RELIEF
of Florida,
Defendant.

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 2 of 59

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
This lawsuit challenges Florida’s newly enacted law, Senate Bill 90, which
illegally and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote. Plaintiffs allege as follows:
I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND NATURE OF THE CASE

1.

It is well established that “[n]o right is more precious in a free country

than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which,as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if theright to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964).
2.

Eleven million Floridians exercised their right to vote in the 2020

general election—the highest voter turnout in nearly three decades. This turnout
occurred notwithstanding the ongoing once-in-a-century global pandemic caused by
COVID-19. Within this context, Defendant Secretary of State Laurel Lee applauded
Governor Ron DeSantis and the Department of State for successfully running three“safe, secure, and orderly elections” throughout 2020.1
3.

Despite alarmingly high COVID-19 infection rates, voters of color—inparticular, Black voters—were especially motivated to participate in Florida’s
elections in 2020, with widespread reliance on vote-by-mail (“VBM”) ballots, drop

1

Press Release, Florida Sec’y of State Laurel M. Lee Credits Governor DeSantis
for Successful Election Year, (Dec. 23, 2020),
https://dos.myflorida.com/communications/press-releases/2020/florida-secretaryof-state-laurel-m-lee-credits-governor-desantis-for-successful-election-year/.
1Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 3 of 59

boxes, and early voting. Twice as many Black voters cast VBM ballots in 2020 ascompared to previous years, and the proportion of VBM ballots cast by Black votersincreased by over 28% from the 2016 election.
4.

This unprecedented turnout and engagement were met with a swift

response from the Florida Legislature. Deploying baseless claims of “voter fraud,”
the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 90 (“SB 90”), which was passed on April 29,
2021, and signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 6, 2021. This law
contains a sweeping set of provisions that restrict and burden voting access. SB 90’s
restrictive provisions include: (a) new and burdensome identification requirementsfor voters requesting VBM ballots; (b) restrictions and burdensome requirements forstanding VBM applications; (c) severe limitations on where, when, and how drop
boxes can be used; (d) limitations on third-party VBM ballot return; and (e) a new
expansion of the term “solicitation” to encompass all “activities” carried out within
an expanded zone around polling places, early voting locations, or drop boxes, witheither the effect or the intent of “influencing” a voter. The latter provision’svagueness and overbreadth could prohibit individuals from providing relief toFlorida voters waiting in long lines, including free food, water, and other assistance.
5.

The 2021 voter suppression law is just the latest in a long line of voter

suppression laws targeting Florida’s Black voters, Latino voters, and voters withdisabilities. For far too long, Florida’s lawmakers and elected officials have created2

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 4 of 59

a vast array of hurdles that have made it more difficult for these and other voters tomake their voices heard.
6.

From 1972 to 2012, when multiple counties in Florida were required

under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”) to seek federal clearance for changes
to their election laws, Florida’s racially discriminatory practices required federal
intervention numerous times.2
7.

In recent years, Florida has gone to great lengths to suppress thepolitical participation of people of color by, inter alia, imposing new restrictions,
including voter identification requirements; engaging in racially motivated voter
purges and redistricting; imposing new barriers preventing the reenfranchisement offormerly incarcerated persons until they paid legal fines, even when they could notafford to do so; and routinely closing voting sites in predominantly Black and brown
communities.3

2See, e.g., Letter from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Att’y Gen., to John M. McKay,
President of the Fla. Senate and Tom Feeney, Speaker of the Fla. House of Reps. 1(July 1, 2002); Letter from Bill Lann Lee, Chief, Voting Sec., to George L. Waas,
Assistant Att’y Gen. State of Fla. (June 1, 1999); Letter from Bill Lann Lee, Acting
Assistant Att’y Gen., to Robert A. Butterworth, Att’y Gen., State of Fla. (Aug. 14,
1998); Letter from John R. Dunne, Assistant Att’y Gen., Civil Rights Div., to Robert
A. Butterworth, Att’y Gen., State of Fla. 2 (June 16, 1992).
3
See, e.g., League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205
(N.D. Fla. 2018); Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012);
Brown v. Florida, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2002); DeGrandy v. Wetherell,
815 F. Supp. 1550 (N.D. Fla. 1992).
3

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 5 of 59

8.

Each of the challenged provisions in SB 90 places undue burdens on

the right to vote. Taken together, the burden is even more severe: by making it moredifficult for voters to obtain and return VBM ballots, SB 90 will force more voters
to attempt to vote in person, leading to longer lines and wait times for all voters, andoutright disenfranchisement for some. In turn, SB 90 may criminalize the efforts of
those who seek to provide basic sustenance to the voters who are forced to wait inthese longer lines.
9.

While this law affects all voters, the brunt of the harm will be borne byBlack voters, Latino voters, and voters with disabilities. Black and Latino Floridians
are more likely to lack the limited forms of identification that are now required torequest VBM ballots; are less likely to be able to take time off work to return VBM
ballots during work hours; and are less likely to have access to a car, and therefore
more likely to rely on third-party VBM ballot return. Black and Latino voters, inparticular, tend to encounter longer lines when voting in person, are therefore more
likely to need water and food to make the longer waits tolerable, and have come torely on the assistance provided by nonprofit groups to those waiting in line to vote.
10.

Voters with disabilities will also be disproportionately burdened by SB

90. Given accessibility issues at polling sites throughout the state, many disabled
voters are unable to vote in person, and rely exclusively on VBM ballots and drop
boxes to cast their ballots. In the process of applying for VBM ballots in the first4

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 6 of 59

place, many disabled voters face accessibility challenges, whether they seek to makea standing application in person, online, or by telephone, and would be significantly
burdened by having to make such requests twice as frequently in order to vote under
SB 90’s new provisions. Many disabled voters, including those living in groupresidential facilities, rely on caregivers and other non-family members to collect andreturn their VBM ballots. Additionally, disabled voters who choose to vote inperson—for whom there are no guarantees that they will be approved to move to thefront of a line or be provided with a chair while they wait—often face significantly
increased burdens when required to wait in long lines to vote.
11.

SB 90’s curtailment of the availability of VBM removes an important

option for vulnerable voters with no legitimate purpose, and will discriminatorily
harm Black and Latino voters, voters with disabilities, and other voters who rely on
VBM ballots to access the franchise.
12.

As a result, SB 90’s provisions described above—both individually andin their aggregate effect—violate the rights of Black and Latino voters under Section
2 of the VRA.
13.

These provisions—individually and in their aggregate effect—also

unlawfully violate the rights of millions of disabled Florida voters under Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

5

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 7 of 59

14.

SB 90’s vague and overbroad prohibition on “engaging in any activity

with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter” exposes volunteers tocriminal liability merely for giving simple forms of basic relief (such as free foodand water) to voters waiting in long lines. This provision unduly burdens Florida
voters’ exercise of their constitutional rights to freely associate and express protectedspeech, and therefore violates the First Amendment. This provision impermissibly
restricts Plaintiff Florida NAACP from engaging in expressive conduct, such asproviding water and other basic resources to voters waiting in line to communicatethat their individual votes matter and that it is important to follow through withcasting their ballots despite long wait times and other obstacles to doing so. See Fort
Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11thCir. 2018).
15.

SB 90’s challenged provisions further violate the right to vote of all

Florida voters, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution. Any state restriction on the right to vote, no matter how slight,“must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty tojustify the limitation.” Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Elec. Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008)(quotation marks omitted).

6

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 8 of 59

16.

No state interests justify the severe burdens imposed by SB 90.

Plaintiffs thus seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Florida’s restrictive
and wholly unnecessary encroachment on this fundamental right.
II.
A.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs
17.

Plaintiff Florida State Conference of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People Branches and Youth Units (“Florida NAACP”) isa nonprofit, nonpartisan civil rights organization in Florida. Founded in 1909,
Florida NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization in Florida, and serves as theumbrella organization for local branch units throughout the state. The Florida
NAACP’s 12,000 members are predominately Black and other minority individuals,
and include registered voters who reside throughout the state. Its mission is to ensure
the political, social, educational, and economic equality of all persons and toeliminate race-based discrimination. For decades the Florida NAACP has engaged
heavily in statewide voter registration, public education, and advocacy concerning
the right to vote in order to encourage civic and electoral participation among its
members and other voters.
18.

SB 90’s restrictive provisions will severely burden or deny the right tovote of the Florida NAACP’s members by imposing new and burdensome
identification requirements for voters requesting VBM ballots; restrictions and7Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 9 of 59

burdensome requirements for standing VBM applications; severe limitations on
where, when, and how drop boxes can be used; limitations on third-party VBM
ballot return; and potential criminal penalties for individuals who provide free foodand water or other assistance to voters.
19.

