Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 27
Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

KURT S. BROWNING, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This case presents a challenge to Florida Statutes § 97.0575, as amended in 2011, and to an implementing rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-2.042. The statute and rule regulate organizations that conduct voter-registration drives. The plaintiffs are organizations that have conducted such drives in the past and wish to continue to do so. They have moved for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute and rule.
This order grants the motion in part based on this analysis. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, an election-code provision of this kind must serve a legitimate purpose that is sufficient to warrant the burden it imposes on the right to
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 2 of 27
Page 2 of 27
vote. And under the National Voting Rights Act, an organization has a federal right to conduct a voter-registration drive, collect voter-registration applications, and mail in the applications to a state voter-registration office. The Eleventh Circuit so held in Charles H. Wesley Education Foundation, Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005). But § 97.0575 and Rule 1S-2.042 severely restrict an organization’s ability to do this. The statute and rule impose a harsh and impractical 48-hour deadline for an organization to deliver applications to a voterregistration office and effectively prohibit an organization from mailing applications in. And the statute and rule impose burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements that serve little if any purpose, thus rendering them unconstitutional even to the extent they do not violate the NVRA. The statute and rule include other provisions that are constitutional and do not conflict with the NVRA; a primary injunction barring enforcement of those provisions is denied.
I The plaintiffs are the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, and Rock the Vote. All have conducted and wish to continue to conduct voter-registration drives in Florida. As a routine part of this activity, a plaintiff, acting through an employee or volunteer, urges an individual to register to vote, provides the individual an application, takes back the completed application, and mails or delivers the application—together with other
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 27
Page 3 of 27
applications obtained in the same way—to a proper voter-registration office. Done properly, this serves the constitutional right of eligible citizens to register and vote.
The defendants are the Florida Secretary of State, Director of the Division of Elections, and Attorney General, all in their official capacities. They are the state officials responsible for enforcing the challenged provisions.
The two sides have submitted declarations and exhibits and have fully briefed and orally argued the preliminary-injunction motion. As both sides agree, in order to obtain a 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); Wesley, 408 F.3d at 1354. This order addresses these four factors. The order does not set out final findings of fact or conclusions of law that will control the ultimate decision on the merits.
II The plaintiffs base their claims on both the Constitution and the NVRA. They assert that the challenged provisions impose burdens on voter-registration drives that violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that some of the challenged provisions are unconstitutionally vague. And the plaintiffs assert that
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 4 of 27
Page 4 of 27
some of the challenged provisions conflict with, and thus are preempted by, the NVRA.
The defendants acknowledge that a provision of state law that conflicts with the NVRA must yield, but the defendants say the challenged provisions do not conflict with the NVRA. And the defendants say the plaintiffs’ activities do not implicate any constitutional rights at all.
The assertion that the challenged provisions implicate no constitutional rights is plainly wrong. The plaintiffs wish to speak, encouraging others to register to vote, and some of the challenged provisions—for example, the requirement to disclose in advance the identity of an employee or volunteer who will do nothing more than speak—regulate pure speech. This is core First Amendment activity. Further, the plaintiffs wish to speak and act collectively with others, implicating the First Amendment right of association. More importantly, the plaintiffs wish to assist others with the process of registering and thus, in due course, voting. Voting is a right protected by several constitutional provisions; state election codes thus are subject to constitutional scrutiny. Together speech and voting are constitutional rights of special significance; they are the rights most protective of all others, joined in this respect by the ability to vindicate one’s rights in a federal court.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 5 of 27
Page 5 of 27
Every court that has addressed a constitutional challenge to provisions
regulating voter-registration drives has concluded that the governing standards are
those set out in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788-90 (1983). There the
Court struck down Ohio’s early-filing deadline for candidates but based its ruling
on principles that apply more broadly to state election laws:
We have recognized that, “as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). To achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes. Each provision of these schemes, whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects—at least to some degree— the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. Nevertheless, the state’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.
Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State’s election laws therefore cannot be resolved by any “litmus-paper test” that will separate valid from invalid restrictions. Storer, supra, 415 U.S., at 730. Instead, a court must resolve such a challenge by an analytical process that parallels its work in ordinary litigation. It must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. . . . The results of this evaluation will not be automatic; as we have recognized, there is “no
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 6 of 27
Page 6 of 27
substitute for the hard judgments that must be made.” Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S., at 730. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788-90 (footnotes omitted). This order applies these constitutional standards and the NVRA.
III Before the 2011 amendments, § 97.0575 required a voter-registration organization to file with the state Division of Elections a form listing the organization’s registered agent and the officers—or other individuals—responsible for day-to-day operations. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1) (2010). The statute required an organization to file a quarterly report listing the date and location of voterregistration drives. Id. Florida law required an organization, upon receipt of a voter-registration application, to “promptly” deliver it to a voter-registration office. Id. § 97.0575(3). Failure to promptly deliver applications subjected the organization to fines up to an aggregate of $1,000 in a calendar year. Id. The Southern District of Florida upheld these provisions—and recounted the sometimes-checkered history that led to their adoption—in League of Women Voters of Florida v. Browning, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (“LWV II”). The court had earlier struck down other, more onerous requirements. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Cobb, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (“LWV I”). The plaintiffs do not here challenge these provisions as they existed prior to the 2011 amendments. For their part, the defendants have submitted no evidence
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 7 of 27
Page 7 of 27
that these provisions failed in any respect to protect the state’s legitimate interests in regulating the conduct of voter-registration organizations. But the 2011 amendments to § 97.0575, together with Rule 1S-2.042, impose new requirements. Some are far more onerous than those struck down in LWV I. This order addresses the most important challenged provisions.
IV The 2011 statute requires a voter-registration organization to deliver a voterregistration application to the Division of Elections or the local supervisor of elections “within 48 hours after the applicant completes it or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48-hour period.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a) (2011). Failure to do so subjects an organization to fines up to an aggregate of $1,000 in a calendar year. The statute makes no provision for mailing in an application, but Rule 1S2.042(7)(a) provides that a mailed application is deemed delivered on the date of a “clear postmark.” For such an application, the rule changes the statutory deadline from 48 hours to two days. The state has a substantial interest in seeing that voter-registration applications are promptly turned in to an appropriate voter-registration office. Applications that are not promptly turned in may be lost or forgotten or otherwise mishandled. Just as a prudent law-enforcement officer promptly delivers evidence
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 8 of 27
Page 8 of 27
to the evidence room, a prudent voter-registration organization promptly delivers voter-registration applications to the voter-registration office. And applications that are held and delivered to a voter-registration office en masse, especially near a voter-registration deadline, impose an unnecessary burden on voter-registration officials. The state’s interests are easily sufficient to uphold a requirement for reasonably prompt delivery of applications.
Even so, the state has little if any legitimate interest in setting the deadline at 48 hours. The short deadline, coupled with substantial penalties for noncompliance, make voter-registration drives a risky business. If the goal is to discourage voter-registration drives and thus also to make it harder for new voters to register, the 48-hour deadline may succeed. But if the goal is to further the state’s legitimate interests without unduly burdening the rights of voters and voterregistration organizations, 48 hours is a bad choice.
Still, lines must be drawn somewhere, and choosing the specific time limit, so long as the limit is not unconstitutional, is the job of the Legislature, not the court. It is not at all clear that a well crafted 48-hour provision could survive constitutional scrutiny, but that issue need not be decided at this time. This statute and this rule are not well crafted. To the contrary, they are virtually unintelligible, close to the point, if not past the point, at which a statute—especially one that
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 9 of 27
Page 9 of 27
regulates First Amendment rights and is accompanied by substantial penalties— becomes void for vagueness.
The statute requires an organization to deliver an application to an appropriate voter-registration office “within 48 hours after the applicant completes it or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48-hour period.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a) (2011). Does “closed for that 48-hour period” mean the entire 48-hour period? Surely not. So far as this record reflects, all of these offices close every night; there are no 24-hour voter-registration offices. Does “closed for that 48-hour period” mean closed at the end of the 48-hour period? Nothing else makes sense, though if this is what the Legislature meant, it would have been easy enough to say it just this way.
If “closed at the end of the 48-hour period” is what the statute means, it still imposes an onerous, perhaps virtually impossible burden, at least in some instances. If a voter-registration organization collects a voter-registration application at 8:03 a.m. on Saturday and the appropriate voter-registration office is closed for the weekend, reopening at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, must the organization deliver the application to the voter-registration office between 8:00 a.m. and 8:03 a.m. on Monday? If the goal is to discourage voter-registration drives and thus also to make it harder for new voters to register, this may work. Otherwise there is little reason for such a requirement.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 10 of 27
Page 10 of 27
The state says issues like these will need to be worked out. But the state has suggested no legitimate interest served by requirements of this kind. A voterregistration organization would be ill advised to risk significant fines—and the attendant damage to the organization’s reputation—that would result from failing to comply with provisions this difficult to parse. When rights of this magnitude are at stake, it is not too much to ask the state to work out the issues in advance.
Another substantial flaw in the statute and rule—and a clearer violation of controlling law—is their disregard of a voter-registration organization’s interest in mailing in completed voter-registration applications rather than hand delivering them. The statute makes no provision for mailing at all. If the statute means what it says—that an application must be received in the voter-registration office within 48 hours after the applicant signs it—a prudent voter-registration organization can never mail in an application. This is so because even if the organization delivers the application to the Postal Service immediately after the applicant signs it—and this in itself would be virtually impossible—the organization cannot be assured that the Postal Service will deliver it within 48 hours. Could an organization that collects an application at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday mail it in? Of course not. Few voter-registration offices, if any, get mail delivery by 10:00 a.m. on Monday.
Perhaps recognizing that the statute is simply unworkable, Rule 1S2.042(7)(a) charts a different course. It purports to change the statute in two ways
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 11 of 27
Page 11 of 27
to accommodate mailing. First, the rule provides that an application is deemed delivered to the voter-registration office not when the office receives it but on the date of a “clear postmark.” Second, for an application with a clear postmark, the rule changes the statute’s requirement for delivery within 48 hours to a requirement for delivery within two days—the application need only be postmarked within two days after the voter-registration organization received it.
If there is no clear postmark, the rule provides that the date of delivery is the date when the voter-registration office actually receives it. The rule does not purport to change the statutory 48-hour requirement to a two-day requirement for mailed applications with no clear postmark, but the rule’s reference to the date of actual receipt, rather than the time of actual receipt, introduces at least some ambiguity on this score.
Leaving aside the question of whether a rule can rewrite a statute this extensively, the rule still has the effect, as a practical matter, of preventing a prudent voter-registration organization from mailing in the voter-registration applications that it collects. This is so because a mailer cannot be sure that the Postal Service will affix a clear postmark, or that a clear postmark once affixed will remain clear by the time of delivery on the other end. A prudent organization would be ill advised to risk significant fines—and the attendant damage to the organization’s reputation—by mailing in an application under this rule.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 12 of 27
Page 12 of 27
The state has no legitimate interest, and claims none, in prohibiting a voterregistration organization from using the mails to send in voter-registration applications. The state’s election officials routinely rely on the mails. Thus, for example, they distribute absentee ballots through the mails, and they allow voters to send them back using the mails. The burden that this statute and rule impose on a voter-registration organization’s use of the mails, coupled with the absence of any legitimate state interest on the other side of the balance, probably renders these provisions unconstitutional. In arguing the contrary, the state relies heavily on American Association of People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D.N.M. 2008), but the statute at issue there plainly allowed an organization to put an application in the mail within 48 hours after collecting it, without making the right to do so turn on the unknowable circumstance that it would show up at the voter-registration office with a clear postmark.
Even if the limitations on mailing do not render these provisions unconstitutional, they plainly run afoul of the National Voting Rights Act. The Eleventh Circuit addressed the NVRA in Charles H. Wesley Education Foundation, Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005). There an organization conducted a voter-registration drive and mailed to the Georgia Secretary of State 64 completed voter-registration forms. The Secretary of State rejected them, asserting that under state law forms could not be mailed in en masse. The district
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 13 of 27
Page 13 of 27
court entered a preliminary injunction, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The
court squarely rejected the contention—the same contention the State of Florida
makes here—that there is no federal right to conduct a voter-registration drive or to
mail in applications collected at such a drive. The court said:
The NVRA requires the states to accept voter registration forms in three ways beyond those through which the states voluntarily elect to accept them: registration by mail, registration in person at various official locations (so-called “registration places”), and registration in conjunction with driver licensing. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg. In the first instance, these methods are not intended to be exclusive; rather, the Act seeks to encourage voter registration by setting a floor on registration acceptance methods. See id. at § 1973gg–1(b); gg–2(a). More importantly, the use of a private registration drive is not a mode of registration at all. Rather, it is a method by which private parties may facilitate the use of the mode of registration by mail, for which the Act does provide.
Nowhere does the NVRA prohibit or regulate voter registration drives; rather, it impliedly encourages them. See id. at § 1973gg–4(b) (directing the secretaries of state to make the federal forms provided for in the Act available, “with particular emphasis on making them available for organized voter registration programs”). The only provisions regulating mailed forms are unrelated to the legitimacy of voter drives such as the Foundation’s; instead, these provisions regulate the states by ensuring that voters delivering valid forms in a timely fashion by mail are registered. Id. at §§ 1973gg–2(a)(2), gg– 6(a)(1)(D). In other words, they regulate the forms’ final content and method of delivery, but do not regulate their dissemination or collection. Thus the Act does not prohibit registration drives, but, because it limits the states’ ability to reject forms meeting its standards (which privately collected, mailed forms would do), it does protect them. See § 1973gg–6(a)(1)(D) (stating that the states “shall . . . ensure” that voters delivering timely, valid forms are registered); § 1973gg–2(a)(2) (states “shall accept” the federal mail-in form). For these reasons, it is clear that the [voter-registration organization’s]
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 14 of 27
Page 14 of 27
right to conduct voter registration drives is a legally protected interest.
. . . . The NVRA protects Plaintiffs’ rights to conduct registration drives and submit voter registration forms by mail . . . . Id. at 1353-54 (last two sets of emphasis added). The court added that by “requiring the states to accept mail-in forms,” the NVRA “regulate[s] the method of delivery, and by so doing overrides state law inconsistent with its mandates.” Id. at 1354. Wesley thus establishes these principles as the law of the circuit: the NVRA encourages voter-registration drives; the NVRA requires a state to accept voterregistration applications collected at such a drive and mailed in to a voterregistration office; the NVRA gives a voter-registration organization like each of the plaintiffs here a “legally protected interest” in seeing that this is done; and when a state adopts measures that have the practical effect of preventing an organization from conducting a drive, collecting applications, and mailing them in, the state violates the NVRA. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the 48hour provisions.
V
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 15 of 27
Page 15 of 27
The 2011 statute requires a voter-registration organization to file with the Division of Elections the names of not only its registered agent and any officer who manages its day-to-day operations—as required under the prior statute—but also every officer and, more importantly, every employee or volunteer who is a “registration agent.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1) (2011). Rule 1S-2.042 defines “registration agent” as a person “who solicits for collection or who collects voter registration applications” for the organization. Fla. Admin. Code r. 1S-2.042(2)(e). The rule requires any change in any of this information—including, for example, a volunteer’s departure—to be reported within 10 days. Id. at r. 1S-2.042(3)(e).
The state has a substantial interest in seeing that those who collect voterregistration applications actually get them to an appropriate voter-registration office. This interest is sufficient to uphold a requirement to provide the state the identity of those who run a voter-registration organization and the identity of any employee or volunteer who collects voter-registration applications. The interest is not sufficient to justify a requirement to provide the state the identity of a person who only solicits an application but does not collect it. Soliciting an application is core First Amendment speech.
Nor is the state’s interest sufficient to uphold all the rule’s other onerous provisions. Thus, for example, a volunteer may not have a precise departure date; sometimes volunteers come back for more, and sometimes they do not. The rule
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 16 of 27
Page 16 of 27
does not indicate how an organization is to know whether a volunteer has departed forever or plans to come back. Indeed, the volunteer may not even know that. The state has suggested no legitimate interest in requiring an organization to file within 10 days a notice that a volunteer is no longer a volunteer.
The effect of these provisions can be illustrated with an example. If a voterregistration organization sets up a table at a mall or farmer’s market, giving out and collecting voter-registration applications, and a volunteer hands out flyers encouraging passersby to register to vote but does not collect or otherwise handle the voter-registration applications themselves, the state has little legitimate interest in knowing the identity of the volunteer. Indeed, the organization itself may not know the volunteer’s identity—anyone willing to hand out flyers will do nicely— and may not know whether the volunteer will come back tomorrow or next weekend or next month or never. But Rule 1S-2.042(2)(e) defines “registration agent” to include an employee or volunteer who collects or even just “solicits for collection” a voter-registration application. And § 97.0575(1)(c) requires an organization to list any “registration agent” in its filings. While “solicits for collection” is hardly a precise term, it plainly means something more than just “collects”; otherwise the phrase would be superfluous. An organization whose volunteer hands out flyers encouraging recipients to go to the organization’s table
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 17 of 27
Page 17 of 27
and submit a voter-registration application would be ill-advised to risk substantial penalties by failing to list the volunteer on its filings.
More significantly, the statute requires each registration agent to file a sworn statement that the agent “will obey all state laws and rules regarding the registration of voters.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d) (2011). The statement “must be on a form containing notice of applicable penalties for false registration.” Id. The Division of Elections has adopted a form that suggests that a registration agent commits a felony and could be imprisoned for five years for sending in a voterregistration application that includes false information, even if the registration agent does not know or have reason to believe the information is false. See Fla. Admin. Code r.1S-2.042(1)(b) (adopting Form DS-DE 120); Form DS-DE 120, included in this record at ECF No. 35-8 (stating that “false registration” and “submission of false voter registration information” are crimes punishable by up to five years in prison and omitting any reference to the requirement that a violation be knowing or willful).
This is not the law; the form is just wrong. See Fla. Stat. § 104.011 (2011) (making it a crime to “willfully” submit false voter-registration information or “willfully” to procure another person to do so—but not to unknowingly submit false information provided by an applicant). Indeed, Florida law requires a voterregistration organization to send in each application it receives; a penalty attaches
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 18 of 27
Page 18 of 27
only to failing to send in an application, not to sending in an application that turns out, unbeknownst to the organization, to include false information.
Requiring a volunteer not only to sign such a statement, but to swear to it, could have no purpose other than to discourage voluntary participation in legitimate, indeed constitutionally protected, activities. This is especially true for a person who merely hands out flyers; why must that person be warned of a possible felony prosecution? The state has an interest in advising individuals of the penalties for criminal conduct, but the state has offered no justification for requiring a sworn statement acknowledging the penalties, let alone for requiring a person to sign, under penalty of perjury, a statement that is false or at least misleading.
The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their challenge to these provisions.
VI The 2011 statute requires the Division of Elections to adopt rules requiring a voter-registration organization to “account for all state and federal registration forms used by their registered agents.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5) (2011). Rule 1S2.042(5)(a) requires each organization to file by the 10th of each month a report setting out the number of forms it provided to registration agents, and the number it received back from registration agents, during the prior month. An organization
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 19 of 27
Page 19 of 27
must file a report even if during the prior month it neither gave out nor received back a single form.
The defendants have suggested no legitimate interest served by these requirements. The requirements do not provide controls that could assist in ensuring that all completed forms are promptly turned in to a voter-registration office. In that respect voter-registration applications are different from a police officer’s citation pad or a sales clerk’s numbered receipts; those ensure that every transaction is properly accounted for. But the Division makes no attempt to do that with voter-registration applications and could not do so without violating the NVRA, under which an unlimited number of federal forms are available to anyone, over the internet and by other means, making it impossible to track every form. Requiring a voter-registration organization to count the applications it gives out and gets back from employees or volunteers and to file monthly reports on this imposes a burden for no legitimate reason. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to these provisions.
VII The requirement to account for forms—to count the number given out and received back—comes with a corollary. The 2011 statute says the Division of Elections may by rule “require an organization to provide organization and form specific identification information on each form as determined by the department
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 20 of 27
Page 20 of 27
as needed to assist in the accounting of state and federal registration forms.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5). (2011). The quote seems garbled but it is not; this is what the statute says.
Rule 1S-2.042(4)(c) requires each voter-registration organization to put on the back side of each voter-registration application that the organization turns in an identification number assigned to the organization by the Division. This way the Division, and for that matter any member of the public, can determine whether a voter-registration organization collected the application, and if so which organization did it.
Requiring an organization to identify itself on each form it collects, if intended only to assist “in the accounting of state and federal registration forms” as the statute provides, would impose a substantial burden for no benefit; as set out in section VI above, counting the number of forms given out and received back serves no legitimate purpose. But Rule 1S-2.042 requires an organization to identify itself on each form for a different—and constitutionally legitimate— purpose. If an application is received late, or is filled out improperly or is otherwise invalid, the Division can determine who caused the problem. This could lead to appropriate enforcement action or at least to educational efforts designed to avoid a recurrence. Whether, as a matter of state law, the statute authorizes the Division to adopt a rule for this purpose may be unclear, but the plaintiffs do not
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 21 of 27
Page 21 of 27
and cannot properly challenge the rule on this basis in this federal proceeding. See, e.g., Pennhurst State Sch.& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars a claim for injunctive relief based on state law against a state or against a state officer in the officer’s official capacity).
The plaintiffs say, though, that the identification requirement runs afoul of the NVRA. First, the NVRA provides that a federal voter-registration application form
may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). Whether this subsection invalidates the requirement for an organization to put its identification number on a federal form turns on whether this is “identifying information” and whether providing it is “necessary” for the state “to administer voter registration.” While the issue is not free of doubt, the better view is that the “identifying information” this subsection addresses is the voter’s identifying information, and that, in any event, identifying the organization that submits an application is sufficiently “necessary” to the sound administration of the voterregistration process to pass muster under this subsection.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 22 of 27
Page 22 of 27
The plaintiffs also invoke another NVRA subsection. It provides that a federal voter-registration application must include
a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(4)(iii). While the issue is not free of doubt, the better view is that “the office” at which the applicant submits a voter-registration application means the state voter-registration office and does not include a voterregistration organization that collects and sends in the application. The plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on the merits of their challenge to the requirement that they include an identification number on the reverse of each voter-registration application they collect and submit.
VIII Other challenged provisions are not unconstitutional and do not violate the NVRA. The statute requires an organization to provide information to the Division of Elections “in an electronic format.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1) (2011). There was a time when this would have imposed a substantial burden. Now the burden is minimal. Indeed, electronic filing is probably easier for most organizations that filing a hard copy.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 23 of 27
Page 23 of 27
The 2011 statute, unlike the prior version, allows the Secretary of State to refer a possible violation “to the Attorney General for enforcement.” Id. § 97.0575(4). The Attorney General may file “a civil action for a violation” and may seek an injunction or other appropriate order. Id. This is unobjectionable.
The earlier statute said the Secretary of State “shall” waive a fine for a violation based on force majeure or impossibility of performance. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3) (2010). The 2011 statute says the Secretary “may” waive a fine in these circumstances. Rule 1S-2.042(2)(d) defines “impossibility of performance” narrowly to include only a circumstance an organization “could not reasonably have anticipated.” The difficulties posed by the 48-hour provisions, addressed in section IV above, thus apparently do not qualify. There is no reason to believe a plaintiff will ever be unable to comply with the statute or rule based on force majeure or impossibility of performance. Nor is there any reason to believe that if a plaintiff ever is unable to comply for this reason, the Secretary will refuse to waive a fine. The plaintiffs are therefore unlikely to prevail on the present facial challenge to the change from “shall” to “may.”
IX In sum, the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their challenge to some of the provisions at issue. The plaintiffs easily meet the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 24 of 27
Page 24 of 27
The plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, first because the denial of a right of this magnitude under circumstances like these almost always inflicts irreparable harm, and second because when a plaintiff loses an opportunity to register a voter, the opportunity is gone forever. If an injunction does not issue now, there will be no way to remedy the plaintiffs’ continuing loss through relief granted later in this litigation.
The threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the defendants, that is, the state. Indeed, there is no reason to believe the injunction will cause any damage to the state at all. Before the adoption of the 2011 statute, the state was operating under provisions that, at least insofar as shown by this record, were working well. There is no reason to believe that returning to that regime will impact the state’s legitimate interests in any way.
Finally, a preliminary injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. The vindication of constitutional rights and the enforcement of a federal statute serve the public interest almost by definition. And allowing responsible organizations to conduct voter-registration drives—thus making it easier for citizens to register and vote—promotes democracy.
X
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 25 of 27
Page 25 of 27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 allows a court to issue a preliminary injunction “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” This order requires security in the amount of $500. Either side may move to adjust the amount. And the parties may stipulate to an unsecured undertaking in lieu of security—for example, the filing of a statement by each plaintiff that it will pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained, not to exceed a specified sum.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED IN PART. 2. Until entry of a final judgment or otherwise ordered, the defendants are enjoined from taking any step to demand compliance with or enforce these provisions:
(a) Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(c); (b) Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d); (c) Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an
application within 48 hours—or any period less than 10 days;
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 26 of 27
Page 26 of 27
(d) Rule 1S-2.042(3)(a), to the extent it requires disclosure of an employee or volunteer who does not actually collect or handle voter-registration applications and to the extent it requires disclosure of a volunteer’s termination within 10 days after it occurs;
(e) Rule 1S-2.042(3)(c); (f) Rule 1S-2.042(3)(d); (g) Rule 1S-2.042(3)(e), to the extent it requires disclosure of a
volunteer’s termination within 10 days after it occurs; (h) Rule 1S-2.042(5); (i) Rule 1S-2.042(6)(b); (j) Rule 1S-2.042(6)(c), to the extent it addresses form DS-DE
123; (k) Rule 1S-2.042(7)(a) 3. This preliminary injunction binds each defendant and the defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this preliminary injunction by personal service or otherwise. 4. This preliminary injunction will take effect upon the posting of security in the amount of $500 or, if the parties so stipulate, on the filing of an undertaking by each plaintiff in lieu of security. The clerk must accept a cash bond or other security in this amount. The parties must confer in good faith on
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 58 Filed 05/31/12 Page 27 of 27
Page 27 of 27
substituting an undertaking in lieu of security. And any party may move to adjust the amount of security.
SO ORDERED on May 31, 2012. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, and ROCK THE VOTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KURT S. BROWNING, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, and GISELA SALAS, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida,
Defendants.

