Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 1 of 9

IN THE I.INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE NORTMRN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff,

')

v'

)
J crvn AcrIoNNo'

)

STATEOFFLORIDA;KENDETZNER,
capacity, Secretary of State, in his offioial

) )

Defendants.

) )

)

)

COMPLAINT

The United States of America alleges:

l.

The Attomey General brings this action on behalfofthe United States to enforce

Section 8 ofthe National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (\fVRA')' 42 U S'C $ 1973gg-6'
2. The State of Florida is conducting a program '"the purpose of which is to

systematically remove the names of ineligible voters fiom the offrcial lists ofeligible voters,"

within 90 days of an election for Federal office. 42 U.S.C' $ 1973gg'6(c)(2)(A). Section

S(cX2XA) of the NVRA expressly forbids such removal programs during the 90-day period

before an election for Federal office, with a few exceptions that do not apply here, The United

States brings this action to protect the rights ofeligible citizens to vote and to ensure that the

State complies with the voter protections enacted by Congress through the NVRA.

JI,'RISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U'S.C. $0 1331, 1345,

&2201,and42 U.S.C. $ l973gg-9.

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 9
2
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 89, 1391(b).
PARTIES
5. The NVRA authorizes the Attomey General of tlte United States to bring a civil
action on behalf of the PlaintiffUnited States of America in an appropriate district court for such declaratory or injunctive reliefas is necessary to carry out the NVRA. 42 U.S C. $ 1973gg-9(a).
6. Defendant State ofFlorida is one ofthe States ofthe United States of America
and is subject to the requirements ofthe NVRA. 42 U.S.C. $$ 1973gg-1(a), 197399-2' 197399-
6.
7. Defendant Secretary of State Ken Detzner is sued in his official capacity as the
chief state election oflicial responsible for coordinating Florida's responsibilities under the NVRA. See 42 U.S.C. $ l973ee'8 Fla. Stat. g 97.012(7). Defendant Detzner is the head of the Florida Department of State. The Division of Elections is one ofthe divisions established within the Departrnent of State. See Fla. Stat. $ 20.10(1) & (2)(a).
CAUSE OF ACTION
8. Section 8 of the NVRA establishes requirements for how States maintain voter
registration lists for elections for Federal offrce. 42 U'S.C. $$ 197399-6, 1973gg-l (1)' 1(2).
9. Among these requirements, Section 8(bX1) of t1t" 11y9,{ provides that any State
program or activity designed to ensure the maintenance of accurate and current voter registration rolls for elections for Federal office "shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting tughts Act of 1965[.]" 42 U.S.C. $ 1973gg-6(b)(1)'
10. Section 8(cX2XA) of the NVRA requires that "[a] State shall complete, not later
than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 3 of 9
3
purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters." 42 U.S.C. $ l973gg-6(c)(2)(A).
11. Section 8(c)(2)@) of the NVRA includes limited exceptiors to the 90-day period
established by Section 8(c)(2)(A). 42 U.S.C. $ 1973gg-6(c)(2)(B) Those exceptions authorize voter removal programs within 90 days of a primary or general election for Federal office only in ttre following circumstances: (1) at the request of the registrant; (2) ifthe regishant is disqualified by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity as provided by State law; or (3) ifthe registrant has died. 42 U.S.C. $$ l973gg-6(ax3)(e), (aX3XB), (a)(a)(A), (cXzXsXl). States may not otherwise conduct a systematic removal pro$tm under Section 8 of the NVRA within 90 days ofan election for Federal office, including removing regisnants within the 9o-clay period for failing to respond to letters sent as a result of a systematic list maintenance program.
12, The next-scheduled Florida primary election, which includes elections for Federal
ofiice, is set for August 14,2012. See Florida Division ofElections, calendar of Election Dates, av ai l ab l e a t http ://eleotion. dos. state. fl .us/calendar/elecdate'shtnrl.
13. The 90th day before the August 14,2012 pimary election was May 16,2012, 14. The next-scheduled Florida general election, which includes elections for Federal
office, is set for November 6,2012. See Florida Division of Elections, Calendar of Election Dates, available d/ http://election.dos.state.fl.us/calendar/elecdate.shtrnl; 2 U.S.C. $ 7.
15. The 90th day before the November 6 ,2072 genetal election will be August 8,
2012, which falls before Florida's primary election.
16. Defendant Detzner has been working in coordination with the Florida
Deparftnent of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV") to identiff registered voters for
possible removal fiom the statewide Florida Voter Registration System ('FVRS). As part of

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 4 of 9
this effiort, Defendant Detzner has implemented ongoing procedures (1) to veriry voter
registation records in FVRS against databases maintained by DHSMV for purposes of
identiffing potentially ineligible voters based on lack of citizenship, and (2) to distribute the results ofthis matching process to the 67 Florida County Supervisors ofElections for further action, including possible removal ofregistered voters from the FVRS.
17. Upon information and belief, in early April 2012, the Florida Division of
Elections (.'DOE) sent to the 67 Florida County Supervisors ofElections a list ofvoters identified as potentially ineligibie due to lack ofcitizenship. On April 23,2012,theDOEsentto t11e Supervisors ofElections a PowerPoint document entitled "Processing Ineligible Registered Voter-Non-Immigrants," See Attachment 1. This document sets forth step-by-step instluctions for the Supervisors of Elections to follow when veriffing the eligibility of voters identified as a
result of the matching process described in Paragraph 16. These instructions incorporate provisions ofFla. stat. $$ 98.075(6) and (7), and also direct the Supervisors ofElections to ..conduct any additional research [Refer to whatever other sources you have to confirm identity and potential change in legal status. You should all have access to DHSMV's DAVE. If you
find information credible and reliable, proceed.l" 1d at 8 (brackets in original). "DAVE (he
Driver and vehicle Express system) is a DHSIVIV database that contains driver's license information. The PowerPoint document aJso specifically instructs the Supervisors ofElections to "[d]etermine eligibility of person based on information you have ' . . ifineligible' remove voter name from rolls." Id. at 18.
18, Based on information and belief, onMay 16,2012' officials from the Florida
Department of State, including from the DOE and the Departmeot's Office of General Cotmsel, presented a training session in the form ofa PowerPoint presentation entitled "List Maintenance