These restrictions also make it substantially more difficult for the

Florida NAACP to engage in its civic engagement mission. For instance, in recent
elections, the Florida NAACP engaged in large-scale ballot return efforts in which
voters brought their completed VBM ballots to churches or local NAACP chapter
meetings. Florida NAACP members then returned those completed ballots to thecounty supervisor of elections (“SOE”) offices or drop boxes on the voters’ behalf.
These activities would be severely curtailed by SB 90. Volunteers with the Florida
NAACP also provided food and water to voters waiting in long lines in Black
communities across the state, which—under a new provision in SB 90—may now
be a crime. SB 90 will also require the Florida NAACP to divert time, money, andresources away from other activities, such as programming and initiatives
concerning the school-to-prison pipeline, eliminating academic and educational
inequities and mass incarceration, in order to assist its members and other Florida
voters who are burdened by the provisions of SB 90. Therefore, SB 90 adversely
impacts the Florida NAACP’s operations.

8Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 10 of 59

20.

Plaintiff Disability Rights Florida (“DRF”) is an independent, nonprofit

corporation designated by law as Florida’s federally funded protection and advocacy
system (“P&A system”) for individuals with disabilities. In this capacity, DRF is
authorized by federal law to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate
remedies to ensure the protection of and advocacy for the rights of individuals withdisabilities. These constituents include the millions of disabled registered votersthroughout the state. DRF also advocates for the rights and interests of those withdisabilities who seek to register to vote. DRF’s work includes legal advocacy andrights protection for children and adults with disabilities throughout Florida. This
work includes significant efforts devoted to the political participation of people withdisabilities and the challenges they face when voting, including inaccessible pollingsites and ballots, and limited or non-existent supervised facility voting options forpeople with disabilities residing in residential facilities.
21.

DRF engages in legislative and public advocacy on these issues,

directly engages with and trains election officials and voters on expanding voting
accessibility, promotes robust voter registration, and engages in voter hotline andvoter education efforts. DRF plays a leadership role in multiple statewide coalitions
and task forces. DRF is currently a member of a statewide accessible VBM task
force devoted to proposing and evaluating recommendations to the state regarding
its commitment, via settlement agreement, to provide accessible VBM in every

9Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 11 of 59

county prior to the 2022 midterm primary elections, though Florida has already had
an obligation to provide accessible VBM for nearly two decades under state law.
These efforts have also included an Accessible VBM Pilot Project that was
conducted in five counties during the 2020 general election and was implemented to
introduce partially accessible VBM balloting options for voters with disabilities.
22.

SB 90’s restrictive provisions will severely burden or deny the right tovote of DRF’s constituents by imposing new and burdensome identification
requirements for voters requesting VBM ballots; restrictions and burdensome
requirements for standing VBM applications; severe limitations on where, when,and how drop boxes can be used; limitations on third-party VBM ballot return; andpotential criminal penalties for individuals who provide free food and water or otherassistance. These restrictions also make it substantially more difficult for DRF toengage in its civic engagement mission. SB 90 will also require DRF to divert time,money, and resources away from other activities, including efforts to engage withelection officials to expand accessibility, advocating for more accessible VBM
access throughout the state, and pursuing lobbying efforts to increase supervised
facility voting. Instead, the resources that would be used for those programs andefforts will be redirected to work including, but not limited to, conducting public
education for voters with disabilities to understand the new restrictions on VBM
access and providing public guidance on the collection and return of ballots for10

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 12 of 59

disabled voters in light of SB 90’s new criminal penalties, and conducting statewide
outreach to facilities and people with disabilities whose abilities to receive and returnballots will be curtailed.
23.

Plaintiff Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen lobby.

Common Cause is devoted to electoral reform, ethics in government, and theprotection of citizens’ rights in national, state, and local elections. Common Causehas approximately 55,000 members in Florida. Common Cause advocates forpolicies at the state and local level to ensure that elections are free, fair, andaccessible. Common Cause also encourages and supports voter participation inelections by, among other things, engaging in voter education and outreach efforts;
acting as a lead coordinator for the nonpartisan Florida Election Protection
Coalition; monitoring and correcting election-related disinformation online; andfunding translation of election information into Spanish and Haitian Creole for nonEnglish-speaking voters.
24.

SB 90’s restrictive provisions will severely burden or deny the right tovote of Common Cause’s Florida members by imposing new and burdensome
identification requirements for voters requesting VBM ballots; restrictions andburdensome requirements for standing VBM applications; severe limitations on
where, when, and how drop boxes can be used; limitations on third-party VBM
ballot return; and potential criminal penalties for individuals who provide free food11

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 13 of 59

and water or other assistance. These restrictions also make it substantially moredifficult for Common Cause to engage in its civic engagement mission in Florida.
SB 90 will also force Common Cause to divert time, money, and resources awayfrom other activities, such as its plans to engage in public education and advocacy
concerning the redistricting process in Florida. Instead, Common Cause will be
required to devote increased resources to its voter engagement and education
programming, including by recruiting more volunteers, temporary staff, andcontractors to inform and educate voters about their rights as they are affected by the
new law, and hiring these staff members earlier in the election cycle than originallyplanned. Moreover, while Common Cause has not previously funded programs toprovide direct support to assist voters in securing or returning their VBM
applications, SB 90 will now necessitate capacity-building and investment ofCommon Cause resources in programming, staffing, volunteer management, andvoter education in order to directly assist voters in navigating the burdensome
restrictions on VBM imposed by SB 90.
B.

Defendant
25.

Defendant Laurel M. Lee is the Secretary of State of Florida. As the“chief elections officer of the State,” it is Defendant Lee’s “responsibility to . . .
[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of theelection laws,” Fla. Stat. § 97.012(1); to adopt rules to implement new laws,

12Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 14 of 59

including SB 90; to enforce compliance with the Florida Election Code and withrules adopted by the Department of State, id. § 97.012(14), to “[c]reate andadminister a statewide voter registration system as required by the Help America
Vote Act of 2002,” id. § 97.012(11); to “[p]rovide written direction and opinions tothe supervisors of elections on the performance of their official duties with respect
to the Florida Election Code or rules adopted by the Department of State,” id.
§ 97.012(16); and to perform other tasks as set by state law. These responsibilities
extend to elections conducted by mail. For example, for an election to be conductedby mail, the Secretary of State must “approve[] a written plan for the conduct of theelection.” Id. § 101.6102(1)(a)(3). Defendant Lee is sued in her official capacity.
26.

The Division of Elections is a component of the Florida Department ofState, Fla. Stat. § 20.10(2)(a), responsible for providing provides “administrative
support to the Secretary of State, Florida’s Chief Election Officer, to ensure that
Florida has fair and accurate elections.”427.

In particular, SB 90 directs the Division of Elections to implement andenforce the provision restricting access to drop boxes. For example, Section 28 of
SB 90 provides, “If any drop box is left accessible for ballot receipt other than as

4Fla, Dep’t of State, Div. of Elec., About Us,
https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/about-us/ (last visited May 3, 2021).
13

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 15 of 59

authorized by this section, the supervisor is subject to a civil penalty of $25,000. The[D]ivision [of Elections] is authorized to enforce this provision.”III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

28.

Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress

the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States
Constitution.
29.

The Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) because it seeks to redress the deprivation, undercolor of state law, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Voting Rights
Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it arises under the laws of theUnited States.
30.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, who is sued in her

official capacity only.
31.

Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofFlorida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendant resides in this district
and a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in thisjudicial district.
32.

Plaintiffs Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights

Florida, and Common Cause all operate within this district and division.

14

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 16 of 59

33.

This Court has the authority to grant both declaratory and injunctive

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Florida Has a Long, Ongoing History of Racially Discriminatory Voting
Restrictions.
34.

SB 90 builds on a long history of invidious discriminatory voting

practices by the State of Florida. Courts and scholars have consistently recognized
and acknowledged this history of discrimination and disenfranchisement dating backto the post-Civil War period.
35.

As soon as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

granted Black men the right to vote in 1868, discriminatory practices were
“employed by the State of Florida to prevent African-Americans from having apolitical voice.”536.