Case No. ___________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Coffey Burlington, for their complaint against Defendants allege as follows:
Nature of the Action 1. Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent enforcement of a new Florida law— 2011 Fla. Laws 40 § 4 and its implementing regulations (collectively, the “Law”)—that unconstitutionally and unlawfully burdens their efforts, and the efforts of other individuals and community-based groups, to encourage civic engagement and democratic participation by assisting Florida citizens in registering to vote and exercising their fundamental right to vote.

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 2 of 54
2. Though it has been effective for only a few months, the onerous burdens of the Law are already clear. Plaintiffs, whose public service missions revolve around increasing voter participation, have ceased or significantly curtailed their registration activities throughout the State out of fear that they will be unable to comply with the Law’s requirements and thus be subject to fines, crippling civil and criminal penalties, and devastating reputational harm.
3. The legislative record reveals that the Law—which is the third such restrictive legislative measure passed by the State in six years—was enacted with the express purpose of making it difficult for citizens to exercise their right to vote. Senator Michael Bennett, President Pro Tempore of the Florida Senate and one of the most vocal supporters of the Law, stated: “I want the people in the State of Florida to want to vote as badly as that person in Africa who is willing to walk 200 miles for that opportunity he’s never had before in his life. This should not be easy.” 2011 Fla. Senate Deb., Reg. Sess., at 38:35 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Bennett). By severely curtailing the voter registration efforts of Plaintiffs and others, the Law will profoundly depress, and perhaps eliminate, voter registration activity by organizations like Plaintiffs that seek to increase civic participation by all Floridians.
4. Among other things, the Law improperly requires all “third-party voter registration organizations”—broadly defined as “any person, entity, or organization” that “solict[s] or collect[s] voter registration applications,” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37)—to (i) to pre-register with the State and satisfy cumbersome disclosure requirements “[b]efore engaging in any voter registration activities” and to continually submit electronic updates
2

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 3 of 54
about their organizational status, including any changes to their volunteer base; (ii) track, inventory, and report every voter registration form they handle on a monthly basis regardless of whether that form is distributed or completed; (iii) deliver to State election officials all completed voter registration forms within an arbitrarily narrow and vague 48hour window; (iv) submit all mandated forms electronically, without regard for the limited resources of many community-based voter registration groups; and (v) incur potentially strict liability for fines ranging from $50 to $1,000 for the untimely delivery of any completed voter registration applications, be subject to undefined and potentially limitless civil penalties for any violations of the Law, and face criminal misdemeanor liability for any violation of the Law for which a penalty is not otherwise provided. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575 (emphasis added); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042; see Fla. Stat. § 104.41 (criminal penalties).
5. Unless the Law is enjoined, Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected political speech and activity will continue to be chilled. Plaintiffs, as well as many other individuals and groups, will be forced to communicate fewer civic and nonpartisan political messages and to refrain from engaging in associational activity important to advancing their missions and beliefs. The public will receive less information about how to participate in the democratic process and will have fewer opportunities to associate with Plaintiffs in meaningful civic activities.
6. Unless the Law is enjoined, it will also continue to violate the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. (the “NVRA”). The onerous new requirements that the Law imposes on community-based voter registration
3

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 4 of 54
groups are plainly inconsistent with the NVRA’s text, its structure, and its overriding purpose to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections” and “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters.” Id. § 1973gg(b).
7. Furthermore, absent an injunction, thousands of Florida citizens will not be registered to vote in the upcoming elections. In violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Voting Rights Act”), the Law will particularly and disproportionately harm members of minority communities, who regularly rely on Plaintiffs and similar community-based groups to help them overcome barriers to registering to vote and participating in the democratic process. The Law will likewise cause disparate harm to senior citizens, students, people with disabilities, and members of rural and low-income communities.
8. In 2004, before Florida began restricting community-based voter registration drives, Florida ranked 33rd in the nation in voter registration rates, with 71.7% of voting age citizens registered. In 2010, after the State imposed successive restrictions on community-based voter registration activity, Florida dropped to 38th in the nation in voter registration rates, with only 63% of voting age citizens registered. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2004-2010). The Law can only exacerbate this downward trend.
9. No legitimate state interest justifies the extreme cumulative burdens imposed by the Law. The Florida Legislature presented no evidence or other findings that voter registration fraud occurs in Florida in any meaningful magnitude; that the preexisting, three-year-old law regulating community-based voter registration activity,
4

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 5 of 54
coupled with criminal provisions forbidding registration fraud, has been inadequate; or that community-based voter registration groups have either hoarded voter registration forms or otherwise failed to promptly submit forms to election officials under the prior law.
10. For these reasons, and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Law, and permitting Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected community-based voter registration activities to continue.
Jurisdiction and Venue 11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4), 2201, and 2202, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12. Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), on the grounds that Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred, and will continue to occur, in this district.
Parties Plaintiffs 13. Plaintiffs are private, nonpartisan groups who seek to encourage widespread civic participation. Plaintiffs wish to engage in voter registration activities because registering to vote is a necessary precursor to the most important type of democratic activity—voting. Plaintiffs see their voter registration efforts as a uniquely effective way to communicate civic messages important to Plaintiffs’ organizational
5

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 6 of 54
missions and to their individual members, and to associate with fellow citizens to advance shared beliefs.
League of Women Voters of Florida 14. Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Florida (“LWVF” or the “League”) is the Florida affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “national League”). LWVF is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, and a tax-exempt entity pursuant to sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its mission is to promote civic engagement by encouraging the informed and active participation of citizens in government, including by registering citizens to vote and influencing public policy through education and advocacy. LWVF has approximately 2,800 current dues-paying members in Florida, and a list of about 9,000 members, supporters, and volunteers, who receive regular communications from the League. 15. The national League has conducted voter registration nationwide since 1920, and LWVF has conducted voter registration in Florida since before 1939. LWVF conducts voter registration drives through the auspices of its 29 local Leagues of Women Voters (“local Leagues”), which are located in cities and counties throughout Florida, including Tallahassee. Local Leagues and individual League members also engage in voter registration activities on their own initiative, without assistance from LWVF, collecting and submitting forms on their own. 16. LWVF has imposed a moratorium on voter registration activities because the League, its members, and its volunteers fear that they will be unable to fully comply
6

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 7 of 54
with the Law’s myriad requirements and cannot afford to risk incurring large fines or enduring the reputational harms that would result from even an innocent violation. LWVF intends for this moratorium to last until the Law is enjoined or limited in such a way as to substantially reduce the organizational and financial risk to the League, its members, and its volunteers.
Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund 17. Plaintiff Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund (“FL PIRG”) is an affiliate of the national Public Interest Research Group. FL PIRG is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, and a taxexempt charity pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its mission is to represent the public interest in the face of special interests and to ensure equal access to the political process for all. Registering voters is a key aspect of that mission. FL PIRG’s sister organization, the 501(c)(4) Florida Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, has approximately 6,000 members in Florida, and an e-mail list of 10,455 people who regularly receive communications about FL PIRG’s work, mission, and possible volunteer opportunities. 18. FL PIRG has existed in Florida for approximately 25 years, and it has been registering voters for over 20 years. Since the 2004 election cycle, FL PIRG has registered approximately 23,000 Florida citizens to vote. FL PIRG focuses its voter registration efforts on student populations within Florida, mostly between the ages of 18 and 22. Almost one half of the students that FL PIRG registered in 2010 were non-white.
7

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 8 of 54
19. FL PIRG hires campus organizers, who are often recent college graduates, to plan and organize voter registration drives at college campuses around the country. The organization conducts national training sessions for campus organizers, who, in turn, train students and other volunteers. Often these volunteers are recruited on the day of registration events. FL PIRG also conducts door-to-door registration activities.
20. FL PIRG believes that, because the Law increases administrative burdens on registered groups and requires dramatically faster form turnaround, it makes voter registration drives more costly. FL PIRG will require more funding and more staff to ensure successful voter registration efforts. The organization will have to spend proportionately less money, time, and resources on voter registration and more on ensuring compliance with the Law’s complex and confusing requirements.
Rock the Vote 21. Plaintiff Rock the Vote (“RTV”) is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit national organization, and it is a tax-exempt charity pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its fundamental mission is to engage and build political power for young people in our country by increasing voter registration rates and voter turnout among younger voters. Critical to that mission are the organization’s efforts to register young people to vote and to encourage them to vote on election days. RTV has approximately 1.5 million members in its national database, and approximately 82,000 members in Florida. 22. RTV began its first field campaign to push young Americans to register to vote in 1992. Since that time, RTV has registered more young people to vote than any
8

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 9 of 54
other organization. Nationwide, RTV helped approximately 2 million people complete voter registration applications in 2008 and approximately 300,000 in 2010. In 2008, RTV registered more voters in Florida than the margin of victory for the office of U.S. President.
23. RTV typically registers citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 29, and it reaches this population through a variety of methods. RTV makes voter registration forms and instructions available on its website, and it also conducts in-person registration drives staffed by volunteers at college campuses and in other locations. In addition, it has developed a “Democracy Class” curriculum that local educators use to teach high school students about the importance of civic engagement. Through this program, RTV partners with high school teachers and instructs them regarding the collection of voter registration applications from their students.
24. RTV has ceased all of its in-person voter registration activity in Florida, including its Democracy Class program, because it lacks the resources and personnel to comply with the Law’s numerous requirements and restrictions.
Defendants 25. Defendants are authorized and required by Florida law to interpret and enforce the challenged Law. 26. Defendant Kurt S. Browning is the Secretary of State for the State of Florida. He is Florida’s chief election officer. Fla. Stat. § 97.012. His responsibilities include “[o]btain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws” and “[p]rovid[ing] uniform standards for the proper
9

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 10 of 54
and equitable implementation of the registration laws.” Id. As such, Secretary Browning, among other things, must coordinate the State’s responsibilities under the NVRA and ensure that all voter registration applications and forms prescribed or approved by the Florida Division of Elections are in compliance with the NVRA and the Voting Rights Act. Id.
27. Defendant Pamela J. Bondi is the Attorney General for the State of Florida. The Law expressly grants her the power to civilly enforce its provisions upon the recommendation of Secretary Browning. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). She is also required to “appear in and attend to” all criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State, which would necessarily include any criminal prosecutions for a violation of the Law. See id. § 16.01(4).
28. Defendant Gisela Salas is the Director of the Division of Elections of the Florida Department of State. The Law requires the Division of Elections to adopt forms and rules to carry out its requirements, id. § 97.0575(5), which the Division has already done, see Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042.
Voter Registration Activities in Florida 29. Voter registration in Florida is conducted in a variety of ways, including by government agencies and officials, individual citizens, and community-based groups. Federal and state law require Florida election officials to provide voter registration applications by mail and at the following locations: Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle offices, armed forces recruitment offices, qualifying educational institutions, public assistance offices, public libraries, agencies that serve persons with
10

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 11 of 54
disabilities, centers for independent living, and supervisors of elections’ offices. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5; Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(41), 97.052(1)(b).
30. According to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, approximately 7,994,000 Florida citizens were registered to vote as of November 2010, out of a citizen voting age population (“CVAP”) of 12,697,000. Overall, 63% of the CVAP in Florida were registered as of November 2010, down from 70.4% in November 2008. White citizens are registered at a higher rate than black and Hispanic citizens: The rates were 64.7% for whites, 61.4% for blacks, and 59% for Hispanics.
Voter Registration Drives and Political Speech and Association 31. For years, Plaintiffs have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration efforts in order to expand the franchise and promote civic participation generally. Plaintiffs have found the voter registration process to be a uniquely effective way to communicate nonpartisan political messages and encourage fellow citizens to participate in the political process. 32. While registering voters, Plaintiffs inevitably engage in interactive, oneon-one conversations with fellow citizens. They will, for example, (i) generally discuss the importance of voting and of civic engagement; (ii) inform other citizens about important issues that will be decided in upcoming elections, such as ballot initiatives and referenda; and (ii) urge other citizens to associate with Plaintiffs and with one another by registering to vote and engaging in meaningful collective action to advance shared political or social objectives.
11

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 12 of 54
33. The collective action that Plaintiffs promote through voter registration and related activities takes a variety of forms, each of which is protected by the First Amendment. It includes citizens joining together to register to vote and cast ballots for candidates based on those candidates’ support for certain issues. It also includes citizens joining together to register to vote and sign ballot initiative petitions in support of a state constitutional amendment (which only registered voters may do under Florida law), see Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.0091(2)(a), and to then vote for the amendment. Finally, it includes citizens joining together to register to vote and then contacting elected officials in an effort to convince them to support certain policies.
34. Each year, in order to advance these First Amendment objectives, Plaintiffs encourage and assist thousands of Florida citizens to register to vote for the first time or update an existing voter registration. They do so largely through one-on-one interactions with potential voters in diverse communities across the State, both in person and over the Internet. When Plaintiffs speak with potential voters, these conversations take place at community events, places of worship, workplaces, schools, malls, bus stops, and other places where citizens congregate. They also occur on citizens’ front porches and in their living rooms, when Plaintiffs and others like them organize members, volunteers, and employees to go door-to-door to register voters in residential communities.
35. Plaintiffs’ success in registering new voters depends not only on their ability to persuade others of the importance of registering to vote. It also depends on their ability to assist others to fill in forms properly, to collect the forms, and to deliver
12

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 13 of 54
completed forms to the appropriate State offices; in some cases, Plaintiffs also follow up to ensure that the State properly adds the new voters to the rolls. Merely distributing registration forms is insufficient to ensure the success of a voter registration drive. Without Plaintiffs’ assistance and encouragement, citizens would be far less likely to complete the forms properly, deliver them to a supervisor of elections, and actually vote. Community-Based Registration Groups Register Significant Numbers of Florida Voters
36. Community-based voter registration drives register significant numbers of citizens to vote in Florida. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, as of the November 2010 election, 585,004 Florida citizens, representing 7.3% of all registered voters, had been registered to vote through such third-party drives in Florida. Those numbers are higher for certain communities: as of 2010 in Florida, 16.2% of African-American registered voters and 15.5% of Hispanic registered voters in Florida were registered through drives, compared to only 8.6% of non-Hispanic white registered voters. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2010).
37. Florida citizens who live in predominantly low-income communities rely more heavily on Plaintiffs’ voter registration activities than do members of more affluent communities. In Florida, 13% of registered voters in the November 2010 election with annual incomes of less than $10,000 registered to vote through third-party drives, compared to only 6% of those with annual incomes of more than $100,000. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2010). Nationwide, 7.7% of those with annual incomes less than $10,000 registered to vote as of November 2010 through third-party drives, compared to only 4% of those with annual incomes over $100,000. Id.
13