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 5 of 9

5

Categories and Prooedures" to the Florida County Supewisors ofElections during the Florida

State Association of Supervisors of Elections (.'FSASE ) annual conference. See Attachment 2.
The PowerPoint training includes a "workflow overvierf' diagram for what Florida described as

the 'Non-US Citizens Project," which depicts an "automated match" between FVRS Registration

Records and "Driver Licensee" (DHSMV) records. Id. at slide 1 1. The training then provides

step-by-ste'p instructions for the Supervisors ofElections to follow when verifying the eligibility of voters identified as a result of the matching process described in Paragraph 16, /d. at slides

17-23. The document specifically instructs t}le Supervisors of Elections to "[d]etermine

eligibility ofperson based on information you have . . . [i]fineligible, remove voter name ftom rolls;' Id. at slide 23.
19. Based on information and belief, the database matching processes described in

Paragraph 16 and incorporated into the procedures described in Attachment 1 and 2 rely on outdated and inaccurate data; consequently, the resulting lists have erroneously identified numerous registered voters in Florida who are U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and who potentially could be deprived oftheir right to vote. See, e.g., Attachment 3 ([,Iay 31, 2012 Lellet from Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections to Florida Department of State' at 2). The

Defendants were aware that the resultine lists included errors and incorrect information.
20. Among the eligible voters enoneously identified as non-citizens by the

Defendants are individuals who became naturalized U.S. citizens within the past several years or

who are native-bom oitizens, including decorated combat veterans who served in the United

States Armed Forces.

.2l

On May 3 I , 2012, the United States notified Defendant Detzner that the voter

verification process described in Paragraph 16 "appears to be a pro$am to systemically remove

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 6 of 9
o
the names of potentially ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters within the meaning of Section 8 of the NVRA, and does not appear to fall within any ofthe exceptions allowed within the 90 day period before a federal election." ,See Atlachment 4 (Letter of May
3 l, 2012, from Deparhnent of Justice to Florida Secretary of State, at 2). The letter ftulher
advises that because "Florida's primary election for federal office is August 14, 2012, that 90day period began on May 16, 2012."
22. In a letter dated June 6,2012, Defendant Detzner responded that the Defendants
intended to proceed with their voter verification process. See Attachment 5 (Letter of June 6, 2012 from Florida Secretary of State to Department ofJustice).
23. On June I l, 2012, the United States informed the State that because Florida had
indicated its unwillingness to comply with the requirements of the NVRA, the Assistant Attomei General for the Civil Rights Division had authorized an enforcement action against Floida. See Attachment 6 (Letter of June 1 I ftom Department ofJustice to Florida Secretary of State).
24. Defendants have directed the 67 Florida County Supervisors ofElections to
proceed to implement the voter verification procedures set forth in Attachments I and 2, which
include potentially removi"g individuals identified on the lists resulting from the database matching described in Paragraph 16.
25. Defendants' voter verification procedures, as described in paragraphs 16 to 19,
constitute a progmm with the purpose of systematically removing names from the offrcial lists of
eligible voters. This program was not completed by May 16, 2012, the 90th day before the next Florida primary or general election for Federal office, and does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to the 90-day quiet period before that election for Federal offrce. Defendants' actions therefore violate Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the NVRA.

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 7 of 9

I

26. Defendants' voter verification procedures are inaccurate and ulreliable, and

therefore violate Section 8(bX1) ofthe NVRA, which requires that any such program be

"uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965[.]" 42

u.s.c. $ 1973gg-6(bx1).
27, Unless and until ordered to cease doing so by this Court, Defendants will continue

to administer the above-described systematic verification of voters, with an ongoing directive to

Supervisors ofElections to systematically investigate, verify, and possibly remove eligible voters

from the voter rolls within 90 days ofFlorida's August 14, 2012 primary election for Federal

office, in violation of Seotion 8 of the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. $$ 1973gg-6(bxl), (cXZXa).

WHEREFORE, the United States requesls that this Court enter an order:
1. Declaring that Defendants are not in compliance with Section 8 ofthe

NVRA;

2.

Enjoining the Defendants, their agents, and successors in offrce and all

persons acting in concert with any ofthem from failing or refusing to

comply with the requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA;

3.

Enjoining Defendants, their agents, and successors in office and all

persons acting in concert with any ofthem from the systernatic removal of

registered voters within 90 days of all elections for Federal office pursuant

to the database matching procedures described in paragraphs 16 to 19; and

,l

Ordering the Defendants, their agents and successors in office and all

persons acting in concert with any ofthem to take all steps necessary to

ensure that no registered voter identified as potentially ineligible based on

the database matching and voter verification procedures in paragraphs 16

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 8 of 9
8
to 19 is removed ftom the voter rolls within 90 days of a primary or general election for Federal office, absent application of one of the statutory exceptions in Sections 8(a)(3)(e)-(B) and 8(a)(a)(A) ofthe NVRA,
The United States further requests that this Court order such other relief as the interests of
justice may require, together with the costs and disbursernent in maintaining this action. The United States firther requests that the consideration of this action be expedited given
the importance ofthe rights sought to be vindicated herein'

Case 4:12-cv-00285-WS-CAS Document 2 Filed 06/12/12 Page 9 of 9

Date: Junc 12. 201 2

ERIC H. HOLDER,JR.