From 1885 to 1900, Florida enacted a raft of laws to disenfranchiseBlack people and block their participation in the political process, using “suchmechanisms as multiple ballot box laws, tissue ballots or ‘little jokers,’ the secret5

Johnson v. Mortham, 926 F. Supp. 1460, 1476 (N.D. Fla. 1996); see also Davis v.
Chiles, 139 F.3d 1414, 1418 n.10 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Florida has had a history of
racially discriminatory voting practices and that continuing socio-economic
disparities are hindering blacks’ participation in the political process in these
districts.”); DeGrandy v. Wetherell, 794 F. Supp. 1076, 1079 (N.D. Fla. 1992)(three-judge court) (“A longstanding general history of official discrimination
against minorities has influenced Florida’s electoral process” and “adversely
affected the ability of minorities to participate in the political process.”).
15

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 17 of 59

ballot, the ‘white primary,’ the poll tax, run-off elections, at-large elections,multiple-member elections, and gerrymandering.” Johnson, 926 F. Supp. at 1476.
37.

As the Florida Legislature enacted such discriminatory laws, Black

voter registration, voter participation, and office-holding rates declined
precipitously. Black voter turnout in Florida collapsed from 88% in 1880 to 14% by
1892. Black turnout then continued to drop until it fell to just 2% in 1912. In addition
to laws on the books, widespread violence, harassment, terrorism, and intimidation
also prevented Black Floridians from participating in the electoral process
throughout the 20th century.638.

Although the VRA extended access to the franchise, Black participationin the political process continued to be inhibited. Indeed, five Florida counties werecovered by the remedial preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA: Collier,
Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe.7
39.

With the new millennium came renewed attempts to restrict the Black

vote in Florida. For example, in 2000, the State of Florida improperly removed atleast 1,100 eligible voters from the voting rolls after identifying them as convicted

6See, e.g., Robert Stephens, The Truth Laid Bare, Pegasus, Univ. of Cent. Fla. (Fall2020), https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/the-truth-laid-bare/ (describing the Ocoee
Massacre in which at least 30 Black people were murdered by a white mob after July
Perry, a Black man, exercised his right to vote).
7
Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights
Div., https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5 (lastvisited May 3, 2021).
16

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 18 of 59

felons.8 As a result, many eligible voters were turned away at the polls.9 Of the voters
dropped from the rolls in this botched voter purge, 41% were Black.10 In MiamiDade County, for example, “more than 65 percent of the names on the purge list
were African Americans, who represented only 20.4 percent of the population.”11
The State of Florida was required to develop a new program for identifying potential
voters with felony convictions, and to restore hundreds of voters to the voting rolls.1240.

In 2011, then-Governor Rick Scott signed HB 1355 into law. HB 1355

reduced the number of early voting days in Florida from 14 to 8, allowed supervisorsof elections to cut the number of early voting hours in half, and eliminated earlyvoting on the Sunday before Election Day.
41.

The law was introduced and enacted after Black voters used earlyvoting at high rates in the 2008 election: “More than half of African-American votes
in Florida were cast during the early voting period.”13 Invoking the then-active VRA

8Study Shows 1,100 Voters Wrongly Purged from Rolls, Tampa Bay Times (Sept.
9, 2005) https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2001/05/27/study-shows-1100-voterswrongly-purged-from-rolls.
9
Katie Sanders, Florida Voters Mistakenly Purged in 2000, Tampa Bay Times(June 14, 2012), https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/floridavoters-mistakenly-purged-in-2000/1235456/.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
See id.
13
Michael Ellement, Note, Blocking the Ballot: Why Florida's New Voting
Restrictions Demonstrate A Need for Continued Enforcement of the Voting Rights
Act Preclearance Requirement, 2 CATH. U. L. REV. 541, 556 (2013).
17

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 19 of 59

preclearance requirement, the United States Department of Justice blocked the rules
from taking effect in Collier, Hendry, Osceola, Polk, and Lee counties.14
42.

On November 6, 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to pass

Amendment 4, a citizens’ initiative that amended the state Constitution to repeal
lifetime disenfranchisement and automatically restore the voting rights for mostpeople convicted of felonies upon completion of their sentences. Until the passageof Amendment 4, Florida was one of only four states to impose a lifetime voting ban
on any person convicted of a felony crime. Scholarship firmly establishes that “felon
disenfranchisement is inextricably tied to the United States history of racial
discrimination,” with “many felon disenfranchisement provisions [added] to state
constitutions in the post-Civil War era as a means to disenfranchise former slaves
who had been granted the right to vote under the Reconstruction Amendments.”15
During the spring 2019 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted a newlaw, which severely restricted the reach of Amendment 4 by requiring returning
citizens to pay all legal financial obligations (such as fines, fees, restitution, andcourt costs) before becoming eligible for automatic restoration of their voting rights,
regardless of whether these returning citizens were able to pay. See SB 7066, 201914

Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299, 303 (D.D.C. 2012) (three-judge
court) (per curiam) (holding that “. . . the State has failed to satisfy its burden ofproving that those changes will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters”).
15
Dalia Figueredo, Affording The Franchise: Amendment 4 & The Senate Bill 7066
Litigation, 72 FLA. L. REV. 1135, 1136 (2020).
18

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 20 of 59

Leg., Reg. Sess. § 25 (Fla. 2019); see also Fla. Stat. § 98.0751. In May 2020, theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida determined that the state’s“pay-to-vote system,” as applied to returning citizens who were genuinely unable topay legal financial obligations, violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause. Jones v. DeSantis, 462 F. Supp. 3d 1196, 1215–31 (N.D. Fla.
2020). On appeal, however, a divided Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated theDistrict Court’s decision. Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020).
43.

Until very recently, the ability of Black voters and other qualified voters

in Florida to cast ballots was also threatened by unchecked discretion held byelection officials to reject VBM ballots from eligible voters deemed “noncompliant.”
As this Court has held, this absolute power to throw out votes was faciallyunconstitutional because it unduly burdened the fundamental right of Florida citizens
to vote and have their votes counted. Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Detzner,
347 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1022 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (“The precise issue in this case iswhether Florida’s law that allows county election officials to reject vote-by-mail andprovisional ballots for mismatched signatures—with no standards, an illusory
process to cure, and no process to challenge the rejection—passes constitutional
muster. The answer is simple. It does not.”), appeal dismissed as moot, 950 F.3d 790(11th Cir. 2020).

19

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 21 of 59

B.

Black Voters Participated in the 2020 Election at High Rates, and Took
Unprecedented Advantage of Mail-In and Drop Box Voting.
44.

Turnout in the 2020 general election was 77 percent—the highest in 28

years in Florida, and among the highest in the state’s history.16
45.

Turnout was also historic among Black voters.17 Approximately 4.6

million Floridians voted by mail in the 2020 general election, accounting for about
44% of the 11 million votes cast.18 Almost 1.5 million Florida voters used ballot
drop boxes in the 2020 general election.19
46.

Significant numbers of Black Floridians voted by mail: 522,038 Black

voters cast VBM ballots, more than double the number of VBM ballots cast by Black

16

Elections Data: Voter Turnout, Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Elections,
https://www.dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/elections-data/voterturnout/; Steve Patrick, Florida Voters’ Turnout Highest In 28 Years, WJXT (Nov.
10,2020),
https://www.news4jax.com/vote-2020/2020/11/04/florida-votersturnout-highest-in-28-years/.
17
See Jenese Harris, Historic Black Voter Turnout in 2020 Presidential Election,
WJXT (Nov. 4, 2020), https://www.news4jax.com/vote-2020/2020/11/10/historicblack-voter-turnout-in-2020-presidential-election/.
18
Jeffrey Schweers, As GOP Looks To Restrict Florida Mail Ballots, AdvocatesUnveil Report That Process Worked, Tallahassee Democrat, Mar. 9, 2021,
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2021/03/09/florida-mailballots-voting-election-security-restrictions-drop-box-ban/4642096001/.
19
Christina A. Cassidy, GOP Targets Ballot Drop Boxes In Georgia, Florida,
Elsewhere, Associated Press (Apr. 19, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/donaldtrump-georgia-elections-coronavirus-pandemic-gubernatorial-electionsc083f5e0af7855c9dbb5a1659840c4a9.
20Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 22 of 59

voters in 2018 and 2016.20 Moreover, the proportion of VBM ballots cast by Black
voters increased by over 28% since the 2016 presidential election.
47.