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 14 of 54
38. This disparity arises, in part, because low-income citizens change addresses more frequently, visit state motor vehicle offices less frequently (where many other Florida citizens register to vote), have lower literacy rates, less Internet access, and are more dependent on public transportation, which makes it more difficult to travel to register at a local supervisor of elections’ office. See, e.g., Andrew M. Fleischmann, Protecting Poor People’s Right to Vote: Fully Implementing Public Assistance Provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, NAT’L CIVIC REV., Fall 2004, at 66.
39. Plaintiffs’ efforts to register these and other voters are consistent with the purposes and goals of the NVRA, which was enacted by Congress to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1).
40. Plaintiffs’ efforts are also consistent with the Florida Voter Registration Act. See Fla. Stat. § 97.052(1)(b)(2) (requiring Department of State to distribute copies of voter registration applications to “[i]ndividuals or groups conducting voter registration programs”); id. § 97.053(1) (requiring certain State offices to accept voter registration applications delivered by “a third party during the hours that office is open or when mailed”).
41. The overall number of registration forms received in Florida has steadily declined since restrictions were placed on community-based registration activities. From 2000 to 2004, Florida received over 8.6 million voter registration forms. From 2006 to 2010, after restrictions on community-based registration efforts were implemented, the total number of voter registration forms received dropped to just under 3 million. Id.
14

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 15 of 54
42. Plaintiffs’ prior voter registration efforts, along with similar efforts by other individuals and private groups, have resulted in significant numbers of Floridians registering to vote and a strengthening of the State’s and the nation’s democracy. But Plaintiffs’ and others’ ability to continue this success has already been weakened by the existing restrictions placed upon community-based voter registration groups by Florida law, and the declining voter registration rates in Florida are now likely to fall even more precipitously if the Law’s new, and much more onerous, restrictions are allowed to stay in place.
Enactment of the Challenged Law 43. The Law, 2011 Fla. Laws 40 § 4 (codified at Fla. Stat. § 95.0575), is an amended version of two prior laws—2005 Fla. Laws 277 § 7 and 2007 Fla. Laws 30 § 2—which LWVF and others previously challenged in federal court. It went into effect on May 19, 2011, when an omnibus bill on voting, H.B. 1355, was signed by Governor Scott. On that same day, Secretary Browning issued Directive 2011-01, which directed all county supervisors of elections to immediately implement this statute. 44. The very next day, May 20, 2011, the Florida Division of Election issued an Emergency Rule implementing the provisions of the statute’s new registration, reporting, and tracking requirements on a temporary basis, until the State’s normal rulemaking process could be completed. See 37 Fla. Admin. Wkly. 1477, 1492–94 (June 3, 2011). The Emergency Rule also published the official forms that the statute and rules require organizations to submit, including: Form DS-DE 119 (Registration Form), Form
15

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 16 of 54
DS-DE 120 (Registration Agent’s Sworn Statement), and Form DS-DE 123 (Accounting of Voter Registration Applications). Id.
45. After the regular rulemaking process, including the notice-and-comment period, was completed, the final Rule (1S-2.042) governing implementation and administration of the Law went into effect on November 2, 2011, in much the same form as the Emergency Rule. See Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042.
Relevant Provisions of the Challenged Law 46. The Law adds several severe new burdens to the organized voter registration activities engaged in by Plaintiffs and similar groups, including most notably:  The Law requires every “third-party voter registration organization,” including Plaintiffs, to register formally with the State prior to engaging in any voter registration activities. It requires each of the organization’s “affiliate organization[s]” to file a separate pre-registration form with the State as well. It also requires all volunteers and employees of these organizations, called “registration agents” in the Law, to publicly register as agents of the organizations that they represent and sign a sworn affidavit that warns of the criminal punishments for “false registration.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(c). These pre-registration requirements will make it significantly harder to conduct voter registration, and will severely chill the volunteerism that is essential for Plaintiffs’ activities.  The Law requires State officials to affix a unique “identification number” to all voter registration applications that they provide to voter registration groups,
16

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 17 of 54
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(b), 4(a), which not only creates a potentially floating liability for applications not kept within the organization’s immediate control, but also publicly discloses which organization assisted each voter with registering.  The Law mandates that each organization has an ongoing duty to update its registration form every time there is any change to its previously submitted information. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e). If a registered organization adds a new “registration agent,” that agent must sign a sworn statement affirming that the agent will obey all state laws regarding voter registration before engaging in any voter registration activity. Id. R. 1S2.042(3)(c). The organization must then submit each sworn statement, along with the organization’s own updated registration form, within 10 days. Id. Every time a registered organization “terminate[s]” its relationship with any member or volunteer listed as a “registration agent,” it must promptly notify the Division of Elections. Id. R. 1S-2.042(6)(b). These requirements are not only burdensome, they interfere with Plaintiffs’ relationships with members and supporters.  The Law requires each organization to track all voter registration applications that it provides to its “registration agents,” and it further requires these groups to submit monthly reports detailing the number of applications provided to and received from its “registration agents,” even when the organization neither provides nor receives any applications. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5). This is a significant and
17

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 18 of 54
unnecessary burden that will divert scarce organizational resources that would otherwise be spent registering voters, checking applications for accuracy and completeness, and following up with voters.  The Law requires organizations to turn in each voter registration application, either in person or by mail, “within 48 hours after the applicant completes it,” and late delivery can result in up to a $1,000 fine. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Fines may be assessed even where delay is due to events outside the organizations’ control, such as “force majeure or impossibility of performance,” or an “unclear” postmark. Id. § 97.0575(3)(b); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). The operation of this delivery requirement is both vague and arbitrarily strict, and the potential for large fines against organizations like Plaintiffs would entail devastating financial and reputational damage.  The Law requires organizations to submit all mandated forms—including pre-registration forms (Form DS-DE 119), sworn statement forms (Form DS-DE 120), and monthly tracking forms (Form DS-DE 123)—electronically, either as PDF attachments to e-mails or via facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(f). This requirement imposes an unlawful discriminatory burden on those, like Plaintiffs’ volunteers and members, who do not have access to such resources.  The Law grants sweeping and undefined enforcement powers to the Attorney General to institute any “action for relief” for a violation of the Law,
18

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 19 of 54
which can include injunction, criminal prosecution, or “any other appropriate order.” See Fla. Stat. §§ 97.0575(4), 104.41. 47. The Law regulates an almost unlimited range of community-based voter registration activity by broadly defining a “third-party voter registration organization,” to include “any person, entity, or organization” that is “soliciting or collecting voter registration applications.” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37) (emphasis added). The applicable regulations further define “[e]ngaging in any voter registration activities” to mean “soliciting for collection or collecting” registration forms. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S2.042(2)(b). Through this sweeping ambit, the Law chills Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected registration activities and penalizes and burdens their political speech and association. 48. The only exceptions to the Law’s expansive scope are: (i) a limited “family members” exception, which excludes the situation where “[a] person . . . seeks only to register to vote or collect voter registration applications from that person’s spouse, child, or parent,” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37)(a), and (ii) an exception for State or county employees or agents, including employees of the Division of Elections, “engaged in registering to vote or collecting voter registration applications” as part of their official duties, id. § 97.021(37)(b). 49. The Law’s requirements, both individually and in combination, burden Plaintiffs’ protected rights of speech and association in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The vagueness of its terms and the arbitrary enforcement that those terms permit violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
19

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 20 of 54
amplify the Law’s chilling impact on First Amendment rights. The Law also stands as an obstacle to the NVRA’s purpose of increasing voter registration and is inconsistent with several of the NVRA’s specific mandates. Additionally, because of its disproportionate impact on minority communities, the Law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
50. Every “third-party voter registration organization” must abide by the Law’s mandates detailed below.
Pre-registration, Registration Agent, and Disclosure 51. First, every “third-party voter registration organization” must register with the Division of Elections before “engaging in any voter registration activities.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1). 52. Specifically, to abide by the Law’s pre-registration requirements, each “third-party voter registration organization” must submit a pre-registration form, Form DS-DE 119, setting forth: (a) the name and permanent address of the “third-party voter registration organization”; (b) the names and addresses of each officer of the organization; (c) the name and address of a registered agent in the State; and (d) the names and permanent and temporary addresses of each and every individual, including both paid employees and volunteers, who will conduct voter registration on behalf of or in association with the organization (deemed “registration agents” by the regulations). Id.; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a). The form must be submitted electronically. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a). 53. This form, DS-DE-119, must be submitted not only by the third-party organization, but by each of its “affiliate organization[s]” that engages in voter
20

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 21 of 54
registration activity. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a). The Law defines “affiliate organization” broadly to include “any person . . . associated with the third-party voter registration organization as a subordinate, subsidiary, member, branch, chapter, as a central or parent organization, or through direct or indirect ownership or control.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(2)(a).
54. Each “third-party voter registration organization” must also submit a sworn statement from each “registration agent” in which the individual affirms that he or she “will obey all state laws and rules regarding the registration of voters.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d). The statement must be made on the State’s Form DS-DE 120, which lists the felony penalties for “false registration,” though the specifics of what constitutes that crime are undefined on the form. Id.; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(b).
55. Even after an organization submits its registration form, it is not deemed properly registered until the Division assigns it “a unique third-party voter registration organization identification number that begins with ‘3P.’” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S2.042(3)(b). An organization cannot lawfully engage in voter registration activities before receiving this identifier. Id.
56. Under the applicable regulations, each voter registration form provided by the State to an organization must include that organization’s unique identifier. Id. R. 1S2.042(4)(a).
57. After it is registered, an organization has an ongoing duty to update its registration form whenever there is any change to the previously submitted information.
21

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 22 of 54
Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e), 6(a)–(b). Updated registration forms must be filed with the Division of Elections “within 10 days following the change.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e).
58. If a registered organization adds a new “registration agent,” the new agent must “complete, sign, and date” a Form DS-DE 120, affirming that the agent understands and will obey all state laws and rules regarding voter registration “before beginning his or her duties for the organization.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(c). In other words, the new agent need not wait until the sworn-statement form is actually filed with the Division before beginning his or her voter registration activities. Id. Thereafter, however, the organization must submit that registration agent’s sworn statement, along with the organization’s own updated registration form reflecting this change, within 10 days. Id.
59. If a registered organization “terminate[s]” its relationship with any of its registration agents, it must file notice of this change by e-mail or facsimile, or on an updated Form DS-DE-119, within 10 days. Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e), (6)(b). The regulations do not define when a volunteer’s services are “terminated.”
60. Once filed with the Division of Elections, both the registration form (Form DS-DE 119) and the sworn-statement form (Form DS-DE 120) become public records. See id. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a)-(b).
Tracking and Reporting Requirements 61. Second, the Law also requires “third-party voter registration organizations” to track every voter registration form “provided to and received from” any of its registration agents, even if the form is never completed by a registrant, and to report
22

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 23 of 54
to the Division of Elections every month, even if the group had no registration activity in that month. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5); Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5).
62. Specifically, under the applicable regulations, “[b]y the 10th day of each month, each organization shall submit to the Division a Form DS-DE 123 to account for the number of state and federal voter registration application forms provided to and received from each of its registration agents for the preceding month.” Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5)(a). The Law does not define the term “provided to,” and, in particular, does not specify whether organizations must report each form that is obtained by agents even if the form is not formally “provided” by the registered organization itself.
63. This tracking and reporting requirement applies even “[i]f the organization had no voter registration activity in the preceding month,” in which case the “third-party voter registration organization” must submit a report “reflecting that it did not provide voter registration applications to, or receive any from, its registration agents.” Id.
64. The Form DS-DE 123 adopted by the Division of Elections is excessive, intrusive, and burdensome. By its terms, each registered organization must inform the Division by the tenth day of every month of: (a) the number of voter registration forms that were provided to the organization’s registration agents in the preceding month; (b) the number of blank voter registration forms that it received from its agents; and (c) the number of non-blank voter registration forms that it received from its agents. Id. R. 1S2.042(1)(d). The organization must separately provide this information as to state application forms and federal application forms. Id. And, if the organization “did not
23

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 24 of 54
provide to, or receive from, a registration agent any state or federal voter registration applications during the month,” it must note that on the form. Id.
65. The completed Form DS-DE 123 must also be signed and dated by an authorized person at the organization, and it must contain both the organization’s name and its identifier number. Id. It must be submitted electronically via e-mail or facsimile. Id.; id. R. 1S-2.042(5)(b).
66. Finally, when applicable, a “third-party voter registration organization” must file a final, updated Form DS-DE 123 “no later than 10 days after [the] organization terminates its registration as a third-party voter registration organization.” Id. R. 1S2.042(1)(d), (6)(a).
Delivery Procedures and Deadline 67. Third, the Law requires each “third-party voter registration organization” to “deliver[]” to the Division of Elections or to a supervisor of elections every completed voter registration form it collects “within 48 hours after the applicant completes [the form] or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48-hour period.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Delivery “by the organization . . . may be accomplished by inperson delivery or mail.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(4)(d). 68. While the Law does not provide limitations on who is eligible to deliver completed forms on an organization’s behalf, a “factsheet” released by the State indicates that individual registration agents must return all completed forms to their “controlling” organization “for delivery to the applicable Supervisor of Elections or Division.” Florida Division of Elections, Factsheet about Third-Party Voter Registration (2011), available at
24

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 25 of 54
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/TPVRFinalFactSheet.pdf. The factsheet is unclear as to who may collect and submit forms on behalf of the controlling organization, but it indicates that status as a registration agent is, at least by itself, inadequate. If an agent fails to return forms to the controlling organization, he or she may seemingly be held personally liable for any applicable fines.
69. For purposes of the Law’s 48-hour deadline, delivery of a voter registration form is measured by “the time the application is actually delivered by the organization by in-person delivery or, if mailed, the date of delivery shall be the date of a clear postmark, if one is present on the mailing envelope.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). With respect to mail delivery, “[i]f a postmark is not present or unclear, the date of delivery to the Division or a supervisor of elections is the actual date of receipt.” Id.
70. The regulations also specify that the “third-party voter registration organization” or one of its agents must “print the date and time that the voter registration applicant completed the application in a conspicuous space on the bottom portion of the reverse side of the voter registration application it collects from a voter registration applicant in a manner that does not obscure any other entry.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(4)(b). The rules further set forth a precise “numerical format” in which each date and time entry must be printed on the completed application form. Id.
71. Failure to comply with the Law’s 48-hour delivery deadline renders an organization strictly liable for fines, which are detailed below (infra ¶¶ 77–79). Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a)–(b).
25

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 26 of 54
72. As an affirmative defense, an organization can assert that it failed to meet the 48-hour deadline due to “force majeure or impossibility of performance.” Id. § 97.0575(3)(b). Upon such a showing, the State “may” waive the fines. Id.
73. The 48-hour delivery deadline for completed voter registration applications, as well as its attendant administrative burdens, did not exist previously. It is a new creation of the Law.
Electronic Submissions 74. Fourth, the Law requires organizations to submit all forms mandated by the Law—including pre-registration forms (Form DS-DE-119), sworn statement forms (Form DS-DE-120), and monthly tracking forms (Form DS-DE-123)—electronically, either as PDF attachments to e-mails or via facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), 3(f). 75. This electronic submissions requirement is also a new creation of the Law.
Fines and Civil and Criminal Penalties 76. Finally, violations of the Law result in the following penalties: (i) strict liability for fines if voter registration forms are not delivered within 48 hours; (ii) undefined civil penalties for any violation of the Law; and (iii) a criminal misdemeanor penalty for any violation of the Law for which a penalty is not otherwise provided. Fla. Stat. §§ 97.0575(3)–(4), 104.41.
Fines for the Untimely Delivery of Registration Applications 77. The Law imposes the following mandatory fines on “third-party voter registration organizations” for completed voter registration forms that are not “promptly” delivered to the Division of Elections or a supervisor of elections:
26

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 27 of 54
 $50 fine per form that is turned in more than 48 hours after it is collected;
 $250 fine per form that is turned in more than 48 hours after it is collected, if the delay is willful;
 $100 fine per form that is collected before the “book closing” deadline but not delivered until after the deadline;
 $500 fine per form that is collected before the “book closing” deadline but not delivered until after the deadline, if the delay is willful;
 $500 per form that is collected but never submitted; and  $1,000 per form that is collected but never submitted, if the
delay is willful. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a).
78. The Law limits the aggregate fine that may be assessed against any single organization, including affiliate organizations, to $1,000 per calendar year. Id.
79. As discussed below, infra ¶¶ 135–40, even with this statutory cap, the imposition of such fines on Plaintiffs and similar grassroots organizations would cause not only potentially crippling financial harm, but also devastating, permanent damage to these organizations’ longstanding and hard-earned reputations as trustworthy and lawabiding public-interest entities.
Undefined Civil Enforcement Powers of the Attorney General 80. The Law also grants unconstitutionally vague enforcement powers to the Florida Attorney General to redress violations of the Law that are referred to her by the Secretary of State or to prevent any such violation. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). 81. The Law sets forth no express limitations as to the Attorney General’s enforcement powers or the civil penalties that may be imposed, providing only that “[a]n
27

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 28 of 54
action for relief may include a permanent or temporary injunction, a restraining order, or any other appropriate order.” Id. (emphasis added).
Criminal Penalties 82. In addition, Florida law makes any violation of the Florida Election Code, which includes the Law, see Fla. Stat. § 97.011, a first-degree misdemeanor unless the Code provides for a different punishment. Id. § 104.41. To the extent the Law specifies punishments for violations of some of its provisions, but not all, officials may invoke this catch-all misdemeanor provision in enforcing the Law. 83. Conviction of such a first-degree misdemeanor can result in a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, id. § 775.082(4)(a), in addition to or in place of a fine, id. § 775.083(1). The fine cannot exceed $1,000. Id. § 775.083(1)(d). 84. The cumulative impact of these numerous onerous requirements and strict penalties imposed by the Law severely burden—to the point of stopping—core components of Plaintiffs’ community-based voter registration activities.
The Law’s Burdensome Impact on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Expression and Association 85. Florida’s challenged voter registration Law and its accompanying regulations significantly impede Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in voter registration activities and thus directly hamper Plaintiffs’ fundamental speech and associational rights, which are inseparable and intertwined aspects of those activities. The Law’s complex rules impose substantial administrative burdens, strict liability, the potential for personal liability, severe penalties, and the risk of heavy reputational harm for failure to perfectly comply with any of its myriad requirements. Moreover, certain portions of the
28

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 29 of 54
Law are vague or confusing, creating legal uncertainties for Plaintiffs. Each individual new burden created by the Law is unlawful in its own right, and when implemented cumulatively, they are particularly crippling and create a severe chill on protected First Amendment activity. As a result, Plaintiffs LWVF and Rock the Vote have ceased their community-based voter registration efforts in the State of Florida. And while Plaintiff FL PIRG currently intends to engage in voter registration activities during the 2012 election cycle, it, too, has been severely burdened by the Law and will necessarily spend less money, time, and resources on voter registration and more on compliance with the onerous requirements of Florida’s new Law.
86. Other grassroots organizations that are similarly situated will likewise lack the resources, expertise, and/or time required to engage in voter registration activities in a manner that is in compliance with the Law.
87. The Law also eliminates the ability of individual Floridians to spontaneously assist fellow citizens with registering to vote, a civic service that many of Plaintiffs’ individual members and volunteers have routinely performed of their own accord.
Pre-registration, Registration Agent, and Disclosure 88. The pre-registration, registration agent, and disclosure provisions of the Law dramatically limit and chill Plaintiffs’ ability to recruit, associate with, and utilize members and volunteers. Each Plaintiff has limited financial resources and only a few paid staff. None can engage in large-scale voter registration activity without relying on
29