Attomey Ceneral

By,

/1 a)

/Yl '- 7/'\ -YL-y

firoMAS E- PERF,tg-

Assistant Attomey General

United States Attomey liorthem Dislricl of Florida

JOHN AI,BERT RTJSS, IV ELISH SANDRA SHORE JENIGII J. GARRETT Attorneys, Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Rr:om 7254 NWB 950 Pcnnsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (800) 253-393 I Facsimile: (202) 307-3961

 
 Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 11
Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

STATE OF FLORIDA and KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State, in his official capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This case arises from a program that the Florida Secretary of State began and then voluntarily abandoned to identify and remove noncitizens from the Florida voter-registration rolls. The United States has sued the Secretary and the State of Florida, asserting violations of the National Voter Registration Act. The United States has moved for a temporary restraining order. In substance, the motion may seek a preliminary injunction, but the nomenclature makes no difference. This order confirms the ruling announced at greater length on the record at the conclusion of a hearing on the motion. The order denies the motion primarily because the Secretary has abandoned the program.
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 11
Page 2 of 11
I The Secretary is Florida’s chief elections officer, but each county has its own Supervisor of Elections. A Supervisor of Elections is a constitutional officer who operates not entirely within the Secretary’s control. The Secretary compiled a list of roughly 180,000 registered voters who he said might be noncitizens. The Secretary sent a sample of names drawn from the list to the Supervisors with a detailed set of instructions—or at least suggestions— on how to use the list. The instructions included sending a letter to each person on the list directing the person to send back a form swearing, under penalty of perjury, that the person was or was not a citizen, and, if a citizen, either requesting a hearing or attaching documents showing citizenship. The proposed letter included a statement that if the person failed to respond within 30 days, the person might be removed from the voter roll. There were major flaws in the program. The Secretary compiled the list in a manner certain to include a large number of citizens. At least insofar as shown by this record, the list included any person who (1) as a noncitizen, obtained a driver’s license and accurately disclosed to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that the person was not a citizen, (2) became a naturalized citizen, (3) registered to vote, accurately disclosing to the Supervisor of Elections that the
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 11
Page 3 of 11
person was a citizen, and (4) had not yet renewed the driver’s license and so had
not updated DHSMV’s records to reflect the new citizenship status.
Florida driver’s licenses are renewed every six years. One thus would
expect the average lag between naturalization and driver’s-license renewal to be
three years. Tens of thousands of Florida residents become naturalized citizens
each year. Homeland Security records put the number at nearly 240,000 for the last three years.1 If just over three-fourths of those were already licensed drivers
and, upon becoming citizens, registered to vote, one would expect the Secretary’s
list to include 180,000 properly registered new citizens. And the Secretary’s
methodology had other possible flaws as well, including, for example, the
possibility that the clerk issuing a driver’s license improperly listed a citizen as a
noncitizen; the record does not indicate whether a driver has an opportunity to
review or correct such an entry. The suggestion that there was a list of 180,000
improperly registered noncitizens was plainly wrong.
1 The numbers are 82,788 for 2009, and 67,484 for 2010, and 87,309 for 2011, for a total of 237,581. James Lee, Annual Flow Report: U.S. Naturalizations: 2011, Dep’t of Homeland Security 3 (April 2012), http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/us-naturalizations-2011.shtm. This appears to be information that can be judicially noticed. Taking notice would be proper only if the parties have an opportunity to be heard. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. But it makes no difference whether this information is judicially noticed or even considered at all. It is common knowledge than many thousands of Floridians are naturalized each year. At argument, the Secretary did not deny it, and nobody could reasonably do so. The numbers are set out here just to illustrate the point.
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 4 of 11
Page 4 of 11
Still, the Supervisors who received the Secretary’s sample list identified a small number of noncitizens who were on the list and were registered to vote. The record is less than conclusive but suggests that some actually voted in past elections.
II In order to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause a defendant, and that the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005).
III In support of its motion, the United States asserts it is likely to prevail on the merits of two claims, both arising under the National Voter Registration Act. First, the United States says the NVRA prohibits a state from pursuing a program to systematically remove noncitizens from the voting rolls within 90 days before a federal election. And second, the United States says the Secretary’s program violates the NVRA’s requirement that any such program be uniform and nondiscriminatory.
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 5 of 11
Page 5 of 11
A The United States bases its 90-day argument on NVRA section 8(c)(2)(A):
A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A). Section 8(c)(2)(B) sets out exceptions:
Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude— (i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a) of this section; or
(ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(c)(2)(B). It is unclear why the exception in clause (ii) does not apply to the Secretary’s program, but neither side says it does. The exceptions
in clause (i) do not apply here; they deal with removal of an individual who requests removal, or has a felony conviction or mental incapacity, or has died. Thus paragraph (a)(3) deals with removal of names from the voter list:
(A) at the request of the registrant; (B) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or
mental incapacity; or (C) as provided under paragraph (4) . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3). Paragraph (a)(4)(A) in turn deals with removal on one additional ground:
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 6 of 11
Page 6 of 11
(A) the death of the registrant . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(4). The Secretary says subparagraph (a)(3)(B) allows removal on any ground “provided by State law,” but that plainly is incorrect, first because that reading would render the rest of paragraph (a)(3)—and also section 8(c)(2)(A)—virtually superfluous, and second because in the vertical list with separate entries separately numbered and separated by semicolons, each separately numbered entry must be read as an integrated whole. The reference to removal “as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity” thus means removal based on a criminal conviction or mental incapacity—but only to the extent state law provides for removal on those grounds. The suggestion that two wholly unrelated grounds for removal—“as provided by state law” and “by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity”—were set out in subparagraph (B), separated by a comma instead of a semicolon, is wrong.
The United States says the Secretary’s program is a “program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters,” that none of the listed exceptions applies to the removal of noncitizens, and that section 8(c)(2)(A) thus prohibits the Secretary from continuing his program into the 90-day quiet period. The quiet period began on May16, 2012, which was 90 days before the scheduled August 14, 2012 primary.