As Florida election officials have repeatedly recognized, voting by mailin Florida is extremely secure. In December 2020, Defendant Lee herself affirmedthat Florida had “successfully administered three safe, secure and orderly elections”
in 2020 with “an unprecedented level of funding, collaboration, and strategicplanning.”21 Defendant Lee further stated that Florida was able to successfully“secure the elections and provide confidence in the integrity [of] our results.”22
Governor DeSantis has touted Florida’s election conduct in 2020 as a model forelection integrity and security.23
48.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of any fraud or significant

irregularities in any of the 2020 elections in Florida.24

20

Daniel A. Smith, Casting, Rejecting, and Curing Vote-by-Mail Ballots in Florida’s
2020 General Election, Report for All Voting is Local 10 (2021),
https://bit.ly/33cfLuQ, supra; Anna Baringer, et al., Voting by Mail and Ballot
Rejection: Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus, 19
ELECTION L.J. 289, 306 (2020), https://bit.ly/3uRtVgw.
21
Press Release, supra n. 1.
22
Id.
23
Skyler Swisher & Anthony Man, Gov. DeSantis Called Florida a Model For
Election Integrity. Now He’s Pushing Voting Changes That Could Help His
Reelection Chances, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel (Feb. 19, 2021), https://www.sunsentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-desantis-election-reform-ss-prem-202102193cuq4ehtavdulov7khuboo7asi-story.html.
24
Arielle Mitropoulos & Will McDuffie, State Officials Say They're Baffled,
Offended by False Election Claims, ABC News (Nov. 17, 2020)21

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 23 of 59

49.

There was similarly zero evidence of significant fraud or irregularities

in the 2020 general election overall. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, National Association of
Secretaries of State, and National Association of State Election Directors affirmed
the “security and integrity” of the 2020 election and noted that “[t]he November 3rd
election was the most secure in American history.”25
50.

Against this backdrop of high turnout and VBM use among Black

voters, and the security of Florida’s 2020 elections, the Florida Legislature
considered, and ultimately passed, SB 90.
C.

The Florida Legislature Passed SB 90 in a Rushed Process Characterized
by Procedural Deviations That Excluded Members of the Public.
51.

The Florida Legislature rushed to pass SB 90, and Governor DeSantis

signed it, amid extraordinary procedural deviations from the usual legislative
process.
52.

On February 3, 2021, Senator Dennis Baxley introduced SB 90 in thestate Senate.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-officials-theyre-baffled-offended-falseelection-claims/story?id=74243567.
25
Press Release, U.S. Cybersec. & Infrastructure Sec. Agency, Joint Statement
From Elections Infrastructure Gov’t Coordinating Council & The Election
Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Exec. Comms. (Nov. 12, 2020),
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructuregovernment-coordinating-council-election/.
22

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 24 of 59

53.

On March 23, 2021, Representative Blaise Ingoglia introduced HB

7041 in the state House. HB 7041 contained many of the same provisions as SB 90
and was classified on the state Senate website as a “related bill.”
54.

Notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety risks

associated with travel and in-person testimony, no legislative committee offeredmembers of the public the option to provide testimony remotely. As a result, manymembers of the public who were at higher risk for COVID-19, including manymembers of the disability rights community, were shut out of the legislative process
altogether.
55.

Members of the public testifying before Senate committees wererequired to travel to the Donald L. Tucker Civic Center at Florida State University(“Civic Center”), from which their testimony was virtually livestreamed to themembers of the legislative committees. Although members of the public were notpermitted to appear before Senate committees in person, they still had to travel fromacross the state and gather indoors at the Civic Center to provide testimony.
56.

Members of the public testifying before House committees wererequired to travel to the Florida State Capitol in Tallahassee to testify before House
committees in person.
57.

On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff Common Cause sent a letter tolegislative leaders on behalf of a coalition of 36 organizations calling for the23

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 25 of 59

Legislature to, among other things, permit legislative testimony by members of the
public via video or teleconference. On February 23 and April 2, 2021, Plaintiff
Disability Rights Florida placed formal requests with the House and Senate
Sergeants at Arms seeking accommodations to be permitted to provide virtual
testimony to legislative committees. These requests were denied.
58.

This prohibition on remote testimony is inconsistent with the bestpractices that other state legislatures across the country have embraced to ensure thatmembers of the public have an opportunity to provide input into the legislative
process during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also inconsistent with the practices ofother government bodies in Florida, including state agencies and local governments.
59.

The committee meetings in which SB 90 and HB 7041 were addressed

were conducted in a rushed manner, often with limited time for deliberation, debate,
and public testimony.
60.

Public testimony was especially limited during the April 14, 2021

meeting on SB 90 before the Senate Committee on Rules. Members of the public
who traveled to the Civic Center from across the state were permitted to testify for
only one minute. Many members of the public had their microphone disconnected
the moment their testimony exceeded sixty seconds. The strict limitations imposedon members of the public testifying on SB 90 was inconsistent with the Committee’s

24Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 26 of 59

practice for members of the public testifying on other bills—including bills
considered that same day—who were not subjected to the same time limits.
61.

In that same meeting, the Committee considered for the first time andadopted a “strike all” amendment that replaced the text of SB 90—which had
previously had only 344 lines of text—with new lengthy language containing 1,031
lines of text. This new amendment was first posted on the Senate website on April
13, 2021—the day before it was considered and adopted by the Committee—thereby
denying members of the public sufficient time to review and meaningfully commenton the new language.
62.

The consideration of HB 7041 in the House was even more rushed.

During a hearing on April 19, 2021, before the House Committee on State Affairs,
the Committee Chair restricted the number of questions each committee member
was permitted to ask of HB 7041’s sponsor, at times cutting off committee members
mid-sentence. At one point, the Committee Chair abruptly closed questioning on a
proposed amendment just as a committee member posed her first question on theamendment, and before the amendment’s sponsor could answer it. After theCommittee considered 11 amendments to HB 7041 through this rushed process, theChair limited debate on the amended bill to 30 seconds for each committee member.
None of the other nine bills considered during this hearing was subjected to thisrushed treatment.

25

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 27 of 59

63.

In that same meeting, the Committee refused to permit any testimony

from members of the public on HB 7041, even though at least 15 people had traveledto the Capitol to provide testimony on the bill in person. The Committee permitted
testimony from members of the public on numerous other bills.
64.

On April 26, 2021, the Senate passed SB 90 notwithstanding bipartisan

opposition, sending SB 90 back to the House for consideration.
65.

On April 27, 2021 at 1:33 A.M., Representative Ingoglia proposed a“strike all” amendment to SB 90 for consideration on the House floor that replaced
the text of SB 90—which had expanded to 1,143 lines of text—with new lengthy
language containing 1,313 lines of text, some of which was taken from HB 7041.
Later that same day, the House considered for the first time—and adopted—
Representative Ingoglia’s “strike all” amendment that was only first introduced early
that morning.
66.

On April 28, 2021—the very next day—the House of Representatives

passed its amended version of SB 90, following a rushed and limited debate, andformally sent the amended bill to the Senate that evening.
67.

In the morning of April 29, Senator Hutson introduced an amendment

to the House’s version of SB 90. Senator Hutson’s amendment, however, wasquickly removed from the Senate website and was not available to the public. A newversion of Senator Huston’s amendment was introduced at 3:27 P.M., which deleted

26

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 28 of 59

and replaced the vast majority (1,170 lines) of the bill. With virtually no time toanalyze, deliberate, or debate Senator Hutson’s amended version of SB 90, the bill
was adopted and voted out of the Senate at 5:22 P.M., less than two hours after it
was first introduced.
68.

Later that evening—again in a rushed process with virtually no time foranalysis, deliberation, or debate—the House took up consideration of the newversion of SB 90 that had just passed the Senate, which was passed by the House at
9:02 P.M.
69.

On May 6, 2021, SB 90 was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis.

70.

Throughout the consideration of SB 90 and HB 7041 in various

committees and on the floor of both the House and the Senate, Senators andRepresentatives were presented with extensive evidence of the ways in which theprovisions of SB 90 and HB 7041 would impose disproportionate burdens or barriers
on Black voters, Latino voters, and voters with disabilities. Some Senators andRepresentatives proposed numerous amendments that would have mitigated therestrictive and discriminatory impacts of the proposed legislation. Both chambers,
however, rejected the vast majority of these ameliorative amendments.
71.

Under Section 33 of SB 90, the Act took effect immediately uponsigning by the governor, a departure from the normal legislative process set forth in
the Florida Constitution, which provides that laws passed by the Legislature27

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 29 of 59

generally “take effect on the sixtieth day” following the end of the legislative
session. Fla. Const., art. III, § 9. During the committee meeting in which thisamendment was adopted, the sponsor provided no justification for deviation fromthe typical processes besides stating that it was “a policy decision.”D.

SB 90 Imposes Restrictions on the Right to Vote.
72.