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 30 of 54
extensive membership networks and large numbers of casual volunteers. Moreover, voter registration is a key tool for engaging potential new members and volunteers.
89. For all Plaintiffs, recruiting, educating, and working with members and volunteers on voter registration efforts are essential avenues for expressing and demonstrating their shared views on the importance of civic engagement and democratic participation.
90. Under the Law, for Plaintiffs to continue engaging in this form of expression and association, they must complete and submit an onerous registration form to the State and receive an authorizing identification number before they can assist any Floridian with registering to vote.
91. Through its “registration agent” requirements, the Law mandates a new legal relationship between Plaintiffs and their members and volunteers in order for them to work together on voter registration. Every time an organization adds a new agent—or makes any organizational change that would affect its registration information—the organization must file that agent’s sworn statement and an updated registration form for the organization within 10 days. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a), (3)(c), (3)(e). The organization must also notify the Division of Elections every time it terminates its relationship with any registration agent. Id. R. 1S-2.042(6)(b). All of these submissions must be made electronically, via e-mail or facsimile. Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), 3(f), (6)(b).
92. These requirements, individually and collectively, pose a number of problems for Plaintiffs.
30

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 31 of 54
93. First, gathering sworn statements from every “registration agent” poses a massive administrative burden for each of the Plaintiffs.
94. LWVF, for example, has only two paid employees, neither of whom is employed full time. These employees cannot perform all of their current duties and also ensure that the Division of Elections timely receives sworn statements from the group’s hundreds of volunteers throughout the State.
95. RTV had only one paid staff member in the State of Florida at any given time during the 2010 election cycle, and it currently has none. Constantly submitting updated registration forms and sworn statements for its many ad hoc volunteers, many of whom are students, would be an overwhelming burden upon RTV’s limited staff and unpaid volunteers.
96. Second, none of the Plaintiffs previously formalized their relationships with volunteers—instead, they widely encouraged others to join them in advancing their mission. Plaintiffs have no structure for tracking all of the volunteers who assist with voter registration, or for determining when any particular volunteer has “terminated” his or her volunteerism. Requiring them to do so would create confusion, legal uncertainty, and chill volunteers from signing up due to the burdens and hassle associated with doing so. In addition, this type of formalized relationship runs counter to the ideals of inclusiveness and active citizenry that are central to the Plaintiffs’ missions.
97. For instance, LWVF’s volunteer pool is not limited to its dues-paying members or to its supporters; all types of individuals choose to volunteer. While some volunteers have worked with LWVF for years, others only volunteer a few times, and still
31

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 32 of 54
others volunteer just once. LWVF does not require volunteers to sign contracts, specify the beginning and ending dates of their volunteerism, or provide updates to LWVF about their volunteer status. Accordingly, LWVF and the local Leagues have no way of knowing when a volunteer “terminates” his or her volunteerism, and when LWVF therefore, under the Law, must notify the Division of Elections or update their registration form, Form DS-DE 119.
98. Moreover, the notion of forcing volunteers to enter into a formal or contractual relationship is inconsistent with LWVF’s mission and longstanding practice—to create an inclusive environment that facilitates ad hoc volunteerism on an as-needed basis. For LWVF, adhering to the Law’s requirements would necessitate a cultural change likely to alienate former League volunteers and deter future volunteerism.
99. Similarly, while RTV provides prior training to all of its staff and lead volunteers, it often recruits additional volunteers for voter registration drives by sending e-mails or text messages to its local member list, which, in Florida, could reach 82,000 individuals. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for RTV members to show up to volunteer to assist voters to register without scheduling or prior notice. Occasionally, non-members may also show up to volunteer, particularly if they are friends or family members of a scheduled volunteer. These ad hoc volunteers are likely to join RTV’s e-mail list, but may or may not assist with any future voter registration efforts. There is no way to determine when these volunteers cease being “agents” of RTV, and when RTV must notify the Division or update its registration form.
32

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 33 of 54
100. The registration agent requirement poses a particular problem with regard to RTV’s “Democracy Class” program, through which RTV partners with local high school teachers to promote civic education and voter registration. These local teachers would almost certainly be considered RTV’s “registration agents” under the Law, because RTV provides teachers with a civic education toolkit that includes registration forms. But, if a teacher collected voter registration forms during an RTV Democracy Class and then failed to submit these forms within 48 hours, RTV would be held strictly liable. RTV cannot assume such expanded liability.
101. FL PIRG also depends on spontaneous volunteering, and particularly at campus events, it accepts volunteers at any level of commitment. Requiring each volunteer to first fill out and submit a sworn registration agent form and specify the length of his or her commitment is fundamentally at odds with FL PIRG’s inclusive mission.
102. Third, all of the Plaintiffs believe that substantial numbers of their volunteers would be unlikely to sign the sworn statement forms due to the threatening descriptions of felony penalties for false registration.
103. Finally, some of Plaintiffs’ volunteers will be uncomfortable having their names and personal information on file as a public record as an “agent” of the organization.
104. For instance, RTV has been heavily criticized by certain political and news organizations hostile to their activities in past election cycles. Some volunteers will
33

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 34 of 54
be afraid they could be harassed as a result of publicly disclosing their association with RTV.
Tracking and Reporting Requirements 105. Under the Law, all registered “third-party voter registration organizations” must account for every voter registration form that is “provided to and received from each of its registration agents” by submitting monthly reports via e-mail or facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.057(5); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5). These requirements also directly burden Plaintiffs’ relationships with their volunteers and members and ability to communicate their message of civic participation through a volunteer network. 106. First, these tracking and reporting requirements pose a serious administrative burden upon Plaintiffs, who have massive volunteer networks but limited administrative staff and access to office equipment. 107. For instance, LWVF has 29 local Leagues throughout the State, none of which has any paid staff and only one of which has physical office space. Keeping track of every time one of its countless volunteers requested blank application forms from the State or received completed forms from potential voters is not possible with the League’s current staff and organizational structure. Moreover, LWVF cannot afford for its already overextended two-person staff to spend the time necessary to prepare and submit the requisite monthly reports to the State. 108. Even if it were possible for LWVF to comply with the tracking and reporting requirements, it would divert limited financial resources and staff time from actual voter registration and other important communications and activities. Moreover,
34

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 35 of 54
the magnitude of this monthly task and its recurring nature greatly increase the risk of inadvertent error, which could result in substantial legal, financial, or reputational harm to the League.
109. Second, these tracking and reporting requirements are vague, potentially chilling Plaintiffs from simply providing information to members and volunteers, separate from any registration collection efforts.
110. For instance, it is not clear how the tracking requirements apply to registration forms made available by RTV online. RTV frequently refers its registration agents, teachers, and others to the organization’s online voter registration system, but it does not know whether this constitutes forms that are “provided to” its registration agents.
111. Third, all forms that are pre-marked with a group’s “third-party voter registration organization” identifier expose that group to a greatly expanded threat of liability for forms that are taken or lost before Plaintiffs can even attempt to collect them. This includes every single form obtained from Florida election officials, which must be pre-marked with each group’s “3PVRO” identifier. See Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(2); Fla. Admin Code. R. 1S-2.042(4)(a). This is a very real threat to Plaintiffs, who conduct large-scale voter registration drives on college campuses and other busy public places where a potential registrant might suddenly leave with a pre-marked form. If that form is then submitted past the 48-hour deadline, Plaintiffs, it would appear, are held strictly liable.
35

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 36 of 54
112. For example, despite Plaintiffs’ volunteers’ best efforts to prevent it, potential registrants sometimes start to fill out their forms in person but then leave quickly with blank or partially completed forms. In this circumstance, it appears that Plaintiffs may be held strictly liable for any pre-marked forms submitted after the 48hour deadline, even though they had no ability to control the forms’ submission.
113. FL PIRG’s practice has always been to obtain voter registration forms from county supervisors’ offices at its campus drives, and under the Law these new forms would have to be stamped with FL PIRG’s identifying number. FL PIRG routinely interacts with potential registrants who take a blank form or begin completing a form and then take it with them before completing it. This is common at campus events, especially when students are on their way to class. FL PIRG encourages the broadest possible dissemination of voter registration forms, and does not ever stop individuals from taking forms. This means that under FL PIRG’s practices, any completed form pre-marked with the organization’s number and taken from a FL PIRG table during any event could lead to strict liability fines even if FL PIRG never handled it.
114. Finally, requiring that all completed forms include an organization’s “third-party voter registration organization” identifier will undoubtedly deter some potential voters from registering with organizations like Plaintiffs.
Delivery Procedures and Deadline 115. Under the Law, Plaintiffs must submit every completed registration application to the State within 48 hours of completion. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Failure
36

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 37 of 54
to do so results in automatic fines and subjects Plaintiffs to the risk of a civil enforcement action. Id. § 97.0575(3)–(4).
116. Moreover, at least one document issued by the State suggests that completed forms must be submitted by the registered entity, rather than by individual registration agents. See Florida Division of Elections, Factsheet about Third-Party Voter Registration (2011), available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/TPVRFinalFactSheet.pdf.
117. This tight deadline, combined with strict liability for all late submissions and possible limitations on who can submit completed forms on behalf of an organization, is extremely burdensome for Plaintiffs for a number of reasons.
118. First, if registration agents are indeed barred from submitting completed forms directly, and if completed forms must first be collected by Plaintiffs from their volunteers and then submitted directly by Plaintiffs to the State, this would impose an effectively insurmountable barrier to their registration efforts. Plaintiffs each conduct registration activities through a wholly decentralized volunteer force. For instance, LWVF has limited staff and resources and is wholly dependent upon its 29 local Leagues to organize and conduct voter registration throughout the State. FL PIRG is similar: It has one office and one staff member and depends upon student volunteers across Florida to spearhead its efforts. RTV does not even have a physical headquarters in Florida; it operates remotely and relies upon partnerships with students, teachers and other volunteers to effectuate its mission. With their existing structures, it would not be
37

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 38 of 54
possible for Plaintiffs to collect every completed registration form from every one of its agents and then submit these forms to the State within 48 hours.
119. Second, even assuming that individual agents would be allowed to submit completed forms on Plaintiffs’ behalf, it would still be virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to continue with their traditional model of voter registration under the constraint of a 48hour deadline. If they continued to conduct voter registration activity, as they have in the past, Plaintiffs would be at severe risk of financial penalties and reputational damage for noncompliance.
120. Indeed, LWVF’s decentralized volunteers could easily miss deadlines required by the Law through no fault of their own, and without jeopardizing the forms in any way. For instance, LWVF volunteers in charge of a registration event may work full time and may not have time to take the forms to the LWVF office or to an election supervisor immediately after an event. Given the tight deadline, every short delay—due to traffic, weather, ill health, an unexpected family emergency, or countless other contingencies—could lead to automatic fines. Some volunteers may be elderly or lack a car, and need assistance in submitting forms. According to the public statements of several County Supervisors of Elections, a delay of even a minute could cause them to report an organization’s delinquency to the Secretary of State.
121. In RTV’s extensive experience, it usually takes two to five days for RTV to review and submit completed voter registration forms. For instance, many volunteers are students who do not have cars, and college campuses—where RTV’s tabling events are generally held—are typically not close to county offices (and certainly outside of
38

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 39 of 54
walking distance). In such a circumstance, it would be near impossible for lead volunteers or RTV staff to get completed forms from other volunteers, check them for accuracy and completeness, and submit them within 48 hours.
122. FL PIRG strives to turn all completed forms in to elections officials within two days; however, particularly during peak registration times or multi-day drives, it cannot routinely turn in all forms within 48 hours of receipt. Doing so would drain critical resources from FL PIRG’s organizers, as they would have to spend much more time in transit and attending to administrative responsibilities, rather than registering others to vote.
123. Third, even attempting to meet the Law’s strict deadline would force Plaintiffs to drastically change longstanding practices and curtail the quality and quantity of their voter registration efforts. This will further reduce the effectiveness of Plaintiffs’ efforts to communicate to members, volunteers, and the public their message of civic engagement and democratic participation.
124. For instance, under the Law, LWVF could no longer engage in multi-day registration drives. These drives have historically been an important part of LWVF’s voter registration program, and thus central to communicating and advancing LWVF’s mission of facilitating widespread civic participation.
125. The 48-hour deadline, combined with the Law’s other burdens and strict penalties, would also prevent RTV from incorporating voter registration into its Democracy Class program. But, without the voter registration component, Democracy
39

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 40 of 54
Class would be significantly less effective in communicating and advancing RTV’s mission of getting young people involved in the political process.
126. Fourth, the Law’s strict deadline severely curtails Plaintiffs’ opportunities to review completed forms to ensure their accuracy and completeness, and to follow up with registrants before submitting them if necessary.
127. For example, to the extent LWVF would be able to comply with the 48hour requirement, compliance would prevent LWVF from following its standard procedures for ensuring that information is not missing from forms, because League volunteers would be in such a rush to submit the forms within 48 hours.
128. To comply with the deadline, RTV would likely have to forgo collecting contact information from registrants and engaging in follow-up communication. This would preclude RTV from following up with registrants if there was any problem with the forms, and make it impossible for RTV to remind registrants to vote or to otherwise communicate with them.
129. Fifth, although the regulations allow forms to be postmarked by the submission deadline rather than submitted in person, “[i]f a postmark is not present or unclear, the date of delivery to the Division or a supervisor of elections is the actual date of receipt.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). Thus, every mail-in form forces Plaintiffs and their volunteers to accept the risk of a late submission as a result of an unclear or undated postmark—through no fault of their own.
40

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 41 of 54
130. Finally, the Law, as interpreted through its implementing regulations, is confusing and ambiguous, creating uncertainty as to when forms would actually be due in many situations.
131. Because of the confusing and unclear language and interaction of the Law and implementing regulations, none of the Plaintiffs understands how the timing requirements would operate in practice.
Electronic Submissions 132. The burdens imposed by the Law are further exacerbated by its requirement that all mandated forms be submitted electronically by e-mail or facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin Code. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(f), (5)(b), (6)(c). This requirement places a disparate burden upon Plaintiffs’ staff and volunteers who do not have readily available access to a computer, scanner, or fax machine. 133. For example, for Plaintiff LWVF, only one of the local Leagues has a physical office, meaning that the vast majority of its volunteers must rely on their own office equipment. Many of LWVF’s members and volunteers are retirees who are not comfortable using scanners or computers and who do not have access to business equipment such as fax machines. 134. Similarly, RTV does not provide state-based staff members with office equipment such as printers, fax machines, or scanners. Instead, state-based staff purchase such services, as needed, at office supply and service centers. Electronically submitting all relevant paperwork pertaining to the organization’s large number of Florida-based
41

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 42 of 54
volunteers and the tens of thousands of voters they registered in the State would be very difficult, costly, and time-consuming for the organization.
Fines and Civil and Criminal Penalties 135. The fines and penalties imposed by the Law threaten Plaintiffs and their individual volunteers with substantial monetary liability, reputational damage, other unspecified civil penalties, and potential criminal punishment. These risks have chilled voter registration activities by Plaintiffs and by individual volunteers. 136. The Law’s strict fines are multiplied by each individual voter registration application that is not submitted within the requisite 48-hour period. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). While the Law’s fines are capped at a total of $1,000 annually, id., for non-profit groups like Plaintiffs this is a substantial amount of money. 137. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ volunteers, many of whom are senior citizens or students on limited budgets, may be deemed separate “third-party voter registration organizations” under the Law and thus separately liable, such an amount could be devastating. See League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (interpreting prior version of law to impose joint and several liability for late submission of forms upon individuals as well as their affiliated organizations). For example, the Tallahassee League, like all local Leagues, has no staff and is composed entirely of volunteers. Its annual income is approximately $5,000, derived mostly from member dues. It uses these funds to pay its membership fees to LWVF and the national League, and with what little is left, to print and mail voter
42

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 43 of 54
information brochures that describe local, state, and national issues. A fine of $1,000 would completely drain that group’s resources.
138. The Law additionally provides that if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that a person has committed a violation of the Law, he may refer the matter to the Attorney General to bring an action for enforcement. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). The penalties under this provision are wholly undefined, except that the Law specifies that the Attorney General may seek a permanent or temporary injunction to prevent a future violation, as well as “any other appropriate order.” Id. Defending such an action would certainly involve substantial legal costs and reputational damage to Plaintiffs, in addition to whatever remedies the Attorney General may seek to obtain—all harms that make assisting in voter registration a risky activity in Florida.
139. For instance, LWVF has an annual budget of roughly $99,000, which it uses in full to pay its operating expenses. The League would have great difficulty paying for the legal representation necessary to defend itself were the Attorney General to bring an action against it.
140. Equally problematic is the threat of reputational harm to LWVF. LWVF has been registering Floridians to vote for over 70 years. It zealously guards its longstanding and hard-earned public reputation for trustworthiness. Beyond the potentially devastating financial costs that would be necessitated by a legal defense, the LWVF would endure a considerable loss of public esteem and confidence, crippling the organization’s continued effectiveness. The possibility of such financial and reputational
43

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 44 of 54
harm understandably frightens LWVF and discourages it from engaging in voter registration under the Law.
141. Finally, Plaintiffs also face the potential of criminal misdemeanor liability for any violation of the Law for which the Florida Election Code does not otherwise specify punishment. Fla. Stat. § 104.41.
The Law Does Not Serve a Legitimate or Compelling State Interest 142. The State cannot establish a legitimate, much less compelling, state interest in restricting Plaintiffs’ voter registration efforts, and those of similar community-based voter registration groups, in the manner provided in the Law. There is no indication that Florida’s existing law was inadequate in addressing the State’s interest in preventing voter registration fraud and ensuring the integrity of the registration process. Furthermore, even if the State had discovered shortcomings in the existing law, the new Law burdens far more speech and associational activity than is necessary to accomplish any legitimate governmental interest. 143. The Law is not necessary to address voter registration fraud or misconduct. Florida law separately imposes criminal penalties on persons who “knowingly destroy, mutilate, or deface a voter registration form or election ballot or obstruct or delay the delivery of a voter registration form or election ballot.” Fla. Stat. § 104.0615(4). A person who violates this section commits a felony in the third degree, id. § 104.0615(5), and may be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both, id. §§ 775.082(3)(d), 775.083(1)(c).
44

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 45 of 54
144. In addition, before § 97.0575 was modified by H.B. 1355, it already imposed fines of $1,000 for willful refusal to submit a completed voter registration application, $500 for each application collected before but willfully submitted after the book-closing deadline for an election, and $250 for each application willfully submitted more than ten days after it was delivered to a third-party voter registration organization or a person acting on the organization’s behalf. 2007 Fla. Laws 30, sec. 2, § 97.0575(3) (amended 2011). Upon information and belief, the State has had no occasion to impose fines for any of these willful violations under this prior version of the law.
145. Nor is the Law needed to deter inadvertent mishandling or untimely submission of registration applications. Prior Florida law already imposed fines of $50 for each application submitted more than ten days after a voter registration organization collected it, $100 for each application submitted after the book-closing deadline for an election, and $500 for each application that a community-based voter registration organization collected but did not submit to the Division of Elections. Id. Upon information and belief, the State has imposed very few fines for any of these inadvertent violations under the prior version of the Law.
146. The legislative history of the Law also provides no evidence that Florida had previously experienced problems with community-based voter registration groups failing to submit applications in a timely manner, whether intentionally or accidentally, under the prior law. When asked the reason for changing the deadline for application submission from ten days to 48 hours, for example, H.B. 1355’s sponsor, Representative Dennis K. Baxley, responded that registration forms are “valued document[s] and the
45