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 7 of 11
Page 7 of 11
On first reading, section 8(c)(2)(A) seems to say precisely what the United States claims. But a parallel NVRA provision indicates that this first reading is incorrect. Section 8(a)(3) requires a state to provide that “the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters” with the specific exceptions quoted in part above—exceptions for the registrant’s own request, criminal conviction or mental incapacity, death, or change of residence. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3). On first reading, this section—which applies at all times, not just in the 90 days before an election—seems to prohibit a state from ever removing from its voting list a noncitizen, even though the noncitizen should never have been registered in the first place.
But this is not what this section means. Both sides agree that a state can remove an improperly registered noncitizen; the United States challenges only a state’s ability to do so as part of a systematic program during the 90-day quiet period. This conclusion is inescapable: section 8(a)(3)’s prohibition on removing a registrant except on specific grounds simply does not apply to an improperly registered noncitizen.
So section 8(a)(3)’s list of the grounds on which a “registrant” may be “removed” does not apply to removing an improperly registered noncitizen. Section 8(c)(2) provides a quiet period—90 days—during which a state cannot pursue a program to systematically “remove . . . ineligible voters.” Surely
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 8 of 11
Page 8 of 11
“removed” in 8(a)(3) and “remove” in 8(c)(2) mean the same thing. And there is no reason to believe the reference to removing a “registrant” in 8(a)(3) means something different than removing “ineligible voters” in 8(c)(2); by definition, someone who is being “removed” has already registered, so an “ineligible voter” is a “registrant.” In short, if, as both sides concede, section 8(a)(3) does not prohibit a state from removing an improperly registered noncitizen, then 8(c)(2) does not prohibit a state from systematically removing improperly registered noncitizens during the quiet period.
This indicates that what Congress had in mind when it drafted these sections was removing a person on grounds that typically arise after an initial proper registration. Congress was not addressing the revocation of an improperly granted registration of a noncitizen. A person who was once properly registered can be removed from the voting list under section 8(a)(3) only for specific reasons: the person asks to be taken off the list, becomes ineligible under state law because of a criminal conviction or mental incapacity, dies, or changes residence. During the 90-day quiet period, a state may pursue a program to systematically remove registrants on request or based on a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death, but not based on a change of residence. What matters here is this: none of this applies to removing noncitizens who were not properly registered in the first place.
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 9 of 11
Page 9 of 11
For noncitizens, the state’s duty is to maintain an accurate voting list. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(b). A state can and should do that on the front end, blocking a noncitizen from registering in the first place. And if a state finds it has made an error—or a number of errors—and wishes to correct the problem, it should do so well in advance. But the NVRA does not require a state to allow a noncitizen to vote just because the state did not catch the error more than 90 days in advance.
B The United States bases its second challenge on NVRA section 8(b), which requires a state program that is intended “to protect the integrity of the electoral process”—by providing an “accurate” voter roll—to be “uniform” and “nondiscriminatory.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(b). The Secretary’s program, while he was pursuing it, probably ran afoul of this provision. The record indicates that the Secretary’s program identified many properly registered citizens as potential noncitizens. Given the methodology, that is hardly surprising. The Secretary’s proposal was to send letters to the listed individuals requiring a response and ultimately to require them to provide documentation of their citizenship. The Secretary’s methodology made it likely that the properly registered citizens who would be required to respond and provide documentation would be primarily newly naturalized citizens. The program was
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 10 of 11
Page 10 of 11
likely to have a discriminatory impact on these new citizens. And while the Secretary suggests that having to respond to this kind of inquiry is of little import, that is not so. A state cannot properly impose burdensome demands in a discriminatory manner.
III The Secretary says, though, that he has suspended the program and will not resume it. He says he is seeking better information, specifically access to a database maintained by the United States Department of Homeland Security that, if used properly, should exclude from the Secretary’s list the newly naturalized citizens, and perhaps others included on the Secretary’s list in error. A program that accurately identifies noncitizens who are registered to vote without unnecessarily challenging citizens could meet the requirement of uniformity and nondiscrimination. And because, as set out above, such a program could be pursued even within 90 days of an election, there is no reason to believe, at this point, that the Secretary will engage in any future violation of the NVRA. There is no need for an injunction prohibiting the Secretary from continuing with a program he has unequivocally said he will not continue. Support for this conclusion comes from the four-part test governing preliminary injunctive relief, as set out above, including the requirement that any such injunction be necessary to avoid irreparable harm. And support also comes from the voluntary-cessation
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 34 Filed 06/28/12 Page 11 of 11
Page 11 of 11
doctrine as applied to public defendants. In this circuit a government entity that has discontinued challenged conduct enjoys a rebuttable presumption that the conduct will not recur. See, e.g., Bankshot Billiards, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 634 F.3d 1340, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2011) (collecting earlier cases). If the Secretary or the supervisors of elections go forward with the program the Secretary says he has abandoned, the issue can be revisited.
IV For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: The motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. SO ORDERED on June 28, 2012.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

 
 Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 55 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

STATE OF FLORIDA and KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State, in his official capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING THE FILE

The parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal. ECF No. 54. The notice is effective without an order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012). This order confirms that the case has been dismissed. The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on January 16, 2013. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge

Case No. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

 
 Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 54 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF FLORIDA; KEN DETZNER,

)

Secretary of State, in his official capacity.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

--------------------------------)

CASE NO. 4:12-CV-285-RH/CAS

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(l)(A)(ii), the parties stipulate to dismissal of this action, with each party to this action bearing its own attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter a final order consistent with the above stipulation in order to conclude this action.