Within months of the 2020 general election, and in response to highvoter participation, the Florida Legislature passed SB 90 to restrict many of the safe
and secure options by which Florida voters—and especially Florida’s Black voters,
Latino voters, and voters with disabilities—exercised their right to vote.
73.

The following centerpiece provisions of SB 90 (collectively, the“Challenged Provisions”) individually and collectively impose burdens and barrierson the right to vote and disproportionately harm Black voters, Latino voters, andvoters with disabilities:
a. Imposing a new requirement that voters requesting a VBM ballot
must “provide either his or her Florida driver license number orFlorida identification card number or the last four digits of his or
her social security number” to receive such a ballot, andprohibiting voters who have none of these forms of identificationfrom requesting VBM ballots;28

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 30 of 59

b. Halving the lifespan of “standing” VBM requests by requiring
voters to submit new VBM applications every general election
cycle rather than every two general election cycles;c. Imposing new limitations on persons returning a completed
sealed and signed VBM ballot on behalf of a voter;d. Restricting the locations, availability, and operating hours ofballot drop boxes; ande. Expanding the definition of a criminal “solicitation” for any
person, except a supervisor of elections employee or supervisorof elections volunteer, to prohibit “engaging in any activity with
the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter.” This
standard may lead to criminal liability for any person who gives
or attempt to give any item—including food or water—to a voter
waiting in line to vote.
74.

Each Challenged Provision, alone and in combination, burdens the rightto vote of all Florida voters, with disproportionate impacts on Black voters, Latino
voters, and voters with disabilities.
1. Identification Requirement for VBM Ballot Requests.
75.

SB 90 imposes new requirements upon voters for requesting a VBM

ballot, demanding that a voter “provide either his or her Florida driver license

29

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 31 of 59

number or Florida identification card number or the last four digits of his or hersocial security number” to receive a VBM ballot.
76.

SB 90 makes no exception for voters who may not have these forms ofidentification—a significant departure from both state and federal laws governing
voter registration, as well as extensive regulations promulgated by the Defendant
Secretary of State governing Florida’s voter registration process, which all providethat eligible voters who lack a driver’s license, state identification card, or Social
Security number are permitted to register to vote. Even SB 90’s voter registration
requirements continue to permit voters who do not possess any of these three formsof identification to register to vote by completing an attestation. But under SB 90,
voters in this situation are not permitted to request a VBM ballot.
77.

This provision burdens eligible Floridian voters who lack such formsof identification, including a driver’s license or state identification card. Black votersand Latino voters (including especially recently naturalized citizens), and voterswith disabilities will bear the brunt of the burden. According to a national study,
millions of U.S. citizens lack a driver’s license or other government-issued
identification, and “poor, elderly, and minority citizens” are “less likely to possess
these forms of documentation than the general population.”26 Upon information and26

Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification, 1 (Nov.
2006), https://bit.ly/3eOTZTo.
30

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 32 of 59

belief, the same is true in Florida – elderly, Black and Latino voters lack theidentification necessary to comply with this new requirement. Further, upon
information and belief, many Floridians may be uncomfortable providing theirSocial Security information or lack the confidence that local election officials would
be able to securely maintain their sensitive personal information.
78.

Many voters—especially recently naturalized citizens—may notpossess a Social Security number (in addition to lacking a driver’s license or state
identification card) but are nevertheless eligible voters. This provision of SB 90
would completely bar these voters from requesting a VBM ballot.
79.

This provision of SB 90 serves no legitimate purpose and will

disproportionately burden or exclude Black voters, Latino voters, and voters withdisabilities.
2. Limitations on Standing VBM Requests.
80.

SB 90 forces voters to renew VBM requests each general election cycle,

ending the “standing” VBM applications that were valid for up to two generalelection cycles (four years) for the many voters who prefer to vote by mail.
81.

This provision substantially burdens those who routinely cast VBM

ballots, including Black voters, Latino voters, and voters with disabilities—all ofwhom used VBM ballots in record numbers in the last election. These voters will
now be required to request their VBM ballots twice as often as previously required.

31

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 33 of 59

This provision will also impose new burdens on many disabled voters, who will beforced to contend with the logistical challenges of completing a VBM ballot request
twice as often. In particular, this will require organizations such as Plaintiffs toincrease training regarding compliance with this provision and assist voters who now
must request their VBM ballot twice as often.
82.

Furthermore, this provision is unnecessary because Florida law, before

the enactment of SB 90, already contained procedures for updating and verifying
voter registration addresses to ensure that VBM ballots reach only the voters who
have requested them.
83.

There is no evidence that a significant number of voters received VBM

ballots in error in past elections, nor of any systemic or widespread fraud caused or
enabled by Florida’s provision of standing VBM applications.
3. Limitations on Third-Party Return of VBM Ballots.
84.

SB 90 also imposes onerous restrictions on who may return a completed

VBM ballot on behalf of a voter and how many ballots any person may return.
85.

Under previous law, a third party could return a completed VBM ballot

for a voter, so long as the third party was not paid for returning the ballot. Fla. Stat.
§ 104.0616 (it was a criminal offense for any person to provide, offer to provide, or
accept “a pecuniary or other benefit in exchange for distributing, ordering,
requesting, collecting, delivering, or otherwise physically possessing more than two

32

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 34 of 59

vote-by-mail ballots per election in addition to his or her own ballot or a ballot
belonging to an immediate family member.”) (emphasis added).
86.

Section 32 of SB 90 restricts this provision, making it a criminal offense

for any person—even a volunteer—to “distribute[], order[], request[], collect[],deliver[], or otherwise physically possess[] more than two vote-by-mail ballots perelection in addition to his or her own ballot or a ballot belonging to an immediatefamily member.” As a consequence, volunteer efforts to assist voters by returningcompleted VBM ballots to SOE offices or drop boxes will be severely limited, as
will the efforts of caregivers and other individuals who assist non-family members
who are unable to return their ballots.
87.

Third-party ballot return is especially important for Black voters andLatino voters, who are less likely to have access to a vehicle, less likely to be able
to secure time off work, and therefore, have more difficulty returning VBM ballots
without assistance.
88.

For example, according to the 2019 American Community Survey(“ACS”), 10.4% of Black Floridians and 7.3% of Latino Floridians lack access to acar, as compared to 4.8% of White Floridians. Black and Latino voters are also more
likely to work in the service industry, construction, transportation, and otheroccupations that are less likely to have paid time off to allow them to vote in personor return a VBM ballot during early voting hours.

33Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 35 of 59

89.

According to the ACS, Black and Latino Floridians are also more likely

to have nonrelative household members, and therefore will have more difficulty infinding someone to return their third-party ballot under the law’s new restrictive
provisions: 14.6% of Black households and 12.9% of Latino households are
nonrelatives, as compared to only 6.5% of white households. Voters of color wholive in more crowded households with nonrelatives will also be impacted. For
example, the percentage of Black Floridians living with more than one person per
room in their household is over four times that of white Floridians, with thecorresponding percentage for Latino Floridians over five times that of white
Floridians.
90.

As such, Black and Latino voters will be disproportionately burdenedby this provision.
91.

Third-party ballot return is also important for voters with disabilities,

who are more likely to have difficulty returning their ballot on their own and more
likely to require assistance from a third party. Many disabled voters rely exclusively
on caregivers and other non-family members to collect and return their VBM ballots,
as do many elderly and disabled voters who live in group facilities in which staff
collect and return VBM ballots on behalf of residents.

34

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 36 of 59

4. Restrictions on Drop Box Availability.
92.

SB 90’s extreme restrictions on the location, availability, and operating

hours of ballot drop boxes disproportionately burden Black voters, Latino voters,and voters with disabilities.
93.

Voters—especially

in

these

historicallydisenfranchisedcommunities—have come to rely on drop boxes as a safe and an important option
for casting a ballot. Drop boxes have been endorsed by the United States Departmentof Homeland Security as a “secure and convenient means for voters to return theirmail ballot” and the Department recommends their usage.
94.

Section 28 of SB 90 requires drop boxes to “be monitored in person by”

an SOE employee at all times and imposes a $25,000 civil penalty against any
supervisor if “any drop box is left accessible for ballot receipt” contrary to the law’s
provisions. Drop boxes that are not located within a SOE main office or branch office
may only be made available during early voting days and hours. These provisions,individually and in the aggregate, significantly restrict the availability of drop boxes
to voters, despite the fact that many drop boxes have been successfully monitored
throughout the state by 24-hour video surveillance with no instances of fraud or otherissues. These restrictions will also impact the availability of “drive through” drop
boxes, which permit voters, including disabled voters, to drop off their ballot withoutleaving their cars.