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 46 of 54
longer you have these documents out floating around, the more likely they are to be
hazarded to mishap or mischief.” 2011 Fla. House Deb., Reg. Sess., at 12:32 (April 20,
2011) (statement of Rep. Baxley). But Representative Geraldine F. Thompson observed
that election supervisors “have not identified a problem with fraud.” 2011 Fla. House
Deb., Reg. Sess., at 02:00:18 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Rep. Thompson). And Senator
Nan H. Rich pointed out that the bill’s supporters were unable to “provide any proof that
the integrity of our election process has been compromised.” 2011 Fla. Senate Deb.,
Reg. Sess., at 47:49 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Rich).
147. Likewise, the legislative record provides no evidence that the Law’s strict
pre-registration and monthly reporting requirements further the State’s interest in
ensuring the integrity of the registration process.
148. Indeed, Senator Michael S. Bennett, the President Pro Tempore of the
chamber, acknowledged that the new Law would impose significant burdens on voters,
but argued that these burdens were a valid goal of the legislation:
Did you ever read the stories about people in Africa? The people in the desert who literally walk 200-300 miles so they could have an opportunity to do what we do? And we want to make it more convenient? How much more convenient do you want to make it? Do we want to go to their house? Take the polling booth with us? This is a hard fought privilege. This is something people died for. And you want to make it convenient? To the guy who died to give you that right, it was not convenient. Why would we make it any easier? I want ‘em to fight for it. I want ‘em to know what it’s like. I want ‘em to go down there and have to walk across town to go over and vote. I want ‘em to at least know the date they’re supposed to vote. I’d like to have them actually know where they’re supposed to vote. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. . . . This is Florida. We do make it convenient for people to vote, but I gotta tell ya I wouldn’t even have any problem making it harder. I would want them to really want to be informed. I would want them to really want to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people in the State of Florida to want
46

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 47 of 54
to vote as badly as that person in Africa who is willing to walk 200 miles for that opportunity he’s never had before in his life. This should not be easy. This should be something you feel with a passion. 2011 Fla. Senate Deb., Reg. Sess., at 35:40 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Bennett) (emphases added). 149. Simply put, the tenuous connections between the Law’s restrictive provisions and the State’s purported interest in fraud prevention, along with the revealing statements by supporters during the legislative debate, demonstrate that the State’s offered rationale is a pretextual one—and can provide no justification for the unconstitutional burdens on speech and association now imposed by the Law.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment (Burden on Core Political Speech and Associational Rights) 150. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 149 as if fully set forth herein. 151. The Law violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to speech and association. It does so by severely burdening and chilling Plaintiffs’ free speech and association in, but not limited to, the following ways: (a) The Law’s myriad onerous requirements and severe penalties threaten Plaintiffs with debilitating financial and reputational harms, and thus deter them from engaging in First Amendment protected political activity; (b) The Law’s pre-registration and sworn-statement requirements impose burdensome prior restraints on Plaintiffs’ speech and associational rights;
47

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 48 of 54
(c) By regulating the “soliciting for collection” of voter registration forms, the Law directly penalizes political speech; (d) The Law’s sworn-statement requirement, and the intimidating form promulgated by the State, frighten Plaintiffs’ individual members and volunteers, chilling Plaintiffs’ ability to effectively associate with its members, volunteers, and others; (e) The Law’s disclosure requirements force community-based voter registration groups to reveal their political and organizational associations to the State, chilling those associations; (f) Registration under the Law would require that Plaintiffs comply with onerous monthly tracking and reporting requirements and suffer ongoing burdens on their speech and associational rights; (g) Any attempt to comply with the Law would necessitate that Plaintiffs divert much-needed resources from protected voter registration activity; and (h) Any attempt to comply with the Law would also require that Plaintiffs formalize their associational relationships in a manner that directly conflicts with their longstanding tradition of open and inclusive membership. 152. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
48

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 49 of 54
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment
(Void for Vagueness) 153. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 152 as if fully set forth herein. 154. The Law is unconstitutionally vague in, but not limited to, the following ways: (a) In failing to define the scope of penalties that can be imposed by the Attorney General, the Law provides no notice of the liability Plaintiffs and others risk by engaging in community-based voter registration activities. The Law grants virtually unlimited discretion to both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State in imposing penalties and fines, and thus risks arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement against disfavored groups; (b) The Law’s submission deadline and procedures are confusing and ambiguous; (c) The Law’s requirements for informing the State when a registration agent’s relationship with a registered organization has “terminated” are confusing and ambiguous; (d) The Law’s tracking and reporting requirements are confusing and ambiguous; and (e) It is unclear whether registration agents may submit completed voter registration forms to the State, or if registered organizations are the only entities permitted to submit completed forms.
49

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 50 of 54
155. The vagueness of the Law chills Plaintiffs and others in the exercise of their freedom of speech.
156. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 157. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 156 as if fully set forth herein. 158. The Law stands as an obstacle to the achievement of Congress’s purpose in passing the NVRA to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections” and “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b), and to protect the active role that community-based voter registration groups play in the registration process. See id. §1973gg-4(b). 159. The Law also specifically conflicts with and violates the NVRA in at least four respects: (a) The Law’s burdensome pre-registration, reporting, and tracking requirements contradict the objectives of the NVRA and conflict with Florida’s obligation to make federal and state registration forms available to communitybased voter registration groups;
50

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 51 of 54
(b) By requiring community-based voter registration groups to repeatedly make electronic submissions by facsimile or by e-mail, the Law erects a discriminatory barrier against those who do not have access to, or the financial wherewithal to have access to, the necessary equipment or services and the ability to use them; (c) The Law’s strict 48-hour deadline for delivery of completed registration forms and its provision that “delivery” only occurs on the date of mailing if the mailing envelope is clearly postmarked—otherwise strict liability for untimely submissions will attach. It effectively eliminates Plaintiffs’ NVRA-protected right to deliver completed registration forms by mail; and (d) The Law’s requirement that detailed information be added to voter registration forms violates the NVRA’s limitations on acceptable content that states may require on such forms, and conflicts with Congress’s desire to facilitate registration by protecting registrants’ privacy.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 160. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 159 as if fully set forth herein. 161. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, forbids any voting standard, practice, or procedure “which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
51

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 52 of 54
162. By severely restricting the registration activities of community-based voter groups, the Law substantially reduces registration efforts that target and disproportionately benefit racial minority communities.
163. The effect of the Law will leave minority citizens with reduced opportunities to become eligible to vote and, ultimately, to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice. Therefore, the Law will result in the denial or abridgement of the rights of minority Florida citizens to vote on account of race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to: (i) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of “third-party voter registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate the United States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs; (ii) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of “third-party voter registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate and/or are preempted by the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq.; (iii) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of” third-party voter
52

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 53 of 54
registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973;
(iv) grant appropriate preliminary and permanent equitable relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing these provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575, Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions;
(v) grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-9(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and
(vii) grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and equitable. Dated: December 15, 2011
COFFEY BURLINGTON _/s/ Kendall Coffey______________ Kendall Coffey Florida Bar No. 259861 Abigail Parent Florida Bar No. 72284 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133-5408 Tel. 305-858-2900 Fax 305-858-5261
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
Robert A. Atkins* William J. Taylor, Jr.* 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 Tel. 212-373-3000 Fax 212-757-3990
53

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 54 of 54
Alex Young K. Oh* Zachary A. Dietert* 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Tel. 202-223-7300 Fax 202-223-7420 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Wendy R. Weiser* Diana Kasdan* Lee Rowland* Mimi Murray Digby Marziani* 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, New York 10013-1205 Tel. 646-292-8310 Fax 212-463-7308 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. Randall C. Marshall Florida Bar No. 181765 Julie Ebenstein Florida Bar No. 91033 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, Florida 33137-3227 Tel. 786-363-2700 Fax 786-363-1108 Counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice application to be filed
54

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 1 of 54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, and ROCK THE VOTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KURT S. BROWNING, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, and GISELA SALAS, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:11-CV-628-RH/WCS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Coffey Burlington, for their complaint against Defendants allege as follows:
Nature of the Action 1. Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent enforcement of a new Florida law— 2011 Fla. Laws 40 § 4 and its implementing regulations (collectively, the “Law”)—that unconstitutionally and unlawfully burdens their efforts, and the efforts of other individuals and community-based groups, to encourage civic engagement and democratic participation by assisting Florida citizens in registering to vote and exercising their fundamental right to vote.

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 54
2. Though it has been effective for only a few months, the onerous burdens of the Law are already clear. Plaintiffs, whose public service missions revolve around increasing voter participation, have ceased or significantly curtailed their registration activities throughout the State out of fear that they will be unable to comply with the Law’s requirements and thus be subject to fines, crippling civil and criminal penalties, and devastating reputational harm.
3. The legislative record reveals that the Law—which is the third such restrictive legislative measure passed by the State in six years—was enacted with the express purpose of making it difficult for citizens to exercise their right to vote. Senator Michael Bennett, President Pro Tempore of the Florida Senate and one of the most vocal supporters of the Law, stated: “I want the people in the State of Florida to want to vote as badly as that person in Africa who is willing to walk 200 miles for that opportunity he’s never had before in his life. This should not be easy.” 2011 Fla. Senate Deb., Reg. Sess., at 38:35 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Bennett). By severely curtailing the voter registration efforts of Plaintiffs and others, the Law will profoundly depress, and perhaps eliminate, voter registration activity by organizations like Plaintiffs that seek to increase civic participation by all Floridians.
4. Among other things, the Law improperly requires all “third-party voter registration organizations”—broadly defined as “any person, entity, or organization” that “solict[s] or collect[s] voter registration applications,” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37)—to (i) to pre-register with the State and satisfy cumbersome disclosure requirements “[b]efore engaging in any voter registration activities” and to continually submit electronic updates
2

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 3 of 54
about their organizational status, including any changes to their volunteer base; (ii) track, inventory, and report every voter registration form they handle on a monthly basis regardless of whether that form is distributed or completed; (iii) deliver to State election officials all completed voter registration forms within an arbitrarily narrow and vague 48hour window; (iv) submit all mandated forms electronically, without regard for the limited resources of many community-based voter registration groups; and (v) incur potentially strict liability for fines ranging from $50 to $1,000 for the untimely delivery of any completed voter registration applications, be subject to undefined and potentially limitless civil penalties for any violations of the Law, and face criminal misdemeanor liability for any violation of the Law for which a penalty is not otherwise provided. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575 (emphasis added); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042; see Fla. Stat. § 104.41 (criminal penalties).
5. Unless the Law is enjoined, Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected political speech and activity will continue to be chilled. Plaintiffs, as well as many other individuals and groups, will be forced to communicate fewer civic and nonpartisan political messages and to refrain from engaging in associational activity important to advancing their missions and beliefs. The public will receive less information about how to participate in the democratic process and will have fewer opportunities to associate with Plaintiffs in meaningful civic activities.
6. Unless the Law is enjoined, it will also continue to violate the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. (the “NVRA”). The onerous new requirements that the Law imposes on community-based voter registration
3

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 4 of 54
groups are plainly inconsistent with the NVRA’s text, its structure, and its overriding purpose to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections” and “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters.” Id. § 1973gg(b).
7. Furthermore, absent an injunction, thousands of Florida citizens will not be registered to vote in the upcoming elections. In violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Voting Rights Act”), the Law will particularly and disproportionately harm members of minority communities, who regularly rely on Plaintiffs and similar community-based groups to help them overcome barriers to registering to vote and participating in the democratic process. The Law will likewise cause disparate harm to senior citizens, students, people with disabilities, and members of rural and low-income communities.
8. In 2004, before Florida began restricting community-based voter registration drives, Florida ranked 33rd in the nation in voter registration rates, with 71.7% of voting age citizens registered. In 2010, after the State imposed successive restrictions on community-based voter registration activity, Florida dropped to 38th in the nation in voter registration rates, with only 63% of voting age citizens registered. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2004-2010). The Law can only exacerbate this downward trend.
9. No legitimate state interest justifies the extreme cumulative burdens imposed by the Law. The Florida Legislature presented no evidence or other findings that voter registration fraud occurs in Florida in any meaningful magnitude; that the preexisting, three-year-old law regulating community-based voter registration activity,
4

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 5 of 54
coupled with criminal provisions forbidding registration fraud, has been inadequate; or that community-based voter registration groups have either hoarded voter registration forms or otherwise failed to promptly submit forms to election officials under the prior law.
10. For these reasons, and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Law, and permitting Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected community-based voter registration activities to continue.
Jurisdiction and Venue 11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4), 2201, and 2202, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12. Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), on the grounds that Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred, and will continue to occur, in this district.
Parties Plaintiffs 13. Plaintiffs are private, nonpartisan groups who seek to encourage widespread civic participation. Plaintiffs wish to engage in voter registration activities because registering to vote is a necessary precursor to the most important type of democratic activity—voting. Plaintiffs see their voter registration efforts as a uniquely effective way to communicate civic messages important to Plaintiffs’ organizational
5

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 6 of 54
missions and to their individual members, and to associate with fellow citizens to advance shared beliefs.
League of Women Voters of Florida 14. Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Florida (“LWVF” or the “League”) is the Florida affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “national League”). LWVF is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, and a tax-exempt entity pursuant to sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its mission is to promote civic engagement by encouraging the informed and active participation of citizens in government, including by registering citizens to vote and influencing public policy through education and advocacy. LWVF has approximately 2,800 current dues-paying members in Florida, and a list of about 9,000 members, supporters, and volunteers, who receive regular communications from the League. 15. The national League has conducted voter registration nationwide since 1920, and LWVF has conducted voter registration in Florida since before 1939. LWVF conducts voter registration drives through the auspices of its 29 local Leagues of Women Voters (“local Leagues”), which are located in cities and counties throughout Florida, including Tallahassee. Local Leagues and individual League members also engage in voter registration activities on their own initiative, without assistance from LWVF, collecting and submitting forms on their own. 16. LWVF has imposed a moratorium on voter registration activities because the League, its members, and its volunteers fear that they will be unable to fully comply
6

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 7 of 54
with the Law’s myriad requirements and cannot afford to risk incurring large fines or enduring the reputational harms that would result from even an innocent violation. LWVF intends for this moratorium to last until the Law is enjoined or limited in such a way as to substantially reduce the organizational and financial risk to the League, its members, and its volunteers.
Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund 17. Plaintiff Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund (“FL PIRG”) is an affiliate of the national Public Interest Research Group. FL PIRG is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, and a taxexempt charity pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its mission is to represent the public interest in the face of special interests and to ensure equal access to the political process for all. Registering voters is a key aspect of that mission. FL PIRG’s sister organization, the 501(c)(4) Florida Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, has approximately 6,000 members in Florida, and an e-mail list of 10,455 people who regularly receive communications about FL PIRG’s work, mission, and possible volunteer opportunities. 18. FL PIRG has existed in Florida for approximately 25 years, and it has been registering voters for over 20 years. Since the 2004 election cycle, FL PIRG has registered approximately 23,000 Florida citizens to vote. FL PIRG focuses its voter registration efforts on student populations within Florida, mostly between the ages of 18 and 22. Almost one half of the students that FL PIRG registered in 2010 were non-white.
7

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 8 of 54
19. FL PIRG hires campus organizers, who are often recent college graduates, to plan and organize voter registration drives at college campuses around the country. The organization conducts national training sessions for campus organizers, who, in turn, train students and other volunteers. Often these volunteers are recruited on the day of registration events. FL PIRG also conducts door-to-door registration activities.
20. FL PIRG believes that, because the Law increases administrative burdens on registered groups and requires dramatically faster form turnaround, it makes voter registration drives more costly. FL PIRG will require more funding and more staff to ensure successful voter registration efforts. The organization will have to spend proportionately less money, time, and resources on voter registration and more on ensuring compliance with the Law’s complex and confusing requirements.
Rock the Vote 21. Plaintiff Rock the Vote (“RTV”) is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit national organization, and it is a tax-exempt charity pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its fundamental mission is to engage and build political power for young people in our country by increasing voter registration rates and voter turnout among younger voters. Critical to that mission are the organization’s efforts to register young people to vote and to encourage them to vote on election days. RTV has approximately 1.5 million members in its national database, and approximately 82,000 members in Florida. 22. RTV began its first field campaign to push young Americans to register to vote in 1992. Since that time, RTV has registered more young people to vote than any
8

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 9 of 54
other organization. Nationwide, RTV helped approximately 2 million people complete voter registration applications in 2008 and approximately 300,000 in 2010.
23. RTV typically registers citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 29, and it reaches this population through a variety of methods. RTV makes voter registration forms and instructions available on its website, and it also conducts in-person registration drives staffed by volunteers at college campuses and in other locations. In addition, it has developed a “Democracy Class” curriculum that local educators use to teach high school students about the importance of civic engagement. Through this program, RTV partners with high school teachers and instructs them regarding the collection of voter registration applications from their students.
24. RTV has ceased all of its in-person voter registration activity in Florida, including its Democracy Class program, because it lacks the resources and personnel to comply with the Law’s numerous requirements and restrictions.
Defendants 25. Defendants are authorized and required by Florida law to interpret and enforce the challenged Law. 26. Defendant Kurt S. Browning is the Secretary of State for the State of Florida. He is Florida’s chief election officer. Fla. Stat. § 97.012. His responsibilities include “[o]btain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws” and “[p]rovid[ing] uniform standards for the proper and equitable implementation of the registration laws.” Id. As such, Secretary Browning, among other things, must coordinate the State’s responsibilities under the
9

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 10 of 54
NVRA and ensure that all voter registration applications and forms prescribed or approved by the Florida Division of Elections are in compliance with the NVRA and the Voting Rights Act. Id.
27. Defendant Pamela J. Bondi is the Attorney General for the State of Florida. The Law expressly grants her the power to civilly enforce its provisions upon the recommendation of Secretary Browning. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). She is also required to “appear in and attend to” all criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State, which would necessarily include any criminal prosecutions for a violation of the Law. See id. § 16.01(4).
28. Defendant Gisela Salas is the Director of the Division of Elections of the Florida Department of State. The Law requires the Division of Elections to adopt forms and rules to carry out its requirements, id. § 97.0575(5), which the Division has already done, see Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042.
Voter Registration Activities in Florida 29. Voter registration in Florida is conducted in a variety of ways, including by government agencies and officials, individual citizens, and community-based groups. Federal and state law require Florida election officials to provide voter registration applications by mail and at the following locations: Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle offices, armed forces recruitment offices, qualifying educational institutions, public assistance offices, public libraries, agencies that serve persons with disabilities, centers for independent living, and supervisors of elections’ offices. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5; Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(41), 97.052(1)(b).
10

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 11 of 54
30. According to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, approximately 7,994,000 Florida citizens were registered to vote as of November 2010, out of a citizen voting age population (“CVAP”) of 12,697,000. Overall, 63% of the CVAP in Florida were registered as of November 2010, down from 70.4% in November 2008. White citizens are registered at a higher rate than black and Hispanic citizens: The rates were 64.7% for whites, 61.4% for blacks, and 59% for Hispanics.
Voter Registration Drives and Political Speech and Association 31. For years, Plaintiffs have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration efforts in order to expand the franchise and promote civic participation generally. Plaintiffs have found the voter registration process to be a uniquely effective way to communicate nonpartisan political messages and encourage fellow citizens to participate in the political process. 32. While registering voters, Plaintiffs inevitably engage in interactive, oneon-one conversations with fellow citizens. They will, for example, (i) generally discuss the importance of voting and of civic engagement; (ii) inform other citizens about important issues that will be decided in upcoming elections, such as ballot initiatives and referenda; and (ii) urge other citizens to associate with Plaintiffs and with one another by registering to vote and engaging in meaningful collective action to advance shared political or social objectives. 33. The collective action that Plaintiffs promote through voter registration and related activities takes a variety of forms, each of which is protected by the First
11

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 12 of 54
Amendment. It includes citizens joining together to register to vote and cast ballots for candidates based on those candidates’ support for certain issues. It also includes citizens joining together to register to vote and sign ballot initiative petitions in support of a state constitutional amendment (which only registered voters may do under Florida law), see Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.0091(2)(a), and to then vote for the amendment. Finally, it includes citizens joining together to register to vote and then contacting elected officials in an effort to convince them to support certain policies.
34. Each year, in order to advance these First Amendment objectives, Plaintiffs encourage and assist thousands of Florida citizens to register to vote for the first time or update an existing voter registration. They do so largely through one-on-one interactions with potential voters in diverse communities across the State, both in person and over the Internet. When Plaintiffs speak with potential voters, these conversations take place at community events, places of worship, workplaces, schools, malls, bus stops, and other places where citizens congregate. They also occur on citizens’ front porches and in their living rooms, when Plaintiffs and others like them organize members, volunteers, and employees to go door-to-door to register voters in residential communities.
35. Plaintiffs’ success in registering new voters depends not only on their ability to persuade others of the importance of registering to vote. It also depends on their ability to assist others to fill in forms properly, to collect the forms, and to deliver completed forms to the appropriate State offices; in some cases, Plaintiffs also follow up to ensure that the State properly adds the new voters to the rolls. Merely distributing
12