Case 4:12-cv-00285-RH-CAS Document 54 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 2 -2 -

Date: January 10, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff:
PAMELA C. MARSH United States Attorney

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

MICHAEL HARWIN Georgia Bar Number 335605 Assistant United States Attorney 111 North Adams Street, 4th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tel: (850) 942-8483 Fax: (850) 942-8448
For Defendants:

/s/ Elise Sandra Shore
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR JOHN ALBERT RUSS IV ELISE SANDRA SHORE JENIGH J. GARRETT MARIARIOS Attorneys, Voting Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Room NWB-7254 Tel: (202) 305-0070 Fax: (202) 307-3961

/s/ Ashley E. Davis
Ashley E. Davis Assistant General Counsel Florida Bar No. 48032 Ashley.Davis@DOS.MyFlorida.com Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone (850) 245-6536 Facsimile (850) 245-6127
Counsel for Defendants

Michael A. Carvin (D.C. Bar No. 366784) Gregory G. Katsas (D.C. BarNo. 448142) Warren D. Postman (D.C. Bar No. 995083) JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 macarvin@jonesday.com ggkatsas@jonesday.com wpostman@jonesday.com
Counsel for Secretary ofState Detzner

 
 Office of the Assistant Attorney General

u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Ken Detzner Florida Secretary of State Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Dear Mr. Secretary:
This responds to your letter to the Department of Justice dated June 6, 2012. Your letter was in response to our May 31, 2012 letter regarding our concerns that Florida's new program of citizenship verification for voters appeared to violate provisions of both the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. Based on your June 6 letter, it appears that the State of Florida is unwilling to conform its behavior to the requirements of federal law.
The Department of Justice has a shared interest with all states in ensuring that all eligible citizens have the opportunity to register and vote, and that ineligible persons, including noncitizens, do not register and vote in federal elections. Toward that end, there are a number of key federal laws in place to ensure that non-citizens do not register and vote in federal elections, and that the rights of eligible voters are protected so they are not deterred from exercising their right to vote.
Safeguards in Federal Law to Protect Voter Registration
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) contain important provisions requiring that every person seeking to register to vote in a federal election swear or affirm under penalty of perjury their United States citizenship. In addition, federal criminal laws prohibit fraudulent voter registration as well as non-citizen voting in federal elections. The Department of Justice does not hesitate to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute such cases. These federal provisions have proven quite effective in deterring non-citizens from registering to vote and from casting ballots in federal elections.
At the same time, the NVRA reflects Congress's determination that states cannot have unfettered authority to conduct list maintenance programs during certain periods in the election cycle. In enacting a quiet period during which states are prohibited, with limited exceptions,

-2 -
from conducting list maintenance programs within 90 days of a federal primary or general election, Congress was concerned both with the clearly negative effect those programs can have on the ability of eligible citizens to ensure that their voter registration is valid for the upcoming election, and with the risk of discouraging participation of eligible voters.
Congress enacted the NVRA against a historical backdrop in this country in which many purge programs were initiated close to elections, which prevented or deterred eligible citizens from casting ballots in those elections. Where the registration status of eligible citizens is questioned close to an election, it creates significant confusion for both voters and election officials that cannot easily be resolved in the immediate pre-election period, when there is insufficient time to identify errors or remedy incorrect removals. The 90-day quiet period in the NVRA protects these legitimate voters from being dropped from the rolls right before an election, and allows for voters to receive adequate notice and a fair opportunity to respond in time to maintain or renew their registration.
Florida's Voter List Maintenance Program
With respect to our inquiry to Florida regarding compliance with Section 8 of the NVRA, your June 6 response has provided no information that allows us to change our view that the State's new list maintenance program for verification of citizenship is a "program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters," and that this program is being conducted within the 90-day quiet period established by Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the NVRA. Likewise, you have provided no information indicating that the program fits within any of the statutory exceptions for programs that may be conducted within that quiet period.
Instead, it appears that Florida has initiated a new program for systematic voter .removal, which may ultimately target more than 180,000 registered voters, and which the State first made public just before the beginning of the 90-day quiet period that precedes the State's federal primary election. As you are aware, because Florida's primary election for federal office is August 14,2012, that 90-day period began on May 16,2012.
As one would expect with a new program that has not previously been tested against realworld information, your program has critical imperfections, which lead to errors that harm and confuse eligible voters. Especially where the program is based on information collected sometimes years ago from driver's license applications, the information is often going to be outdated, as a number of persons will subsequently have become citizens and lawfully registered to vote. Your data appear to be faulty in other ways that have resulted in native-born citizens, including a decorated World War II combat veteran, being sent letters demanding that they affirmatively prove their citizenship. We are aware that one county election supervisor who reviewed a state-provided list of over one thousand potentially ineligible voters determined that the list had a significant error rate, and that she advised you that further use of the list would "potentially disenfranchise eligible voters based on an inaccurate list."
In these circumstances, continuing with any future mailings on this basis during the 90day quiet period, or removing persons from the voter registration list for failing to respond to the