35

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 37 of 59

95.

These restrictions on drop boxes will have a disproportionately heavy

impact on Black and Latino voters, who tend to have stricter and more unpredictable
work obligations that limit their availability during normal voting hours, and who
tend to encounter longer lines at polling places. These restrictions will also
disproportionately burden individuals who have less flexibility to travel to a dropbox exclusively during early voting hours. For example, the percentage of Black
Florida workers who rely on public transportation (not including taxis) to commuteis nearly six times the percentage of white workers. In contrast, the percentage ofwhite Florida workers whose jobs traditionally permitted them to work at home isover twice that of Black workers.
96.

Similarly, these restrictions will also burden disabled voters for whom

casting an in-person ballot during early voting or on Election Day remains difficult,and further compound the many ongoing accessibility burdens that disabled voterscontinue to face in utilizing VBM ballots despite longstanding accessibility
requirements under § 101.662, Fla. Sta.
97.

SB 90 also restricts the days on which drop boxes may be used byproviding that drop boxes may only be available on early voting days, with a limited
exception for drop boxes placed at SOE offices. This restriction will especiallyburden voters who do not receive their VBM ballot until the final days before theelection. These voters will lack sufficient time to mail their VBM ballots because

36Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 38 of 59

Florida law requires that all VBM ballots must be received by the SOE by 7 P.M. on
the day of the election. These voters will have limited options to return their ballot
to a drop box, because SB 90 will force SOEs to shut down most drop boxes at theconclusion of the early voting period.
98.

As a result of widely reported and persistent failures at the United States

Postal Service (“USPS”), many voters have justifiable concerns about returning their
VBM ballot by mail and are only comfortable returning their VBM ballot to a secure
drop box.
99.

SB 90 states that there shall be an “equal opportunity” to utilize secure

drop boxes, but in fact these restrictions on drop boxes have the effect ofdisproportionately impacting disabled voters, and Black and Latino voters.
5. Vague and Overbroad Criminal Prohibition Against “Influencing” aVoter Within 150-Foot Zone.
100. SB 90 likely restricts the provision of basic items, such as food andwater, to voters waiting in line. Section 29 of SB 90 amended Fla. Stat. § 102.031(on “unlawful solicitation of voters”) to prohibit “engaging in any activity with theintent to influence or effect of influencing a voter.” The same section also applies
the “soliciting” ban to within 150 feet of drop boxes, an expansion of the existing150-foot zone covering the space outside “the entrance to any polling place, a pollingroom where the polling place is also a polling room, an early voting site, or an officeof the supervisor where vote-by-mail ballots are requested and printed on demand.”37

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 39 of 59

101. Section 29 of SB 90 carves out an exception to this prohibition: “Theterms ‘solicit’ or ‘solicitation’ may not be construed to prohibit an employee of, ora volunteer with, the supervisor from providing nonpartisan assistance to voterswithin the no-solicitation zone such as, but not limited to, giving items to voters.”
102. The law does not provide any exception or exclusion stating that aperson (other than an SOE employee or volunteer) does not “solicit” or “engag[e] inany activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter” by offering
items—even food or water—to voters, even those standing in long lines at pollingplaces for hours on end, potentially in intense heat or inclement weather.
103. Prior to SB 90’s enactment, Florida law already prohibited impropersolicitation, specifying that “‘solicit’ or ‘solicitation’ shall include, but not be limited
to, seeking or attempting to seek any vote, fact, opinion, or contribution; distributing
or attempting to distribute any political or campaign material, leaflet, or handout;
conducting a poll except [for exit polling]; seeking or attempting to seek a signature
on any petition; and selling or attempting to sell any item.” Fla. Stat. § 102.031.
104. In enacting the new SB 90 prohibition, the sponsors of the legislation
articulated no cognizable justification for the prohibition, and did not explain what
“activities” within the 150-foot zone would be considered to have the “effect ofinfluencing a voter.”38

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 40 of 59

105. Expert studies confirm that “high turnout in battleground states like
Florida . . . means long lines at polling places.”27 Long lines have a direct impact
and cost on voters. This includes voters being unable to cast a ballot due to problems
related to polling place management, including long lines.28
106. Long lines “make voters irritable and frustrated, leading some to avoid
voting altogether or to leave before voting, producing uncounted numbers of lost
votes.” Voting Technology Project, at 10. Survey reports from 2008 and 2012indicate that Florida had “some of the longest voter waiting times in the nation inthese two elections”—an average of 29 minutes and 45 minutes, respectively.
107. Even longer lines are regularly reported in Florida. In 2012, Miami
voters waited in lines that extended for many city blocks for more than six hours tocast a ballot during the early-voting period.29 Similar extreme delays occurred in2012 in Broward County.30

27

The Voting Technology Project: Looking Back, Looking Ahead, Caltech/MIT
Voting Tech. Project (July 2016),
https://vote.caltech.edu/documents/164/VTP_July_Report_with_cover.pdf, at 10.
28
Matthew Weil et al., The 2018 Voting Experience: Polling Place Lines,
Bipartisan Pol’y Ctr., Nov. 2019, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/The-2018-Votin-Experience.pdf, at 6.
29
Esteban Roman, For Some Florida Voters, Six-Hour Wait Time To Cast A Ballot
In Florida, Early Voters Wait In Line For
Hours, ABC News/Univision (Nov. 2, 2012), https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univis
ion/early-florida-voters-wait-long-hours-line-vote/story?id=17630774.
30
Marc Freeman et al., South Florida Voting: Long Lines Drag Voting Late Into
The Night, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel (Nov. 7, 2012), https://www.sun39

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 41 of 59

108. The burdens of these lines do not fall evenly on Florida voters. Rather,the burdens are disproportionally, and most severely, felt by Black and Latino voters.
As one national study found, “the more voters in a precinct who are non-white, thelonger the wait times.”31 Data from the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election
Study shows that nationwide, “African American (11.5 minutes) and Hispanic (11.7
minutes) voters waited longer, on average, than white voters (8.8 minutes).”32
109. Disabled voters also face significant burdens from having to wait inlong lines as they navigate polling sites that already present numerous forms ofphysical accessibility barriers.
110. By forcing voters to choose between their health, their time, or theirjob, these laws impinge upon voters’ fundamental right to cast a ballot. A long line
to vote does not just discourage people from casting a ballot that day: it also
discourages them from voting in the future. Statistical evidence shows nearly
200,000 people failed to vote in the 2014 elections due to long lines in 2012.33 In
Florida specifically, long lines have a major effect on voter turnout. A 2013 analysis

sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2012-11-07-fl-election-day-at-the-polls-20121106story.html.
31
Weil et al., 2018 Voting Experience: Polling Place Lines, at 6. See also at 21.
32
Id. at 7.
33
Stephen Scott Pettigrew, Long Lines and Voter Purges: The Logistics of RunningElections in America (Harvard Univ. Ph.D. dissertation,2017), https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/40046499/PETTIGREWDISSERTATION-2017.pdf.
40

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 42 of 59

examined voter patterns and precinct-closing times in Florida’s 25 largest counties(home to 86% of Florida’s registered voters) during the November 6, 2012 generalelection.34 It determined that at least 201,000 would-be Florida voters likely gave up
in frustration due to long lines, and that “the lengthy lines lowered actual turnout by
roughly 2.3 percent per hour of delay.”35
111. In Broward County in 2018, long lines and 90-minute waits weretypical for voters on the final day of early voting.36
112. Long lines were also reported during the November 2020 generalelection in Florida.37 SB 90’s restrictions on casting a VBM ballot will have a

34

Scott Powers & David Damron, Analysis: 201,000 in Florida Didn’t Vote
Because of Long Lines, Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 29, 2013,https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-xpm-2013-01-29-os-voter-linesstatewide-20130118-story.html.
35
Id.
36
Susannah Bryan, Voters Waited In Long Lines On Last Day of Early Voting, S.
FLA. Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 4, 2018, https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-neearly-voting-last-day-20181104-story.html.
37Franklin White, Long Lines, High Turnout on Last Day of Early Voting in South
Florida, 7 News, WSVN, Nov. 2, 2020, https://wsvn.com/news/politics/long-lineshigh-turnout-on-last-day-of-early-voting-in-south-florida/(“longlines
inMiramar”), Matt Fernandez, More Long Voting Lines This Weekend in Central
Florida, Spectrum News 13, Oct. 25, 2020 (in Apopka, some voters reported “waited
more
than
an
hour”), https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/politics/2020/10/24/more-longvoting-lines-this-weekend-in-central-florida; Jake Allen, Michael Braun, Frank
Gluck, Long Lines and Rain Didn't Dampen Turnout on First Day of Early Voting
in Lee and Collier, Fort Myers News-Press, Oct. 19, 2020 (“Many voting stations
had
lines
exceeding45
minutes”),
https://www.newspress.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/19/early-voting-florida-2020-fortmyers-naples-cape-coral-lehigh-acres-estero-vote-election/3709337001/.
41