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 13 of 54
registration forms is insufficient to ensure the success of a voter registration drive. Without Plaintiffs’ assistance and encouragement, citizens would be far less likely to complete the forms properly, deliver them to a supervisor of elections, and actually vote. Community-Based Registration Groups Register Significant Numbers of Florida Voters
36. Community-based voter registration drives register significant numbers of citizens to vote in Florida. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, as of the November 2010 election, 585,004 Florida citizens, representing 7.3% of all registered voters, had been registered to vote through such third-party drives in Florida. Those numbers are higher for certain communities: as of 2010 in Florida, 16.2% of African-American registered voters and 15.5% of Hispanic registered voters in Florida were registered through drives, compared to only 8.6% of non-Hispanic white registered voters. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2010).
37. Florida citizens who live in predominantly low-income communities rely more heavily on Plaintiffs’ voter registration activities than do members of more affluent communities. In Florida, 13% of registered voters in the November 2010 election with annual incomes of less than $10,000 registered to vote through third-party drives, compared to only 6% of those with annual incomes of more than $100,000. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2010). Nationwide, 7.7% of those with annual incomes less than $10,000 registered to vote as of November 2010 through third-party drives, compared to only 4% of those with annual incomes over $100,000. Id.
38. This disparity arises, in part, because low-income citizens change addresses more frequently, visit state motor vehicle offices less frequently (where many
13

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 14 of 54
other Florida citizens register to vote), have lower literacy rates, less Internet access, and are more dependent on public transportation, which makes it more difficult to travel to register at a local supervisor of elections’ office. See, e.g., Andrew M. Fleischmann, Protecting Poor People’s Right to Vote: Fully Implementing Public Assistance Provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, NAT’L CIVIC REV., Fall 2004, at 66.
39. Plaintiffs’ efforts to register these and other voters are consistent with the purposes and goals of the NVRA, which was enacted by Congress to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1).
40. Plaintiffs’ efforts are also consistent with the Florida Voter Registration Act. See Fla. Stat. § 97.052(1)(b)(2) (requiring Department of State to distribute copies of voter registration applications to “[i]ndividuals or groups conducting voter registration programs”); id. § 97.053(1) (requiring certain State offices to accept voter registration applications delivered by “a third party during the hours that office is open or when mailed”).
41. The overall number of registration forms received in Florida has steadily declined since restrictions were placed on community-based registration activities. From 2000 to 2004, Florida received over 8.6 million voter registration forms. From 2006 to 2010, after restrictions on community-based registration efforts were implemented, the total number of voter registration forms received dropped to just under 3 million. Id.
42. Plaintiffs’ prior voter registration efforts, along with similar efforts by other individuals and private groups, have resulted in significant numbers of Floridians
14

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 15 of 54
registering to vote and a strengthening of the State’s and the nation’s democracy. But Plaintiffs’ and others’ ability to continue this success has already been weakened by the existing restrictions placed upon community-based voter registration groups by Florida law, and the declining voter registration rates in Florida are now likely to fall even more precipitously if the Law’s new, and much more onerous, restrictions are allowed to stay in place.
Enactment of the Challenged Law 43. The Law, 2011 Fla. Laws 40 § 4 (codified at Fla. Stat. § 95.0575), is an amended version of two prior laws—2005 Fla. Laws 277 § 7 and 2007 Fla. Laws 30 § 2—which LWVF and others previously challenged in federal court. It went into effect on May 19, 2011, when an omnibus bill on voting, H.B. 1355, was signed by Governor Scott. On that same day, Secretary Browning issued Directive 2011-01, which directed all county supervisors of elections to immediately implement this statute. 44. The very next day, May 20, 2011, the Florida Division of Election issued an Emergency Rule implementing the provisions of the statute’s new registration, reporting, and tracking requirements on a temporary basis, until the State’s normal rulemaking process could be completed. See 37 Fla. Admin. Wkly. 1477, 1492–94 (June 3, 2011). The Emergency Rule also published the official forms that the statute and rules require organizations to submit, including: Form DS-DE 119 (Registration Form), Form DS-DE 120 (Registration Agent’s Sworn Statement), and Form DS-DE 123 (Accounting of Voter Registration Applications). Id.
15

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 16 of 54
45. After the regular rulemaking process, including the notice-and-comment period, was completed, the final Rule (1S-2.042) governing implementation and administration of the Law went into effect on November 2, 2011, in much the same form as the Emergency Rule. See Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042.
Relevant Provisions of the Challenged Law 46. The Law adds several severe new burdens to the organized voter registration activities engaged in by Plaintiffs and similar groups, including most notably:  The Law requires every “third-party voter registration organization,” including Plaintiffs, to register formally with the State prior to engaging in any voter registration activities. It requires each of the organization’s “affiliate organization[s]” to file a separate pre-registration form with the State as well. It also requires all volunteers and employees of these organizations, called “registration agents” in the Law, to publicly register as agents of the organizations that they represent and sign a sworn affidavit that warns of the criminal punishments for “false registration.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(c). These pre-registration requirements will make it significantly harder to conduct voter registration, and will severely chill the volunteerism that is essential for Plaintiffs’ activities.  The Law requires State officials to affix a unique “identification number” to all voter registration applications that they provide to voter registration groups, Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(b), 4(a), which not only creates a potentially floating liability for applications not kept within the organization’s
16

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 17 of 54
immediate control, but also publicly discloses which organization assisted each voter with registering.  The Law mandates that each organization has an ongoing duty to update its registration form every time there is any change to its previously submitted information. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e). If a registered organization adds a new “registration agent,” that agent must sign a sworn statement affirming that the agent will obey all state laws regarding voter registration before engaging in any voter registration activity. Id. R. 1S2.042(3)(c). The organization must then submit each sworn statement, along with the organization’s own updated registration form, within 10 days. Id. Every time a registered organization “terminate[s]” its relationship with any member or volunteer listed as a “registration agent,” it must promptly notify the Division of Elections. Id. R. 1S-2.042(6)(b). These requirements are not only burdensome, they interfere with Plaintiffs’ relationships with members and supporters.  The Law requires each organization to track all voter registration applications that it provides to its “registration agents,” and it further requires these groups to submit monthly reports detailing the number of applications provided to and received from its “registration agents,” even when the organization neither provides nor receives any applications. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5). This is a significant and unnecessary burden that will divert scarce organizational resources that would
17

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 18 of 54
otherwise be spent registering voters, checking applications for accuracy and completeness, and following up with voters.  The Law requires organizations to turn in each voter registration application, either in person or by mail, “within 48 hours after the applicant completes it,” and late delivery can result in up to a $1,000 fine. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Fines may be assessed even where delay is due to events outside the organizations’ control, such as “force majeure or impossibility of performance,” or an “unclear” postmark. Id. § 97.0575(3)(b); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). The operation of this delivery requirement is both vague and arbitrarily strict, and the potential for large fines against organizations like Plaintiffs would entail devastating financial and reputational damage.  The Law requires organizations to submit all mandated forms—including pre-registration forms (Form DS-DE 119), sworn statement forms (Form DS-DE 120), and monthly tracking forms (Form DS-DE 123)—electronically, either as PDF attachments to e-mails or via facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(f). This requirement imposes an unlawful discriminatory burden on those, like Plaintiffs’ volunteers and members, who do not have access to such resources.  The Law grants sweeping and undefined enforcement powers to the Attorney General to institute any “action for relief” for a violation of the Law, which can include injunction, criminal prosecution, or “any other appropriate order.” See Fla. Stat. §§ 97.0575(4), 104.41.
18

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 19 of 54
47. The Law regulates an almost unlimited range of community-based voter registration activity by broadly defining a “third-party voter registration organization,” to include “any person, entity, or organization” that is “soliciting or collecting voter registration applications.” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37) (emphasis added). The applicable regulations further define “[e]ngaging in any voter registration activities” to mean “soliciting for collection or collecting” registration forms. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S2.042(2)(b). Through this sweeping ambit, the Law chills Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected registration activities and penalizes and burdens their political speech and association.
48. The only exceptions to the Law’s expansive scope are: (i) a limited “family members” exception, which excludes the situation where “[a] person . . . seeks only to register to vote or collect voter registration applications from that person’s spouse, child, or parent,” Fla. Stat. § 97.021(37)(a), and (ii) an exception for State or county employees or agents, including employees of the Division of Elections, “engaged in registering to vote or collecting voter registration applications” as part of their official duties, id. § 97.021(37)(b).
49. The Law’s requirements, both individually and in combination, burden Plaintiffs’ protected rights of speech and association in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The vagueness of its terms and the arbitrary enforcement that those terms permit violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and amplify the Law’s chilling impact on First Amendment rights. The Law also stands as an obstacle to the NVRA’s purpose of increasing voter registration and is inconsistent with
19

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 20 of 54
several of the NVRA’s specific mandates. Additionally, because of its disproportionate impact on minority communities, the Law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
50. Every “third-party voter registration organization” must abide by the Law’s mandates detailed below.
Pre-registration, Registration Agent, and Disclosure 51. First, every “third-party voter registration organization” must register with the Division of Elections before “engaging in any voter registration activities.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1). 52. Specifically, to abide by the Law’s pre-registration requirements, each “third-party voter registration organization” must submit a pre-registration form, Form DS-DE 119, setting forth: (a) the name and permanent address of the “third-party voter registration organization”; (b) the names and addresses of each officer of the organization; (c) the name and address of a registered agent in the State; and (d) the names and permanent and temporary addresses of each and every individual, including both paid employees and volunteers, who will conduct voter registration on behalf of or in association with the organization (deemed “registration agents” by the regulations). Id.; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a). The form must be submitted electronically. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a). 53. This form, DS-DE-119, must be submitted not only by the third-party organization, but by each of its “affiliate organization[s]” that engages in voter registration activity. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a). The Law defines “affiliate organization” broadly to include “any person . . . associated with the third-party
20

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 21 of 54
voter registration organization as a subordinate, subsidiary, member, branch, chapter, as a central or parent organization, or through direct or indirect ownership or control.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(2)(a).
54. Each “third-party voter registration organization” must also submit a sworn statement from each “registration agent” in which the individual affirms that he or she “will obey all state laws and rules regarding the registration of voters.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d). The statement must be made on the State’s Form DS-DE 120, which lists the felony penalties for “false registration,” though the specifics of what constitutes that crime are undefined on the form. Id.; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(b).
55. Even after an organization submits its registration form, it is not deemed properly registered until the Division assigns it “a unique third-party voter registration organization identification number that begins with ‘3P.’” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S2.042(3)(b). An organization cannot lawfully engage in voter registration activities before receiving this identifier. Id.
56. Under the applicable regulations, each voter registration form provided by the State to an organization must include that organization’s unique identifier. Id. R. 1S2.042(4)(a).
57. After it is registered, an organization has an ongoing duty to update its registration form whenever there is any change to the previously submitted information. Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e), 6(a)–(b). Updated registration forms must be filed with the Division of Elections “within 10 days following the change.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e).
21

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 22 of 54
58. If a registered organization adds a new “registration agent,” the new agent must “complete, sign, and date” a Form DS-DE 120, affirming that the agent understands and will obey all state laws and rules regarding voter registration “before beginning his or her duties for the organization.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(c). In other words, the new agent need not wait until the sworn-statement form is actually filed with the Division before beginning his or her voter registration activities. Id. Thereafter, however, the organization must submit that registration agent’s sworn statement, along with the organization’s own updated registration form reflecting this change, within 10 days. Id.
59. If a registered organization “terminate[s]” its relationship with any of its registration agents, it must file notice of this change by e-mail or facsimile, or on an updated Form DS-DE-119, within 10 days. Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(e), (6)(b). The regulations do not define when a volunteer’s services are “terminated.”
60. Once filed with the Division of Elections, both the registration form (Form DS-DE 119) and the sworn-statement form (Form DS-DE 120) become public records. See id. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a)-(b).
Tracking and Reporting Requirements 61. Second, the Law also requires “third-party voter registration organizations” to track every voter registration form “provided to and received from” any of its registration agents, even if the form is never completed by a registrant, and to report to the Division of Elections every month, even if the group had no registration activity in that month. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5); Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5).
22

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 23 of 54
62. Specifically, under the applicable regulations, “[b]y the 10th day of each month, each organization shall submit to the Division a Form DS-DE 123 to account for the number of state and federal voter registration application forms provided to and received from each of its registration agents for the preceding month.” Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5)(a). The Law does not define the term “provided to,” and, in particular, does not specify whether organizations must report each form that is obtained by agents even if the form is not formally “provided” by the registered organization itself.
63. This tracking and reporting requirement applies even “[i]f the organization had no voter registration activity in the preceding month,” in which case the “third-party voter registration organization” must submit a report “reflecting that it did not provide voter registration applications to, or receive any from, its registration agents.” Id.
64. The Form DS-DE 123 adopted by the Division of Elections is excessive, intrusive, and burdensome. By its terms, each registered organization must inform the Division by the tenth day of every month of: (a) the number of voter registration forms that were provided to the organization’s registration agents in the preceding month; (b) the number of blank voter registration forms that it received from its agents; and (c) the number of non-blank voter registration forms that it received from its agents. Id. R. 1S2.042(1)(d). The organization must separately provide this information as to state application forms and federal application forms. Id. And, if the organization “did not provide to, or receive from, a registration agent any state or federal voter registration applications during the month,” it must note that on the form. Id.
23

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 24 of 54
65. The completed Form DS-DE 123 must also be signed and dated by an authorized person at the organization, and it must contain both the organization’s name and its identifier number. Id. It must be submitted electronically via e-mail or facsimile. Id.; id. R. 1S-2.042(5)(b).
66. Finally, when applicable, a “third-party voter registration organization” must file a final, updated Form DS-DE 123 “no later than 10 days after [the] organization terminates its registration as a third-party voter registration organization.” Id. R. 1S2.042(1)(d), (6)(a).
Delivery Procedures and Deadline 67. Third, the Law requires each “third-party voter registration organization” to “deliver[]” to the Division of Elections or to a supervisor of elections every completed voter registration form it collects “within 48 hours after the applicant completes [the form] or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48-hour period.” Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Delivery “by the organization . . . may be accomplished by inperson delivery or mail.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(4)(d). 68. While the Law does not provide limitations on who is eligible to deliver completed forms on an organization’s behalf, a “factsheet” released by the State indicates that individual registration agents must return all completed forms to their “controlling” organization “for delivery to the applicable Supervisor of Elections or Division.” Florida Division of Elections, Factsheet about Third-Party Voter Registration (2011), available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/TPVRFinalFactSheet.pdf. The factsheet is unclear as to who may collect and submit forms on behalf of the controlling organization, but it
24

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 25 of 54
indicates that status as a registration agent is, at least by itself, inadequate. If an agent fails to return forms to the controlling organization, he or she may seemingly be held personally liable for any applicable fines.
69. For purposes of the Law’s 48-hour deadline, delivery of a voter registration form is measured by “the time the application is actually delivered by the organization by in-person delivery or, if mailed, the date of delivery shall be the date of a clear postmark, if one is present on the mailing envelope.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). With respect to mail delivery, “[i]f a postmark is not present or unclear, the date of delivery to the Division or a supervisor of elections is the actual date of receipt.” Id.
70. The regulations also specify that the “third-party voter registration organization” or one of its agents must “print the date and time that the voter registration applicant completed the application in a conspicuous space on the bottom portion of the reverse side of the voter registration application it collects from a voter registration applicant in a manner that does not obscure any other entry.” Id. R. 1S-2.042(4)(b). The rules further set forth a precise “numerical format” in which each date and time entry must be printed on the completed application form. Id.
71. Failure to comply with the Law’s 48-hour delivery deadline renders an organization strictly liable for fines, which are detailed below (infra ¶¶ 77–79). Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a)–(b).
25

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 26 of 54
72. As an affirmative defense, an organization can assert that it failed to meet the 48-hour deadline due to “force majeure or impossibility of performance.” Id. § 97.0575(3)(b). Upon such a showing, the State “may” waive the fines. Id.
73. The 48-hour delivery deadline for completed voter registration applications, as well as its attendant administrative burdens, did not exist previously. It is a new creation of the Law.
Electronic Submissions 74. Fourth, the Law requires organizations to submit all forms mandated by the Law—including pre-registration forms (Form DS-DE-119), sworn statement forms (Form DS-DE-120), and monthly tracking forms (Form DS-DE-123)—electronically, either as PDF attachments to e-mails or via facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), 3(f). 75. This electronic submissions requirement is also a new creation of the Law.
Fines and Civil and Criminal Penalties 76. Finally, violations of the Law result in the following penalties: (i) strict liability for fines if voter registration forms are not delivered within 48 hours; (ii) undefined civil penalties for any violation of the Law; and (iii) a criminal misdemeanor penalty for any violation of the Law for which a penalty is not otherwise provided. Fla. Stat. §§ 97.0575(3)–(4), 104.41.
Fines for the Untimely Delivery of Registration Applications 77. The Law imposes the following mandatory fines on “third-party voter registration organizations” for completed voter registration forms that are not “promptly” delivered to the Division of Elections or a supervisor of elections:
26

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 27 of 54
 $50 fine per form that is turned in more than 48 hours after it is collected;
 $250 fine per form that is turned in more than 48 hours after it is collected, if the delay is willful;
 $100 fine per form that is collected before the “book closing” deadline but not delivered until after the deadline;
 $500 fine per form that is collected before the “book closing” deadline but not delivered until after the deadline, if the delay is willful;
 $500 per form that is collected but never submitted; and  $1,000 per form that is collected but never submitted, if the
delay is willful. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a).
78. The Law limits the aggregate fine that may be assessed against any single organization, including affiliate organizations, to $1,000 per calendar year. Id.
79. As discussed below, infra ¶¶ 135–40, even with this statutory cap, the imposition of such fines on Plaintiffs and similar grassroots organizations would cause not only potentially crippling financial harm, but also devastating, permanent damage to these organizations’ longstanding and hard-earned reputations as trustworthy and lawabiding public-interest entities.
Undefined Civil Enforcement Powers of the Attorney General 80. The Law also grants unconstitutionally vague enforcement powers to the Florida Attorney General to redress violations of the Law that are referred to her by the Secretary of State or to prevent any such violation. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). 81. The Law sets forth no express limitations as to the Attorney General’s enforcement powers or the civil penalties that may be imposed, providing only that “[a]n
27

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 28 of 54
action for relief may include a permanent or temporary injunction, a restraining order, or any other appropriate order.” Id. (emphasis added).
Criminal Penalties 82. In addition, Florida law makes any violation of the Florida Election Code, which includes the Law, see Fla. Stat. § 97.011, a first-degree misdemeanor unless the Code provides for a different punishment. Id. § 104.41. To the extent the Law specifies punishments for violations of some of its provisions, but not all, officials may invoke this catch-all misdemeanor provision in enforcing the Law. 83. Conviction of such a first-degree misdemeanor can result in a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, id. § 775.082(4)(a), in addition to or in place of a fine, id. § 775.083(1). The fine cannot exceed $1,000. Id. § 775.083(1)(d). 84. The cumulative impact of these numerous onerous requirements and strict penalties imposed by the Law severely burden—to the point of stopping—core components of Plaintiffs’ community-based voter registration activities.
The Law’s Burdensome Impact on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Expression and Association 85. Florida’s challenged voter registration Law and its accompanying regulations significantly impede Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in voter registration activities and thus directly hamper Plaintiffs’ fundamental speech and associational rights, which are inseparable and intertwined aspects of those activities. The Law’s complex rules impose substantial administrative burdens, strict liability, the potential for personal liability, severe penalties, and the risk of heavy reputational harm for failure to perfectly comply with any of its myriad requirements. Moreover, certain portions of the
28