-3 -
State's inquiries to date, violate Section 8 of the NVRA. Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct.
With respect to our inquiry to Florida regarding compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, your June 6 response has provided no information that indicates that the list maintenance program for verification of citizenship has been precleared under Section 5 by either the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This new program is therefore legally unenforceable in the five covered counties in Florida unless and until preclearance is obtained. Please immediately t~ke the steps necessary to comply with these preclearance obligations under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Department of Homeland Security's SAVE Program
Your letter references certain inquiries from the Florida Department of State to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. As you know, the SAVE Program falls within the jurisdiction ofDHS, not the Department of Justice. Nonetheless, we are concerned about the inaccuracies in your letter regarding your requests to access this program.
The SAVE Program relies on DHS records, which do not include a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens, and does not include, for example, those born in the United States. We understand that what the SAVE Program does provide is a means for governmental units, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the lawful conditions of that program, to verify documentation regarding naturalized U.S. citizens; U.S. citizens born abroad who derived citizenship from U.S. citizen parents and who have acquired certificates of citizenship; and the immigration status of certain categories of non-citizens.
Furthermore, as DHS explained to you as early as October 2011, the SAVE Program can verify these individuals only if unique identifiers, such as alien registration numbers or certificate numbers found on immigration-related documents (such as a Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship) are provided. We understand that to ensure accurate verification of current status, and as a general requirement applied to all users of the program, the SAVE Program does not allow verification based on name and/or date of birth alone. We further understand that, as a general requirement applied to all users of the program, SAVE also requires users to submit copies of the immigration-related document if needed to complete the verification process.
To our understanding, the Florida Department of State admitted to DHS nearly eight months ago that the Division of Elections does not collect any of the immigration-related numeric identifiers or documentation that DHS has advised would be necessary to participate in the SAVE Program; although much more recently, your office has suggested that in some cases, this information may be available from records originally collected by the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles at the time of driver's license application. We further understand that DHS has continued to express to you its willingness to work with Florida regarding possible SAVE participation, if Florida is able to do so consistent with DHS' s program mandates and the conditions it lawfully places on all participants in its programs. In fact, we

- 4-
understand that the SAVE program has had long and successful working relationships with a number of Florida agencies that need to verify immigration status for their programs and that are able to comply with SAVE requirements.
In short, your claim that the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have worked in concert to deny Florida access to the SAVE Program is simply wrong. By your own admission, Florida has been on notice for at least eight months that the SAVE Program can verify naturalized and derived United States citizens only if Florida provided the appropriate numeric identifiers, and where necessary, the underlying documentation. But Florida has failed either to provide the necessary information to DHS, or to confirm that the necessary information would be available for verification purposes under the SAVE Program. As a result, the significant problems you are encountering in administering this new program are of your own creation.
The Interest in Ensuring Accurate and Complete Registration Rolls
As noted, the Department of Justice has an overriding interest in protecting the rights of eligible citizens to register and vote free from unlawful burdens, while at the same time ensuring that ineligible persons do not register and vote in federal elections in violation of the law. Of course, there are lawful mechanisms for individuals to be removed from voter rolls in the event they are proven to be ineligible to vote. To that end, the Department has precleared, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a number of state programs in covered jurisdictions aimed at ensuring only eligible U.S. citizens are on the voting rolls, including participation by at least one state in the SAVE Program for purposes of verifying citizenship of new voter registrants through the use of appropriate identifying information that DHS requires of governments participating in that program. There is therefore no barrier to states undertaking appropriate programs to identify and remove ineligible non-citizens from the voter rolls, where precleared under Section 5 in covered jurisdictions, where implemented·in accord with the requirements of the NVRA, and where otherwise consistent with federal law.
Likewise, where appropriate, the Department has prosecuted individuals for violating federal criminal laws that prohibit registering to vote and voting by non-citizens. To the extent that you have information that potentially implicates illegal voter registration or voting by noncitizens, please share that information as soon as possible with your local offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and your local U.S. Attorney's Offices, who have jurisdiction over criminal violations of federal law.
One of Congress's concerns in enacting the protections of the VRA and NVRA, and one of the Department's concerns in enforcing federal law as enacted by Congress, is ensuring that state efforts to find and purge ineligible persons from voter registration lists do not endanger the ability of eligible U. S. citizens to register to vote and maintain their voter registration status. The federal statutes that the Department has called to Florida's attention here are longstanding requirements of which the State is certainly aware. Because the State has indicated its unwillingness to comply with these requirements, I have authorized the initiation of an

-5-
enforcement action against Florida in federal court. If you wish to discuss this matter further, you may contact Bert Russ or Elise Sandra Shore, attorneys in the Voting Section, at 800-2533931.
Sincerely,
Q r.GJy-
Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General

 
 Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 1 of 8
STAYED,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:12−cv−00285−RH−CAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/12/2012 Date Terminated: 01/16/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by ELISE SANDRA SHORE U S DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPT 1800 G ST NW #7270 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202−305−0070 Fax: 202−307−3961 Email: Elise.Shore@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN ALBERT RUSS , IV U S DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW ROOM 7254−NWB WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202−353−7738 Fax: 202−307−3961 Email: john.russ@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENIGH J GARRETT US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE RM 7205 NWB WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202−305−4777 Fax: 202−307−3961 Email: jenigh.garrett@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAMELA COTHRAN MARSH US ATTORNEY − TALLAHASSEE FL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 111 N ADAMS ST 4TH FL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−942−8430 Fax: 850−942−9577 Email: pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 2 of 8

STATE OF FLORIDA

represented by ASHLEY E DAVIS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE − S BRONOUGH ST − TALLAHASSEE FL R A GRAY BLDG 500 S BRONOUGH ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−0250 850−245−6536 Fax: 850−245−6127 Email: ashley.davis@dos.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MICHAEL ANTHONY CARVIN JONES DAY − WASHINGTON DC 51 LOUISIANA AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001−2113 202−879−7643 Fax: 202−626−1700 Email: macarvin@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
KEN DETZNER SECRETARY OF STATE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

represented by WARREN DAVID POSTMAN JONES DAY − WASHINGTON DC 51 LOUISIANA AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001−2113 202−879−3913 Fax: 202−626−1700 Email: wpostman@jonesday.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ASHLEY E DAVIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GENERAL COUNSEL 402 S MONROE ST 422 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1300 850−717−5500 Fax: 850−410−0064 Email: daniel.nordby@myfloridahouse.gov TERMINATED: 12/12/2012