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 43 of 59

spillover effect, pushing more voters to cast ballots in person, further increasing therisk of long lines that require voters to wait for hours.
113. Because state officials allow these long lines to occur, numerous
nonpartisan organizations and their members, including Plaintiff Florida NAACP
and its members, often provide relief to voters waiting in long lines—who aredisproportionately Black and Latino voters—by offering water, coffee, snacks,
chairs, and other assistance, and by verbally encouraging voters to stay in line despite
the difficulty of extended waits. These activities are especially important whenlocations are the busiest and the weather is the hottest.
114. Providing relief to voters is free speech, not mere charity. By providing
voters with water, food and other relief items while they wait in line, the volunteers
express the importance of casting a ballot, and affirm individuals’ value as a person
and a voter. Volunteers create a sense of community, reminding voters that voting isboth a joyful act and a civic responsibility.
115. No evidence was provided during the House or Senate committee
hearings to justify criminalizing the nonpartisan provision of free food, water, andsimilar basic resources to voters standing in line. No evidence was provided tosuggest that such offerings influence a voter or justify restricting nonpartisan
volunteers from coming within 150 feet of a polling location entrance to do so.
Similarly, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the existing criminal

42

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 44 of 59

prohibitions on solicitation were insufficient to deter any efforts to engage in partisan
or disruptive conduct while people were waiting to vote.
E.

Florida Has No Legitimate Interest in the Challenged Provisions That
Justified the Burdens Imposed.
116. As stated above, the Florida Legislature enacted SB 90 despite theabsence of any evidence of fraud or irregularities in the 2020 Florida elections, muchless any fraud or irregularity that would have changed the outcome of any election.
117. Senator Baxley repeatedly suggested that SB 90 was necessary to
prevent fraud or irregularities, but admitted that he lacked any evidence that SB 90
would actually prevent or deter supposed fraud, saying only that, “The challenge isthat you don’t know what you don’t know.”38
118. Governor DeSantis touted Florida as a model for election integrity andsecurity while at the same time signing SB 90 into law.39
119. Neither the sponsors of the legislation nor Defendant have articulated
or demonstrated how the Challenged Provisions would prevent purported “fraud.”40
Broward County Supervisor of Elections Joe Scott noted that the challenged
provisions of the Act amount to “massive voter suppression” and could have a major

38

Man, S. FLA. Sun-Sentinel, supra note 23.
Id.
40
See id. (the Act’s sponsors acknowledged that “they couldn’t identify any
problems in last year’s record-setting vote by mail that would be fixed by thechanges they advanced”; Senator Baxley admitted that the 2020 elections were“excellent, excellent” and conducted with “very high credibility.”).
3943Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 45 of 59

impact. Mark Earley, the Leon County Supervisor of Elections and vice president of
the Florida Supervisors of Elections, told Florida legislators at a hearing, “We areagainst this bill, vehemently. This bill appears to be setting us up for another 2012,
when we had long lines, chaos and confusion.”41
V.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
52 U.S.C. § 10301, et seq.
(Discriminatory Results)

120. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each allegation
contained in the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth
herein.
121. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a),prohibits voting laws, policies, or practices that “result[] in a denial or abridgementof the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
122. “The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or
structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in theopportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred
representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986).

41

Man, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, supra note 23.
44

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 46 of 59

123. A violation of Section 2 may be based either on a finding of
discriminatory purpose motivating a challenged governmental action or on a findingof a discriminatory result from the challenged governmental action. See Reno v.
Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 481–82 (1997).
124. A violation of Section 2 occurs when, “based on the totality of thecircumstances, it is shown that the political processes . . . are not equally open toparticipation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its
members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 52 U.S.C.
§ 10301(b).
125. As detailed herein, Florida has a long, well-established history of
racially discriminatory voting restrictions.
126. As detailed herein, SB 90 was enacted at a time when Black and Latino
voters were increasingly using means of voting that are being limited or restricted
entirely in SB 90.
127. As detailed herein, SB 90 was introduced and enacted immediately
following the November 2020 general election, in which Black voters and Latino
voters disproportionately and at historically high levels availed themselves of themeans of voting and other activities that are being limited or prohibited by the
Challenged Provisions of SB 90.

45

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 47 of 59

128. As reflected by the totality of the circumstances surrounding theenactment of SB 90, and the other facts set forth herein (including the social,economic, and historical conditions in Florida affecting Black and Latino voters in
Florida), the Challenged Provisions will (a) disproportionately and adversely affectthe right to vote of Black and Latino voters and (b) diminish the opportunities ofBlack and Latino voters to vote and to elect their preferred representatives.
129. As detailed herein, in passing SB 90, the Florida Legislature deviatedfrom procedural norms in its rushing the bill to passage. Among other things, theLegislature repeatedly curtailed opportunities for public testimony, while permitting
testimony on other bills; constrained and severely limited opportunities for membersof the legislature to debate provisions of SB 90 before rushing to conduct votes; andfailed to provide members of the legislature and members of the public with thetypical amount of notice of new versions of the legislation before enacting thoseamendments, which is necessary to permit analysis, public comment, anddeliberation.
130. The legislators who introduced, sponsored, and voted to enact SB 90
were on notice of the likely and foreseeable disparate impact of the Challenged
Provisions on Black and Latino voters.
131. Implementation of SB 90 will irreparably harm Plaintiffs and theirmembers by denying, unduly burdening, or abridging their right to vote.

46

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 48 of 59

132. There are less discriminatory, less intrusive, and less burdensome
alternatives to each and every Challenged Provision, including simply maintaining
the status quo, which would leave undisturbed an election system Defendant Lee
characterized as “safe, secure and orderly.”
133. By engaging in the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendant hasdenied and continues to deny Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the Voting Rights Act.
134. Defendant will continue to violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Voting
Rights Act absent relief from this Court.
COUNT IIFirst and Fourteenth Amendment
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Undue Burden on the Right to Vote
in Violation of the U.S. Constitution)
135. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each allegation
contained in the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth
herein.
136. The United States Constitution guarantees that “all qualified voters
have a constitutionally protected right to vote . . . and to have their votes counted.”
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554 (1964).
137. This fundamental right to vote is rooted in “the right of individuals to
associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters,

47

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 49 of 59

regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.” Williams v.
Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968).
138. The government cannot unreasonably burden the right to vote. If thecharacter and magnitude of the injury inflicted upon voting rights outweigh the stateinterests justifying the challenged restriction, then the restriction is unconstitutional.
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S.
428, 434 (1992). In evaluating burdens on the right to vote, “[i]t matters . . . whether
the effects of a facially neutral and nondiscriminatory law are unevenly distributed
across identifiable groups.” LWV of Fla., 314 F. Supp. 3d at 1216.
139. Defendant’s implementation and enforcement of the Challenged
Provisions will unreasonably and severely burden all voters, but these burdens areespecially severe for Black voters, Latino voters, and voters with disabilities.
Accordingly, the Challenged Provisions should be evaluated under a heightenedlevel of scrutiny.
140. Defendant has no legitimate interest in the Challenged Provisions thatjustifies any burden on the right to vote, let alone the severe burdens that the
Challenged Provisions impose on Plaintiffs and on all Florida voters. None of theburdens imposed by the Challenged Provisions are necessary to achieve, let alone
reasonably related to, any sufficiently weighty legitimate governmental interest. The

48

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 50 of 59

purported justifications for SB 90 (e.g., to prevent voter fraud) are pretextual andunsupported by any evidence in the legislative record.
141. Even if the Challenged Provisions serve some permissible goal,
Defendant cannot explain why this goal could not be substantially achieved throughsome other means that does not impose burdens on the right to vote.
COUNT III
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act(42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.)(Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations)142. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate by reference all prior andsubsequent paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the count below as
though fully set forth herein.
143. Voting is a fundamental right, but historically, people with disabilities
have been excluded from this core aspect of citizenship. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
Civil Rights Div., Disability Rights Section, The Americans With Disabilities Act
and Other Federal Laws Protecting the Rights of Voters With Disabilities 1,
https://www.justice.gov/file/69411/download (last visited Apr. 25, 2021).
144. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was enacted to combat
discrimination against persons with disabilities and to protect their fundamental
rights, including the right to vote.