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 29 of 54
Law are vague or confusing, creating legal uncertainties for Plaintiffs. Each individual new burden created by the Law is unlawful in its own right, and when implemented cumulatively, they are particularly crippling and create a severe chill on protected First Amendment activity. As a result, Plaintiffs LWVF and Rock the Vote have ceased their community-based voter registration efforts in the State of Florida. And while Plaintiff FL PIRG currently intends to engage in voter registration activities during the 2012 election cycle, it, too, has been severely burdened by the Law and will necessarily spend less money, time, and resources on voter registration and more on compliance with the onerous requirements of Florida’s new Law.
86. Other grassroots organizations that are similarly situated will likewise lack the resources, expertise, and/or time required to engage in voter registration activities in a manner that is in compliance with the Law.
87. The Law also eliminates the ability of individual Floridians to spontaneously assist fellow citizens with registering to vote, a civic service that many of Plaintiffs’ individual members and volunteers have routinely performed of their own accord.
Pre-registration, Registration Agent, and Disclosure 88. The pre-registration, registration agent, and disclosure provisions of the Law dramatically limit and chill Plaintiffs’ ability to recruit, associate with, and utilize members and volunteers. Each Plaintiff has limited financial resources and only a few paid staff. None can engage in large-scale voter registration activity without relying on
29

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 30 of 54
extensive membership networks and large numbers of casual volunteers. Moreover, voter registration is a key tool for engaging potential new members and volunteers.
89. For all Plaintiffs, recruiting, educating, and working with members and volunteers on voter registration efforts are essential avenues for expressing and demonstrating their shared views on the importance of civic engagement and democratic participation.
90. Under the Law, for Plaintiffs to continue engaging in this form of expression and association, they must complete and submit an onerous registration form to the State and receive an authorizing identification number before they can assist any Floridian with registering to vote.
91. Through its “registration agent” requirements, the Law mandates a new legal relationship between Plaintiffs and their members and volunteers in order for them to work together on voter registration. Every time an organization adds a new agent—or makes any organizational change that would affect its registration information—the organization must file that agent’s sworn statement and an updated registration form for the organization within 10 days. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(1)(a), (3)(c), (3)(e). The organization must also notify the Division of Elections every time it terminates its relationship with any registration agent. Id. R. 1S-2.042(6)(b). All of these submissions must be made electronically, via e-mail or facsimile. Id. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), 3(f), (6)(b).
92. These requirements, individually and collectively, pose a number of problems for Plaintiffs.
30

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 31 of 54
93. First, gathering sworn statements from every “registration agent” poses a massive administrative burden for each of the Plaintiffs.
94. LWVF, for example, has only two paid employees, neither of whom is employed full time. These employees cannot perform all of their current duties and also ensure that the Division of Elections timely receives sworn statements from the group’s hundreds of volunteers throughout the State.
95. RTV had only one paid staff member in the State of Florida at any given time during the 2010 election cycle, and it currently has none. Constantly submitting updated registration forms and sworn statements for its many ad hoc volunteers, many of whom are students, would be an overwhelming burden upon RTV’s limited staff and unpaid volunteers.
96. Second, none of the Plaintiffs previously formalized their relationships with volunteers—instead, they widely encouraged others to join them in advancing their mission. Plaintiffs have no structure for tracking all of the volunteers who assist with voter registration, or for determining when any particular volunteer has “terminated” his or her volunteerism. Requiring them to do so would create confusion, legal uncertainty, and chill volunteers from signing up due to the burdens and hassle associated with doing so. In addition, this type of formalized relationship runs counter to the ideals of inclusiveness and active citizenry that are central to the Plaintiffs’ missions.
97. For instance, LWVF’s volunteer pool is not limited to its dues-paying members or to its supporters; all types of individuals choose to volunteer. While some volunteers have worked with LWVF for years, others only volunteer a few times, and still
31

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 32 of 54
others volunteer just once. LWVF does not require volunteers to sign contracts, specify the beginning and ending dates of their volunteerism, or provide updates to LWVF about their volunteer status. Accordingly, LWVF and the local Leagues have no way of knowing when a volunteer “terminates” his or her volunteerism, and when LWVF therefore, under the Law, must notify the Division of Elections or update their registration form, Form DS-DE 119.
98. Moreover, the notion of forcing volunteers to enter into a formal or contractual relationship is inconsistent with LWVF’s mission and longstanding practice—to create an inclusive environment that facilitates ad hoc volunteerism on an as-needed basis. For LWVF, adhering to the Law’s requirements would necessitate a cultural change likely to alienate former League volunteers and deter future volunteerism.
99. Similarly, while RTV provides prior training to all of its staff and lead volunteers, it often recruits additional volunteers for voter registration drives by sending e-mails or text messages to its local member list, which, in Florida, could reach 82,000 individuals. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for RTV members to show up to volunteer to assist voters to register without scheduling or prior notice. Occasionally, non-members may also show up to volunteer, particularly if they are friends or family members of a scheduled volunteer. These ad hoc volunteers are likely to join RTV’s e-mail list, but may or may not assist with any future voter registration efforts. There is no way to determine when these volunteers cease being “agents” of RTV, and when RTV must notify the Division or update its registration form.
32

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 33 of 54
100. The registration agent requirement poses a particular problem with regard to RTV’s “Democracy Class” program, through which RTV partners with local high school teachers to promote civic education and voter registration. These local teachers would almost certainly be considered RTV’s “registration agents” under the Law, because RTV provides teachers with a civic education toolkit that includes registration forms. But, if a teacher collected voter registration forms during an RTV Democracy Class and then failed to submit these forms within 48 hours, RTV would be held strictly liable. RTV cannot assume such expanded liability.
101. FL PIRG also depends on spontaneous volunteering, and particularly at campus events, it accepts volunteers at any level of commitment. Requiring each volunteer to first fill out and submit a sworn registration agent form and specify the length of his or her commitment is fundamentally at odds with FL PIRG’s inclusive mission.
102. Third, all of the Plaintiffs believe that substantial numbers of their volunteers would be unlikely to sign the sworn statement forms due to the threatening descriptions of felony penalties for false registration.
103. Finally, some of Plaintiffs’ volunteers will be uncomfortable having their names and personal information on file as a public record as an “agent” of the organization.
104. For instance, RTV has been heavily criticized by certain political and news organizations hostile to their activities in past election cycles. Some volunteers will
33

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 34 of 54
be afraid they could be harassed as a result of publicly disclosing their association with RTV.
Tracking and Reporting Requirements 105. Under the Law, all registered “third-party voter registration organizations” must account for every voter registration form that is “provided to and received from each of its registration agents” by submitting monthly reports via e-mail or facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.057(5); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(5). These requirements also directly burden Plaintiffs’ relationships with their volunteers and members and ability to communicate their message of civic participation through a volunteer network. 106. First, these tracking and reporting requirements pose a serious administrative burden upon Plaintiffs, who have massive volunteer networks but limited administrative staff and access to office equipment. 107. For instance, LWVF has 29 local Leagues throughout the State, none of which has any paid staff and only one of which has physical office space. Keeping track of every time one of its countless volunteers requested blank application forms from the State or received completed forms from potential voters is not possible with the League’s current staff and organizational structure. Moreover, LWVF cannot afford for its already overextended two-person staff to spend the time necessary to prepare and submit the requisite monthly reports to the State. 108. Even if it were possible for LWVF to comply with the tracking and reporting requirements, it would divert limited financial resources and staff time from actual voter registration and other important communications and activities. Moreover,
34

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 35 of 54
the magnitude of this monthly task and its recurring nature greatly increase the risk of inadvertent error, which could result in substantial legal, financial, or reputational harm to the League.
109. Second, these tracking and reporting requirements are vague, potentially chilling Plaintiffs from simply providing information to members and volunteers, separate from any registration collection efforts.
110. For instance, it is not clear how the tracking requirements apply to registration forms made available by RTV online. RTV frequently refers its registration agents, teachers, and others to the organization’s online voter registration system, but it does not know whether this constitutes forms that are “provided to” its registration agents.
111. Third, all forms that are pre-marked with a group’s “third-party voter registration organization” identifier expose that group to a greatly expanded threat of liability for forms that are taken or lost before Plaintiffs can even attempt to collect them. This includes every single form obtained from Florida election officials, which must be pre-marked with each group’s “3PVRO” identifier. See Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(2); Fla. Admin Code. R. 1S-2.042(4)(a). This is a very real threat to Plaintiffs, who conduct large-scale voter registration drives on college campuses and other busy public places where a potential registrant might suddenly leave with a pre-marked form. If that form is then submitted past the 48-hour deadline, Plaintiffs, it would appear, are held strictly liable.
35

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 36 of 54
112. For example, despite Plaintiffs’ volunteers’ best efforts to prevent it, potential registrants sometimes start to fill out their forms in person but then leave quickly with blank or partially completed forms. In this circumstance, it appears that Plaintiffs may be held strictly liable for any pre-marked forms submitted after the 48hour deadline, even though they had no ability to control the forms’ submission.
113. FL PIRG’s practice has always been to obtain voter registration forms from county supervisors’ offices at its campus drives, and under the Law these new forms would have to be stamped with FL PIRG’s identifying number. FL PIRG routinely interacts with potential registrants who take a blank form or begin completing a form and then take it with them before completing it. This is common at campus events, especially when students are on their way to class. FL PIRG encourages the broadest possible dissemination of voter registration forms, and does not ever stop individuals from taking forms. This means that under FL PIRG’s practices, any completed form pre-marked with the organization’s number and taken from a FL PIRG table during any event could lead to strict liability fines even if FL PIRG never handled it.
114. Finally, requiring that all completed forms include an organization’s “third-party voter registration organization” identifier will undoubtedly deter some potential voters from registering with organizations like Plaintiffs.
Delivery Procedures and Deadline 115. Under the Law, Plaintiffs must submit every completed registration application to the State within 48 hours of completion. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). Failure
36

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 37 of 54
to do so results in automatic fines and subjects Plaintiffs to the risk of a civil enforcement action. Id. § 97.0575(3)–(4).
116. Moreover, at least one document issued by the State suggests that completed forms must be submitted by the registered entity, rather than by individual registration agents. See Florida Division of Elections, Factsheet about Third-Party Voter Registration (2011), available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/TPVRFinalFactSheet.pdf.
117. This tight deadline, combined with strict liability for all late submissions and possible limitations on who can submit completed forms on behalf of an organization, is extremely burdensome for Plaintiffs for a number of reasons.
118. First, if registration agents are indeed barred from submitting completed forms directly, and if completed forms must first be collected by Plaintiffs from their volunteers and then submitted directly by Plaintiffs to the State, this would impose an effectively insurmountable barrier to their registration efforts. Plaintiffs each conduct registration activities through a wholly decentralized volunteer force. For instance, LWVF has limited staff and resources and is wholly dependent upon its 29 local Leagues to organize and conduct voter registration throughout the State. FL PIRG is similar: It has one office and one staff member and depends upon student volunteers across Florida to spearhead its efforts. RTV does not even have a physical headquarters in Florida; it operates remotely and relies upon partnerships with students, teachers and other volunteers to effectuate its mission. With their existing structures, it would not be
37

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 38 of 54
possible for Plaintiffs to collect every completed registration form from every one of its agents and then submit these forms to the State within 48 hours.
119. Second, even assuming that individual agents would be allowed to submit completed forms on Plaintiffs’ behalf, it would still be virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to continue with their traditional model of voter registration under the constraint of a 48hour deadline. If they continued to conduct voter registration activity, as they have in the past, Plaintiffs would be at severe risk of financial penalties and reputational damage for noncompliance.
120. Indeed, LWVF’s decentralized volunteers could easily miss deadlines required by the Law through no fault of their own, and without jeopardizing the forms in any way. For instance, LWVF volunteers in charge of a registration event may work full time and may not have time to take the forms to the LWVF office or to an election supervisor immediately after an event. Given the tight deadline, every short delay—due to traffic, weather, ill health, an unexpected family emergency, or countless other contingencies—could lead to automatic fines. Some volunteers may be elderly or lack a car, and need assistance in submitting forms. According to the public statements of several County Supervisors of Elections, a delay of even a minute could cause them to report an organization’s delinquency to the Secretary of State.
121. In RTV’s extensive experience, it usually takes two to five days for RTV to review and submit completed voter registration forms. For instance, many volunteers are students who do not have cars, and college campuses—where RTV’s tabling events are generally held—are typically not close to county offices (and certainly outside of
38

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 39 of 54
walking distance). In such a circumstance, it would be near impossible for lead volunteers or RTV staff to get completed forms from other volunteers, check them for accuracy and completeness, and submit them within 48 hours.
122. FL PIRG strives to turn all completed forms in to elections officials within two days; however, particularly during peak registration times or multi-day drives, it cannot routinely turn in all forms within 48 hours of receipt. Doing so would drain critical resources from FL PIRG’s organizers, as they would have to spend much more time in transit and attending to administrative responsibilities, rather than registering others to vote.
123. Third, even attempting to meet the Law’s strict deadline would force Plaintiffs to drastically change longstanding practices and curtail the quality and quantity of their voter registration efforts. This will further reduce the effectiveness of Plaintiffs’ efforts to communicate to members, volunteers, and the public their message of civic engagement and democratic participation.
124. For instance, under the Law, LWVF could no longer engage in multi-day registration drives. These drives have historically been an important part of LWVF’s voter registration program, and thus central to communicating and advancing LWVF’s mission of facilitating widespread civic participation.
125. The 48-hour deadline, combined with the Law’s other burdens and strict penalties, would also prevent RTV from incorporating voter registration into its Democracy Class program. But, without the voter registration component, Democracy
39

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 40 of 54
Class would be significantly less effective in communicating and advancing RTV’s mission of getting young people involved in the political process.
126. Fourth, the Law’s strict deadline severely curtails Plaintiffs’ opportunities to review completed forms to ensure their accuracy and completeness, and to follow up with registrants before submitting them if necessary.
127. For example, to the extent LWVF would be able to comply with the 48hour requirement, compliance would prevent LWVF from following its standard procedures for ensuring that information is not missing from forms, because League volunteers would be in such a rush to submit the forms within 48 hours.
128. To comply with the deadline, RTV would likely have to forgo collecting contact information from registrants and engaging in follow-up communication. This would preclude RTV from following up with registrants if there was any problem with the forms, and make it impossible for RTV to remind registrants to vote or to otherwise communicate with them.
129. Fifth, although the regulations allow forms to be postmarked by the submission deadline rather than submitted in person, “[i]f a postmark is not present or unclear, the date of delivery to the Division or a supervisor of elections is the actual date of receipt.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042(7)(a). Thus, every mail-in form forces Plaintiffs and their volunteers to accept the risk of a late submission as a result of an unclear or undated postmark—through no fault of their own.
40

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 41 of 54
130. Finally, the Law, as interpreted through its implementing regulations, is confusing and ambiguous, creating uncertainty as to when forms would actually be due in many situations.
131. Because of the confusing and unclear language and interaction of the Law and implementing regulations, none of the Plaintiffs understands how the timing requirements would operate in practice.
Electronic Submissions 132. The burdens imposed by the Law are further exacerbated by its requirement that all mandated forms be submitted electronically by e-mail or facsimile. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1); Fla. Admin Code. R. 1S-2.042(3)(a), (3)(f), (5)(b), (6)(c). This requirement places a disparate burden upon Plaintiffs’ staff and volunteers who do not have readily available access to a computer, scanner, or fax machine. 133. For example, for Plaintiff LWVF, only one of the local Leagues has a physical office, meaning that the vast majority of its volunteers must rely on their own office equipment. Many of LWVF’s members and volunteers are retirees who are not comfortable using scanners or computers and who do not have access to business equipment such as fax machines. 134. Similarly, RTV does not provide state-based staff members with office equipment such as printers, fax machines, or scanners. Instead, state-based staff purchase such services, as needed, at office supply and service centers. Electronically submitting all relevant paperwork pertaining to the organization’s large number of Florida-based
41

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 42 of 54
volunteers and the tens of thousands of voters they registered in the State would be very difficult, costly, and time-consuming for the organization.
Fines and Civil and Criminal Penalties 135. The fines and penalties imposed by the Law threaten Plaintiffs and their individual volunteers with substantial monetary liability, reputational damage, other unspecified civil penalties, and potential criminal punishment. These risks have chilled voter registration activities by Plaintiffs and by individual volunteers. 136. The Law’s strict fines are multiplied by each individual voter registration application that is not submitted within the requisite 48-hour period. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a). While the Law’s fines are capped at a total of $1,000 annually, id., for non-profit groups like Plaintiffs this is a substantial amount of money. 137. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ volunteers, many of whom are senior citizens or students on limited budgets, may be deemed separate “third-party voter registration organizations” under the Law and thus separately liable, such an amount could be devastating. See League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (interpreting prior version of law to impose joint and several liability for late submission of forms upon individuals as well as their affiliated organizations). For example, the Tallahassee League, like all local Leagues, has no staff and is composed entirely of volunteers. Its annual income is approximately $5,000, derived mostly from member dues. It uses these funds to pay its membership fees to LWVF and the national League, and with what little is left, to print and mail voter
42

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 43 of 54
information brochures that describe local, state, and national issues. A fine of $1,000 would completely drain that group’s resources.
138. The Law additionally provides that if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that a person has committed a violation of the Law, he may refer the matter to the Attorney General to bring an action for enforcement. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(4). The penalties under this provision are wholly undefined, except that the Law specifies that the Attorney General may seek a permanent or temporary injunction to prevent a future violation, as well as “any other appropriate order.” Id. Defending such an action would certainly involve substantial legal costs and reputational damage to Plaintiffs, in addition to whatever remedies the Attorney General may seek to obtain—all harms that make assisting in voter registration a risky activity in Florida.
139. For instance, LWVF has an annual budget of roughly $99,000, which it uses in full to pay its operating expenses. The League would have great difficulty paying for the legal representation necessary to defend itself were the Attorney General to bring an action against it.
140. Equally problematic is the threat of reputational harm to LWVF. LWVF has been registering Floridians to vote for over 70 years. It zealously guards its longstanding and hard-earned public reputation for trustworthiness. Beyond the potentially devastating financial costs that would be necessitated by a legal defense, the LWVF would endure a considerable loss of public esteem and confidence, crippling the organization’s continued effectiveness. The possibility of such financial and reputational
43

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 44 of 54
harm understandably frightens LWVF and discourages it from engaging in voter registration under the Law.
141. Finally, Plaintiffs also face the potential of criminal misdemeanor liability for any violation of the Law for which the Florida Election Code does not otherwise specify punishment. Fla. Stat. § 104.41.
The Law Does Not Serve a Legitimate or Compelling State Interest 142. The State cannot establish a legitimate, much less compelling, state interest in restricting Plaintiffs’ voter registration efforts, and those of similar community-based voter registration groups, in the manner provided in the Law. There is no indication that Florida’s existing law was inadequate in addressing the State’s interest in preventing voter registration fraud and ensuring the integrity of the registration process. Furthermore, even if the State had discovered shortcomings in the existing law, the new Law burdens far more speech and associational activity than is necessary to accomplish any legitimate governmental interest. 143. The Law is not necessary to address voter registration fraud or misconduct. Florida law separately imposes criminal penalties on persons who “knowingly destroy, mutilate, or deface a voter registration form or election ballot or obstruct or delay the delivery of a voter registration form or election ballot.” Fla. Stat. § 104.0615(4). A person who violates this section commits a felony in the third degree, id. § 104.0615(5), and may be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both, id. §§ 775.082(3)(d), 775.083(1)(c).
44

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 45 of 54
144. In addition, before § 97.0575 was modified by H.B. 1355, it already imposed fines of $1,000 for willful refusal to submit a completed voter registration application, $500 for each application collected before but willfully submitted after the book-closing deadline for an election, and $250 for each application willfully submitted more than ten days after it was delivered to a third-party voter registration organization or a person acting on the organization’s behalf. 2007 Fla. Laws 30, sec. 2, § 97.0575(3) (amended 2011). Upon information and belief, the State has had no occasion to impose fines for any of these willful violations under this prior version of the law.
145. Nor is the Law needed to deter inadvertent mishandling or untimely submission of registration applications. Prior Florida law already imposed fines of $50 for each application submitted more than ten days after a voter registration organization collected it, $100 for each application submitted after the book-closing deadline for an election, and $500 for each application that a community-based voter registration organization collected but did not submit to the Division of Elections. Id. Upon information and belief, the State has imposed very few fines for any of these inadvertent violations under the prior version of the Law.
146. The legislative history of the Law also provides no evidence that Florida had previously experienced problems with community-based voter registration groups failing to submit applications in a timely manner, whether intentionally or accidentally, under the prior law. When asked the reason for changing the deadline for application submission from ten days to 48 hours, for example, H.B. 1355’s sponsor, Representative Dennis K. Baxley, responded that registration forms are “valued document[s] and the
45