GREGORY GEORGE KATSAS JONES DAY − WASHINGTON DC 51 LOUISIANA AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001−2113 202−879−3463 Fax: 202−626−1700 Email: ggkatsas@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MICHAEL ANTHONY CARVIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 3 of 8

LUIS I GARCIA

represented by RAQUEL AURORA RODRIGUEZ MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC − MIAMI FL SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CTR 200 S BISCAYNE BLVD STE 3130 MIAMI, FL 33131 305−704−3994 Fax: 305−704−3999 Email: rrodriguez@mcdonaldhopkins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant DIANA K WHITEHURST

represented by RAQUEL AURORA RODRIGUEZ (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant HAL DAVID RUSH

represented by RAQUEL AURORA RODRIGUEZ (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant BARBARA A DEREUIL

represented by RAQUEL AURORA RODRIGUEZ (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS

represented by CHRISTOPHER ALAN FEDELI JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK − WASHINGTON DC 113 2ND ST NE WASHINGTON, DC 20002 202−646−5185 Fax: 202−646−5199 Email: cfedeli@judicialwatch.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CHRISTOPHER BRIAN LUNNY RADEY THOMAS YON ETC − TALLAHASSEE FL 301 S BRONOUGH ST − STE 200 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−425−6654 Fax: 850−425−6694 Email: clunny@radeylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant
TRUE THE VOTE IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE CAPACITY

represented by CHRISTOPHER ALAN FEDELI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CHRISTOPHER BRIAN LUNNY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT N.Y.U. SCHOOL OF LAW

represented by DIANA KASDAN BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 12TH FL

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 4 of 8

NEW YORK CITY, NY 10013 646−292−8310 Fax: 212−463−7308 Email: diana.kasdan@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA

represented by DIANA KASDAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

represented by DIANA KASDAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/12/2012 06/12/2012
06/12/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012
06/14/2012 06/14/2012 06/14/2012 06/15/2012
06/15/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (MARSH, PAMELA) Modified on 6/13/2012 (krb). (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6 Attachment 6) (MARSH, PAMELA) Modified on 6/13/2012 (krb). (Entered: 06/12/2012)
3 Summons Issued as to KEN DETZNER, STATE OF FLORIDA. (krb) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by ELISE SANDRA SHORE on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SHORE, ELISE) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN ALBERT RUSS, IV on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (RUSS, JOHN) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
6 ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION. SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM STAFFORD recused. Case reassigned to JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE for all further proceedings. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM STAFFORD on 06/13/2012. (krb) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed, Re: 6 ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION. (krb) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed − STATE OF FLORIDA served on 6/12/2012, answer due 7/3/2012. (krb) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed − KEN DETZNER served on 6/12/2012, answer due 7/3/2012. (krb) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum in Support of Motion by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 A1 to A4, # 2 Exhibit 1 A5 to A7, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12) (RUSS, JOHN) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum in Support of Motion. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 7/3/2012). (dlt) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
8 ORDER SETTING A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/18/12. (sms) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
9 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 6/18/2012 04:30 PM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 5 of 8

06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012
06/18/2012 06/19/2012
06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012

Parties are instructed to call (850) 521−3601 at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Elizabeth Lawrence Courtroom Deputy Clerk (erl) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY on behalf of KEN DETZNER (NORDBY, DANIEL) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by ASHLEY E DAVIS on behalf of KEN DETZNER (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by JENIGH J GARRETT on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (GARRETT, JENIGH) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
13 ORDER SETTING THE SCHEDULE ON THE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/18/12. (sms) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Scheduling Conference held on 6/18/2012. Parties discuss schedule for the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Ruling by Court: The deadline for filing a response to the motion is June 25, 2012. Oral argument on the motion will be held on June 27, 2012 at 10:00 am. (Court Reporter Lisa Jones) (erl) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
Set Deadline, per 13 ORDER. (Memorandum in Opposition: By 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2012, the defendants must file a memorandum and any evidence on which they rely in opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order − by 6/25/2012.) By a separate notice, the clerk must set oral argument on the motion for Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (krb) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
16 NOTICE of Hearing on 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Oral Argument on Motion set for 6/27/2012 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 5 East, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Elizabeth Lawrence Courtroom Deputy Clerk (erl) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
18 First MOTION to Intervene by LUIS I GARCIA, DIANA K WHITEHURST, HAL DAVID RUSH, BARBARA A DEREUIL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (RODRIGUEZ, RAQUEL) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
19 First MOTION to Expedite by BARBARA A DEREUIL, LUIS I GARCIA, HAL DAVID RUSH, DIANA K WHITEHURST. (RODRIGUEZ, RAQUEL) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
Set Deadline, re 18 First MOTION to Intervene. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if Response not filed earlier: 7/9/2012). (krb) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
Set Deadline, re 19 First MOTION to Expedite. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if Response not filed earlier: 7/9/2012). (krb) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 6 of 8

06/21/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012
06/22/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012
06/27/2012