49

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 51 of 59

145. Under Title II of the ADA, state and local governments are prohibitedfrom imposing requirements on participation in public services, programs, or
activities—including voting—that prevent individuals with disabilities from fullyand equally enjoying those activities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
146. State and local governments must make reasonable modifications inpolicies, practices, or procedures when those modifications are necessary to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability. These requirements apply to all election
policies and procedures.
147.

To protect people with disabilities against discrimination by states andother governmental authorities, Congress has abrogated the defense of sovereign
immunity for claims under Title II of the ADA. Nat’l Assoc. of the Deaf v. Florida,
980 F.3d 763, 774 (11th Cir. 2020) (recognizing validity of ADA sovereign
immunity abrogation).
148. There is no valid justification for the burdens that the Challenged
Provisions impose on voters with disabilities, which will deny voters withdisabilities equal access to the franchise and prevent such voters from exercising
their fundamental right to vote.
149. “Physical barriers are not the only means by which to impede
accessibility.” People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 467 F. Supp. 3d. 1179, 1220 (N.D.
Ala. 2020). For example, the identification requirement for VBM ballot requests will50

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 52 of 59

make it more difficult for voters with disabilities to request VBM ballots. The samerequirement places a serious burden on all voters with disabilities for whom it iseasier to vote from their own homes, and who require extra time to vote. This
includes, for example, voters with limited mobility or visual impairments who would
otherwise struggle to vote in person due to physical barriers or limitations.
150. The restrictions on drop-box availability add impermissible barriers tovoters with disabilities’ participation in elections. By requiring drop boxes to be
staffed, the Challenged Provisions will limit the option to offer drop boxes outside.
As a result of the staffing requirement, many election officials will place most or all
drop boxes indoors where staff are already located, which may be less accessible tovoters with disabilities. Voters with disabilities who have limited mobility are more
likely to rely on drop boxes that are placed outdoors and are easily accessible—an
option that the Challenged Provisions will severely curtail.
151. The limitations on third-party return of VBM ballots are anothersignificant barrier to the franchise for disabled voters. Many such voters rely on
assistance from others, including volunteers and organizations, to return their ballots
for them. For voters who are homebound or cannot risk exposure to crowds, theserestrictions will lead to outright disenfranchisement as they may be unable to findanyone to submit their ballots for them.

51

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 53 of 59

152. Voters with disabilities who choose to vote in person will also face
greater burdens due to SB 90’s vague and overbroad prohibition on “engaging in any
activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter.” This provision
exposes family members, caregivers, and volunteers to potential criminal liability
for aiding voters, including voters with disabilities. This criminal statute will, among
other things, inhibit family members, caregivers, and others from providing food orwater to a voter with diabetes, or a chair to someone with limited mobility or
breathing problems. Florida voters regularly face long lines at their polling places
and this problem will only intensify as voting by mail is curtailed by the other
Challenged Provisions. At polling places with long lines, this ban will result in somevoters with disabilities having to choose between their health and casting their vote.
153.

Individually and together, the Challenged Provisions render the

franchise not “readily accessible” for voters with disabilities and therefore violate
Title II of the ADA. Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 2001).
154. Unless the requested relief is granted, Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated will be discriminated against and denied adequate access to the franchise.
155. The ADA authorizes injunctive relief as appropriate to remedy acts of
discrimination against persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(a)(1)-(2).

52Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 54 of 59

COUNT IV
U.S. Const. amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Freedom of Speech/Expression)
156. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior andsubsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
157. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce Plaintiff
Florida NAACP’s right under the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment, to freely associate and engage in protected speech andexpression.
158. Plaintiff Florida NAACP regularly dispatches volunteers throughout
the state to provide food, water, and other relief to voters waiting to cast their ballots
in person, as part of conveying their message concerning the importance of staying
in line and the value that each individual’s vote carries.
159. Plaintiff Florida NAACP’s efforts to provide relief to voters waiting inlong lines is quintessential First Amendment expressive conduct. “[C]onstitutional
protection is afforded to ‘speech,’ and acts that qualify as signs with expressive
meaning qualify as speech within the meaning of the Constitution.” Fort Lauderdale
Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 2018).
160. Providing relief to voters waiting in line conveys distinct messages—
specifically, that voters should remain in line and make their voices heard; thatvoting is an act that promotes community; and that each individual voter matters. By
53

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 55 of 59

providing water, food, and other relief, Plaintiff Florida NAACP has “established an
intent to express an idea through activity, and the reasonable observer wouldinterpret [their] food [and relief] sharing events as conveying some sort of message.”
Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs, 901 F.3d at 1243.
161. SB 90’s ban on “engaging in any activity with the intent to influence oreffect of influencing a voter” in tandem with its exclusive exemption from this ban
for supervisor of election volunteers and staff to provide items to voters in a
nonpartisan capacity directly bars the constitutionally protected speech andexpression of Plaintiff Florida NAACP and similar organizations and volunteers as
they seek to support voters, and there is no legitimate government purpose forimposing these burdens.
162. SB 90’s ban on providing relief to voters waiting in long lines restricts
speech and expressive conduct in traditional public fora.
163. SB 90’s ban on providing relief to voters waiting in long lines is notnarrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests.
164. SB 90’s ban on providing relief to voters waiting in long lines does notleave open ample alternative channels of communication for Plaintiff’s speech andexpressive conduct.

54

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 56 of 59

COUNT V
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Vagueness and Overbreadth)165. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate by reference all prior andsubsequent paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the count below as
though fully set forth herein.
166. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend.
XIV, § 1.
167. A state violates the Due Process Clause “by taking away someone’s
life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary
people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary
enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 595 (2015).
168. SB 90, Section 29 is unconstitutionally vague because it contains no
guidance or explanation as to what “activities” would have the intention to influenceor the effect of influencing a voter, nor what specifically constitutes “influence.”
Further, this provision does not clearly provide members of the public with adequate
knowledge or fair notice as to what conduct is permitted and what conduct isprohibited.

55

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 57 of 59

169. SB 90, Section 29 is unconstitutionally vague because in leaving
enforcement decisions to local election officials, law enforcement officers, andprosecutors, it creates a clear risk of arbitrary, selective, or inconsistent enforcement.
170. This provision is also overbroad because it infringes on and unduly
burdens (a) the legal and constitutional right of volunteers to engage in expressive
conduct by offering food, water, chairs, or other relief to voters in any capacity
without fear of criminal liability and (b) the legal and constitutional right of votersto receive such assistance, and because there is no governmental interest sufficient
to outweigh these significant burdens.
171. This provision is also overbroad because it potentially criminalizes any
activity within the zone that had the “effect of influencing a voter” without
limitation, or regard to whether such activities would have the effect of influencing
a reasonable voter.
172. While the state can constitutionally regulate polling places, thisprovision impermissibly targets protected speech.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a judgment
against Defendant and award Plaintiffs the following relief:
173. An injunction barring Defendant and her agents, officers, employees,
and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them or under56

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 58 of 59

their direction from enforcing each and every one of the Challenged Provisions for
all voters;
174. A declaration that Defendant’s actions, as described herein, violated
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act;
175. A declaration that Defendant’s actions, as described herein, violated theFirst and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
176. A declaration that Defendant’s actions, as described herein, violated theAmericans With Disabilities Act;
177. An order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs,
expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and178. Any and all additional relief that this Court deems just and proper.

57

Case 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 59 of 59

Respectfully submitted, this 6th day of May 2021.

Natasha Merle
John Z. Morris*
Michael Pernick*Morenike Fajana*
NAACP Legal Defense &Educational Fund, Inc.
40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10006
212-965-2200
zmorris@naacpldf.org

Nellie L. King(Fla. Bar No. 0099562)
The Law Offices of Nellie L. King,
P.A.
319 Clematis Street, Suite 107
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Nellie@CriminalDefenseFla.com
561-833-1084
Robert D. Fram*
Covington & Burling LLP
415 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-591-7025
rfram@cov.com

Benjamin L. Cavataro(Fla. Bar No. 113534)
Virginia A. Williamson*
Covington & Burling LLP
850 Tenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-5693
bcavataro@cov.com

P. Benjamin Duke*
Shira M. Poliak*
Covington & Burling LLPThe New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018.
212-841-1270
pbduke@cov.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs* Pro hac vice application forthcoming

58