20 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 06/21/2012. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 7/5/2012. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/6/2012. Discovery due by 10/17/2012.) (krb) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
21 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH N.D. FLA LOC.R. 7.1(B) by BARBARA A DEREUIL, LUIS I GARCIA, HAL DAVID RUSH, DIANA K WHITEHURST (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
22 ORDER SETTING THE SCHEDULING ON THE MOTION TO INTERVENE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/21/12. (sms) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
Set Deadline, per 22 ORDER SETTING THE SCHEDULING ON THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, re 23 INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER. (Response Deadline: The plaintiff must file a response to the motion to intervene (a) by June 26, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., if the proposed intervenors file a timely notice of yielded oral−argument time, or (b) otherwise, July 9, 2012 − 6/26/2012). (krb) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
23 NOTICE INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER DATED JUNE 21, 2012 (D.E. #22) by BARBARA A DEREUIL, LUIS I GARCIA, HAL DAVID RUSH, DIANA K WHITEHURST re 22 Order (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by MICHAEL ANTHONY CARVIN on behalf of KEN DETZNER (CARVIN, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by WARREN DAVID POSTMAN on behalf of KEN DETZNER (POSTMAN, WARREN) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by GREGORY GEORGE KATSAS on behalf of KEN DETZNER (KATSAS, GREGORY) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by KEN DETZNER, STATE OF FLORIDA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (CARVIN, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
28 MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum in Support; and Request to Expedite by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (LUNNY, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
29 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE. (LUNNY, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
30 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 18 First MOTION to Intervene by Garcia Intervenors filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5) (GARRETT, JENIGH) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE re 28 MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum in Support; and Request to Expedite, 29 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons (LUNNY, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
32 MOTION to File Amicus Brief by BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT N.Y.U. SCHOOL OF LAW, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 7/16/2012). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brief of Amici Curiae) (KASDAN, DIANA) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
33 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 06/27/2012, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy A. Nolton, Telephone number 850−561−6822.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 7 of 8 obtained through PACER.

06/27/2012 06/28/2012 06/29/2012 06/29/2012
07/03/2012 07/13/2012 07/19/2012 07/20/2012
08/01/2012 08/08/2012 08/20/2012

Redaction Request due 7/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/2/2012. (jag) Modified on 10/11/2012 to UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT (dlt). (Entered: 06/27/2012)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Motion Hearing held on 6/27/2012 re 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Ruling by Court: The motion is DENIED. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
34 ORDER Denying 7 A Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/28/12. (sms) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by CHRISTOPHER ALAN FEDELI on behalf of JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE (FEDELI, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
37 ORDER GRANTING 32 LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF AND TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS TO INTERVENE. The amicus brief, ECF No. [32−1], is deemed properly filed and was considered in ruling on the motion for a temporary restraining order. (Memorandum in Opposition: A party who opposes the motion to intervene filed by Judicial Watch, Inc., and others, ECF No. 28 , must file a memorandum − due by 7/13/2012. Memorandum in Support: A party seeking intervention − including Judicial Watch, Inc., and others, and Luis I. Garcia and others − may file a reply memorandum in support of the motion to intervene − by 7/20/2012.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 06/29/2012. (krb) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
38 ANSWER to 2 Complaint, by KEN DETZNER, STATE OF FLORIDA. (CARVIN, MICHAEL) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
39 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum in Support; and Request to Expedite filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (SHORE, ELISE) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 First MOTION to Intervene filed by BARBARA A DEREUIL, LUIS I GARCIA, HAL DAVID RUSH, DIANA K WHITEHURST. (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
41 REPLY by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE re 39 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Judicial Watch, Inc. and True the Vote's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition and Response to Motion for Intervention by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., TRUE THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (LUNNY, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
42 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (SHORE, ELISE) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
43 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 08/08/2012. (Discovery due by 12/17/2012. Summary−Judgment Motions to be filed by 1/7/2013. The clerk must set a scheduling conference for the first available date on or after January 3, 2013. (krb) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
44 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 1/17/2013 11:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (850) 521−3601 at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

Case: 4:12-cv-285 As of: 05/24/2013 12:42 PM CDT 8 of 8

08/29/2012 08/31/2012 09/27/2012 10/10/2012
11/06/2012 12/03/2012 12/05/2012
12/10/2012 12/12/2012
01/10/2013 01/16/2013

s/ Elizabeth Lawrence Courtroom Deputy Clerk (erl) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
45 MOTION to Extend Timeand Amend Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (RUSS, JOHN) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
46 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINES FOR 26(a)(2) DISCLOSURES AND FOR AMENDING A PLEADING. Granting 45 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/31/12. (pll) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
47 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (SHORE, ELISE) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
48 ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS − GRANTED IN PART 47 Parties' Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings. ( Parties' Joint Status Report due by 12/4/2012.) All deadlines that did not pass prior to September 27, 2012, are tolled until otherwise ordered. All proceedings other than the pending motions to intervene are stayed until otherwise ordered. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/10/2012. (dlt) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
49 ORDER denying 28 Motion to Intervene; denying 18 Motion to Intervene. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/6/12. (sms) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
50 Joint MOTION to Stay by KEN DETZNER, STATE OF FLORIDA. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
51 ORDER EXTENDING THE STAY − The parties' joint motion to extend the stay, ECF No. 50 , is GRANTED. The parties must file a joint status report by January 11, 2013, addressing the status of the case and setting out their proposed schedule for further proceedings. (Miscellaneous Deadline: Joint Status Report − by 1/11/2013.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/5/2012. (tdl) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
52 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by KEN DETZNER, STATE OF FLORIDA. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
53 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW NORDBY − The unopposed motion of attorney Daniel E. Nordby for leave to withdraw as an attorney for the defendants, ECF No. 52 , is GRANTED, effective immediately. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/12/2012.**Attorney DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY terminated** (tdl) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
54 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SHORE, ELISE) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
55 ORDER CLOSING THE FILE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/16/2013. (tdl) (Entered: 01/16/2013)