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 46 of 54
longer you have these documents out floating around, the more likely they are to be
hazarded to mishap or mischief.” 2011 Fla. House Deb., Reg. Sess., at 12:32 (April 20,
2011) (statement of Rep. Baxley). But Representative Geraldine F. Thompson observed
that election supervisors “have not identified a problem with fraud.” 2011 Fla. House
Deb., Reg. Sess., at 02:00:18 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Rep. Thompson). And Senator
Nan H. Rich pointed out that the bill’s supporters were unable to “provide any proof that
the integrity of our election process has been compromised.” 2011 Fla. Senate Deb.,
Reg. Sess., at 47:49 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Rich).
147. Likewise, the legislative record provides no evidence that the Law’s strict
pre-registration and monthly reporting requirements further the State’s interest in
ensuring the integrity of the registration process.
148. Indeed, Senator Michael S. Bennett, the President Pro Tempore of the
chamber, acknowledged that the new Law would impose significant burdens on voters,
but argued that these burdens were a valid goal of the legislation:
Did you ever read the stories about people in Africa? The people in the desert who literally walk 200-300 miles so they could have an opportunity to do what we do? And we want to make it more convenient? How much more convenient do you want to make it? Do we want to go to their house? Take the polling booth with us? This is a hard fought privilege. This is something people died for. And you want to make it convenient? To the guy who died to give you that right, it was not convenient. Why would we make it any easier? I want ‘em to fight for it. I want ‘em to know what it’s like. I want ‘em to go down there and have to walk across town to go over and vote. I want ‘em to at least know the date they’re supposed to vote. I’d like to have them actually know where they’re supposed to vote. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. . . . This is Florida. We do make it convenient for people to vote, but I gotta tell ya I wouldn’t even have any problem making it harder. I would want them to really want to be informed. I would want them to really want to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people in the State of Florida to want
46

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 47 of 54
to vote as badly as that person in Africa who is willing to walk 200 miles for that opportunity he’s never had before in his life. This should not be easy. This should be something you feel with a passion. 2011 Fla. Senate Deb., Reg. Sess., at 35:40 (May 5, 2011) (statement of Sen. Bennett) (emphases added). 149. Simply put, the tenuous connections between the Law’s restrictive provisions and the State’s purported interest in fraud prevention, along with the revealing statements by supporters during the legislative debate, demonstrate that the State’s offered rationale is a pretextual one—and can provide no justification for the unconstitutional burdens on speech and association now imposed by the Law.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment (Burden on Core Political Speech and Associational Rights) 150. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 149 as if fully set forth herein. 151. The Law violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to speech and association. It does so by severely burdening and chilling Plaintiffs’ free speech and association in, but not limited to, the following ways: (a) The Law’s myriad onerous requirements and severe penalties threaten Plaintiffs with debilitating financial and reputational harms, and thus deter them from engaging in First Amendment protected political activity; (b) The Law’s pre-registration and sworn-statement requirements impose burdensome prior restraints on Plaintiffs’ speech and associational rights;
47

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 48 of 54
(c) By regulating the “soliciting for collection” of voter registration forms, the Law directly penalizes political speech; (d) The Law’s sworn-statement requirement, and the intimidating form promulgated by the State, frighten Plaintiffs’ individual members and volunteers, chilling Plaintiffs’ ability to effectively associate with its members, volunteers, and others; (e) The Law’s disclosure requirements force community-based voter registration groups to reveal their political and organizational associations to the State, chilling those associations; (f) Registration under the Law would require that Plaintiffs comply with onerous monthly tracking and reporting requirements and suffer ongoing burdens on their speech and associational rights; (g) Any attempt to comply with the Law would necessitate that Plaintiffs divert much-needed resources from protected voter registration activity; and (h) Any attempt to comply with the Law would also require that Plaintiffs formalize their associational relationships in a manner that directly conflicts with their longstanding tradition of open and inclusive membership. 152. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
48

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 49 of 54
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment
(Void for Vagueness) 153. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 152 as if fully set forth herein. 154. The Law is unconstitutionally vague in, but not limited to, the following ways: (a) In failing to define the scope of penalties that can be imposed by the Attorney General, the Law provides no notice of the liability Plaintiffs and others risk by engaging in community-based voter registration activities. The Law grants virtually unlimited discretion to both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State in imposing penalties and fines, and thus risks arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement against disfavored groups; (b) The Law’s submission deadline and procedures are confusing and ambiguous; (c) The Law’s requirements for informing the State when a registration agent’s relationship with a registered organization has “terminated” are confusing and ambiguous; (d) The Law’s tracking and reporting requirements are confusing and ambiguous; and (e) It is unclear whether registration agents may submit completed voter registration forms to the State, or if registered organizations are the only entities permitted to submit completed forms.
49

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 50 of 54
155. The vagueness of the Law chills Plaintiffs and others in the exercise of their freedom of speech.
156. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 157. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 156 as if fully set forth herein. 158. The Law stands as an obstacle to the achievement of Congress’s purpose in passing the NVRA to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections” and “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b), and to protect the active role that community-based voter registration groups play in the registration process. See id. §1973gg-4(b). 159. The Law also specifically conflicts with and violates the NVRA in at least four respects: (a) The Law’s burdensome pre-registration, reporting, and tracking requirements contradict the objectives of the NVRA and conflict with Florida’s obligation to make federal and state registration forms available to communitybased voter registration groups;
50

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 51 of 54
(b) By requiring community-based voter registration groups to repeatedly make electronic submissions by facsimile or by e-mail, the Law erects a discriminatory barrier against those who do not have access to, or the financial wherewithal to have access to, the necessary equipment or services and the ability to use them; (c) The Law’s strict 48-hour deadline for delivery of completed registration forms and its provision that “delivery” only occurs on the date of mailing if the mailing envelope is clearly postmarked—otherwise strict liability for untimely submissions will attach. It effectively eliminates Plaintiffs’ NVRA-protected right to deliver completed registration forms by mail; and (d) The Law’s requirement that detailed information be added to voter registration forms violates the NVRA’s limitations on acceptable content that states may require on such forms, and conflicts with Congress’s desire to facilitate registration by protecting registrants’ privacy.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 160. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 159 as if fully set forth herein. 161. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, forbids any voting standard, practice, or procedure “which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
51

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 52 of 54
162. By severely restricting the registration activities of community-based voter groups, the Law substantially reduces registration efforts that target and disproportionately benefit racial minority communities.
163. The effect of the Law will leave minority citizens with reduced opportunities to become eligible to vote and, ultimately, to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice. Therefore, the Law will result in the denial or abridgement of the rights of minority Florida citizens to vote on account of race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to: (i) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of “third-party voter registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate the United States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs; (ii) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of “third-party voter registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate and/or are preempted by the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq.; (iii) enter judgment declaring and determining that the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of” third-party voter
52

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 53 of 54
registration organizations,” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973;
(iv) grant appropriate preliminary and permanent equitable relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing these provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575, Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042, and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions;
(v) grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-9(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and
(vii) grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and equitable. Dated: December 15, 2011
COFFEY BURLINGTON _/s/ Kendall Coffey______________ Kendall Coffey Florida Bar No. 259861 Abigail Parent Florida Bar No. 72284 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133-5408 Tel. 305-858-2900 Fax 305-858-5261
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
Robert A. Atkins* William J. Taylor, Jr.* 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 Tel. 212-373-3000 Fax 212-757-3990
53

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 5 Filed 12/16/11 Page 54 of 54
Alex Young K. Oh* Zachary A. Dietert* 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Tel. 202-223-7300 Fax 202-223-7420 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Wendy R. Weiser* Diana Kasdan* Lee Rowland* Mimi Murray Digby Marziani* 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, New York 10013-1205 Tel. 646-292-8310 Fax 212-463-7308 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. Randall C. Marshall Florida Bar No. 181765 Julie Ebenstein Florida Bar No. 91033 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, Florida 33137-3227 Tel. 786-363-2700 Fax 786-363-1108 Counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice application to be filed
54

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, and ROCK THE VOTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KURT S. BROWNING, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, and GISELA SALAS, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida,
Defendants.

Civil No. 4:11-cv-00628-RH-WCS

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the provisions of Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(37) and 97.0575 regulating the voter registration activities of “third-party voter registration organizations,” and Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 1S-2.042 and any other rules promulgated by the State of Florida implementing these provisions (collectively, the “Law”). In order to resolve this motion as expeditiously as possible, and sufficiently in advance of Florida’s voter registration “book-closing” deadlines—July 16, 2012 for the primary election, and October 8, 2012 for the general election—after which no one may register to vote in the upcoming 2012 elections, Plaintiffs further request that the Court set a hearing on their preliminary injunction motion for March 1, 2012, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available to hold such a hearing.

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 6
As detailed in the Memorandum of Law and the affidavits accompanying this motion, the Law (i) severely burdens and chills Plaintiffs’ free speech and association rights, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (ii) is also void under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its terms risk arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and fail to adequately warn Plaintiffs of the conduct they prohibit or the liability that they impose on violators; and (iii) conflicts with the text, structure, and central purpose of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. (the “NVRA”), and thus violates and is preempted by the NVRA.1
The Law’s pre-registration and disclosure requirements, extensive mandatory and ongoing tracking and electronic reporting obligations, strict 48-hour return deadline for completed registration forms, and vague but ominous penalties for even the slightest unintentional act of noncompliance have rendered third-party voter registration in Florida a complex and risky activity. Accordingly, the Law has all but compelled two of the Plaintiffs (League of Women Voters of Florida and Rock the Vote) to make the difficult decision to cease voter registration assistance in Florida, an activity essential to their organizational missions and inherently intertwined with conversations regarding the importance of civic engagement. And while the remaining Plaintiff (Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund) currently intends to engage in voter registration activities during the 2012 election cycle, it, too, has been severely burdened by the Law and will necessarily spend less money, time, and resources on voter registration and more
1 In the First Amended Complaint, filed December 16, 2011, Plaintiffs have also alleged a claim against Defendants under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (Count IV). Plaintiffs do not now move for preliminary injunctive relief on that claim. Plaintiffs move here only under their claims under the Constitution (Counts I-II) and the NVRA (Count III).
2

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 6
on compliance with the onerous requirements of Florida’s new Law. Simply put, every day that the Law continues to be enforced, Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights will be chilled, and countless Floridians that Plaintiffs would have assisted but for the Law will be unable to vote.
A preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 is appropriate here because, as demonstrated in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, (i) Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; (ii) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury under the Constitution and the NVRA unless the injunction issues; (iii) the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause Defendants; and (iv) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See Forsyth Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d 1032, 1039 (11th Cir. 2011).
The complete grounds and legal authority in support of this motion are addressed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law and affidavits. A proposed order granting Plaintiffs’ motion is attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, and for all the reasons detailed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs seek an order preliminarily enjoining Defendants and their successors in office, as well as their employees, agents, and representatives, from enforcing the Law.
In order to resolve this motion as expeditiously as possible, Plaintiffs further request that the Court set a hearing on their preliminary injunction motion for March 1, 2012, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available to hold such a hearing.
3

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 6
N.D. FLA. LOC. R. 7.1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B), undersigned counsel states that Plaintiffs’
counsel has conferred with Defendants’ counsel in a good faith effort to resolve by
agreement the issues raised in this Motion for Preliminary Injunction, but have been
unable to do so.
Dated: December 19, 2011
COFFEY BURLINGTON
/s/ Kendall Coffey Kendall Coffey Florida Bar No. 259861 Abigail Parent Florida Bar No. 72284 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133-5408 Tel. 305-858-2900 Fax 305-858-5261
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
Robert A. Atkins* William J. Taylor, Jr.* 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 Tel. 212-373-3000 Fax 212-757-3990
Alex Young K. Oh* Zachary A. Dietert* 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Tel. 202-223-7300 Fax 202-223-7420
4

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 6
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Wendy R. Weiser* Diana Kasdan* Lee Rowland* Mimi Murray Digby Marziani* 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, New York 10013-1205 Tel. 646-292-8310 Fax 212-463-7308 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. Randall C. Marshall Florida Bar No. 181765 Julie Ebenstein Florida Bar No. 91033 4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340 Miami, Florida 33137-3227 Tel. 786-363-2700 Fax 786-363-1108 Counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice application to be filed
5

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that copies of the foregoing Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Exhibit A thereto were served via HAND DELIVERY this
19th day of December, 2011 upon the following:
Kurt S. Browning Secretary of State of Florida 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Pamela J. Bondi Attorney General of Florida 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Gisela Salas Director of Florida Division of Elections 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
COFFEY BURLINGTON
/s/ Kendall Coffey Kendall Coffey Florida Bar No. 259861 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133-5408 Tel. 305-858-2900 Fax 305-858-5261

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 7
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

KENNETH W. DETZNER, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO INTERVENE

This case presents a challenge to Florida Statutes § 97.0575, as amended in 2011, and to an implementing rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-2.042. The statute and rule regulate organizations that conduct voter-registration drives. The plaintiffs are organizations that have conducted such drives in the past and wish to continue to do so. The defendants are officials of the State of Florida in their official capacities.
The plaintiffs filed this action on December 15, 2011. They filed on December 19, 2011, a motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute and rule. After discovery, briefing, and a hearing, an order was entered
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 7
Page 2 of 7
on May 31, 2012, granting a preliminary injunction. On July 2, 2012, the defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.
Meanwhile, on June 27, 2012, more than six months after the filing of the preliminary-injunction motion, four individuals filed a motion for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). The four individuals do not conduct voter-registration drives and do not have any interest that will be affected by this litigation other than precisely the same interest as every registered voter in the state. The four individuals say that if people are improperly registered to vote, it will dilute the votes of properly registered voters, including the four individuals. That of course is true; an improper vote dilutes a proper one. But the motion to intervene is rife with hyperbole and assertions that are unsupported by the record. The motion even overstates the holding of the order granting a preliminary injunction. The motion gives little confidence that the four individuals will contribute to the effort to resolve this case accurately in accordance with the facts and law.
The motion to intervene said its primary purpose was to allow the four individuals to appeal the preliminary injunction. The motion said the defendants were unlikely to appeal. But now the defendants have appealed. Even so, the four individuals say—in a reply memorandum that this order grants leave to file and that has been fully considered—that the defendants will not vigorously pursue the
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 7
Page 3 of 7
appeal and instead are talking settlement with the plaintiffs. That may be, but there is little reason to believe the defendants will not vigorously pursue or abandon the appeal precisely as appropriate in light of their conscientious assessment of the law and the likely outcome of the litigation. The defendants are, after all, officials of the State of Florida. Whatever might be said of the litigation stance of public officials generally, the State of Florida has recently—repeatedly—shown little reluctance to pursue litigation on matters of this kind; the state is no shrinking violet. That the four individuals must challenge the state’s willingness to aggressively litigate is perhaps all one need say about the individuals’ own position.
I have considered all the circumstances and the governing law. See, e.g., Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 215 (11th Cir. 1993) (“This court will presume that a proposed intervenor’s interest is adequately represented when an existing party pursues the same ultimate objective as the party seeking intervention.” (citations omitted)); Worlds v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 929 F.2d 591, 595 (11th Cir. 1991) (noting the breadth of a district court’s discretion to grant or deny permissive intervention and upholding the denial of intervention based on the delay in moving to intervene); Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1215 (11th Cir. 1989) (upholding a district court’s denial of permissive intervention to parties whose interests were identical
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 7
Page 4 of 7
to those of a governmental defendant); see also Dillard v. Chilton Cnty. Comm’n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007) (addressing an intervenor’s need for standing).
I conclude, as a matter of discretion, that the four individuals should not be granted leave to intervene. Among the considerations supporting the decision are these: the four individuals have only the same interest in the issues as any other registered voter; the four individuals waited more than six months, until after entry of the preliminary injunction, to seek to intervene; intervention would interfere with the ability of the parties—the entities with the greatest stake in the litigation— to control the litigation and to have the issues resolved in the most just, speedy, and inexpensive manner possible, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; the defendants can and will adequately represent the interest of the state’s voters, including the four individuals; and the tenor of the motion to intervene suggests the four individuals may impede, rather than contribute to, the reasoned determination of the action.
In reaching this decision, I have not overlooked Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, 985 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Dillard, 495 F.3d 1324. Meek was a challenge to at-large voting for a county commission. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court should have allowed individuals to intervene for the purpose of appealing a judgment sustaining the challenge. The individuals’ own voting rights were at stake; their claim was that
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 5 of 7
Page 5 of 7
the district court’s decision would deny the individuals’ own rights. The Eleventh Circuit said the county was not an adequate advocate for the at-large system and said the individuals should have been allowed to intervene to protect their own rights.
This case is different. The four individuals who seek to intervene have no right to prevent others from conducting voter-registration drives. The four individuals have no right to make it harder for other qualified applicants to register to vote. The four individuals have no right to require voter-registration organizations to turn in applications in person rather than by mail or to do so in the very narrow time frame—sometimes perhaps three minutes or less—required (in effect) by the challenged statute and rule. The four individuals have a right not to have their own votes diluted, but nobody proposes to allow unqualified individuals to register to vote; no ruling will be made authorizing any such thing. In short, the four individuals propose to advocate for a statute and rule they had no right to have enacted in the first place, and they seek to do so based only on what they say— without record support—will be the secondary effects of not upholding the statute and rule. This is not at all like the situation in Meek.
Moreover, while a county might not have a strong interest either way in whether commissioners are elected at large or in single-member districts, the same cannot be said of the state’s interest in preventing the registration of unqualified
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 6 of 7
Page 6 of 7
voters. Just because a governmental entity is not always an adequate representative of a position does not mean a governmental entity is never an adequate representative. Here the defendants can be relied upon to adequately defend the challenged statute and rule—at least to the point where they determine on the merits that the statute and rule are indeed invalid—and there are other grounds for denying intervention as well.
It bears noting, too, that the four individuals have not acknowledged—or said they are willing to proceed in the face of—the very real possibility that if they intervene and carry this litigation forward after the defendants choose not to, and if the plaintiffs prevail as the order granting a preliminary injunction concludes they likely will, the law might allow a substantial award of attorney’s fees against the four individuals. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This is not a basis for denying intervention. But if I had determined that intervention would otherwise be appropriate, before granting it I would have confirmed on the record that the four individuals understood the possible consequences. They should perhaps be careful what they wish for.
The four individuals will be welcome to file amicus briefs in this court as legal issues are presented for decision, so long as they hew faithfully to the record and make reasoned arguments under the law. But they will not be allowed to intervene.
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/12 Page 7 of 7
Page 7 of 7
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: The motion for leave to file a reply memorandum, ECF No. 75, is GRANTED. The motion for leave to intervene, ECF No. 63, is DENIED. SO ORDERED on August 6, 2012.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 83 Filed 08/30/12 Page 1 of 5
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

KENNETH W. DETZNER, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

PREMANENT INJUNCTION AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

This case presents a challenge to a Florida statute and rule regulating organizations that conduct voter-registration drives. The plaintiffs are organizations that have conducted such drives in the past and wish to continue to do so. The defendants are officials of the State of Florida in their official capacities. The plaintiffs moved for and obtained a preliminary injunction precluding the defendants from enforcing parts of the statute and rule. The defendants filed a notice of appeal.

Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 83 Filed 08/30/12 Page 2 of 5
Page 2 of 5
While the appeal was pending, the plaintiffs and defendants moved jointly for entry of a permanent injunction resolving all issues among all parties, that is, for entry of a final judgment. An indicative ruling was entered on August 29, 2012, announcing that the motion would be granted and a final judgment would be entered if the Eleventh Circuit remanded for that purpose or dismissed the appeal. As it turns out, the Eleventh Circuit had already entered an order dismissing the appeal; the order made it onto this court’s docket within an hour after entry of the indicative ruling.
The motion for entry of a permanent injunction is unopposed. This order grants the motion, consistently with the analysis set out in the order granting a preliminary injunction, with minor changes based on the parties’ agreement.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The joint motion for entry of a permanent injunction, ECF No. 80, is GRANTED. 2. Any security posted in connection with the preliminary injunction is exonerated. 3. A permanent injunction is entered with these terms: a. Defendants Kenneth W. Detzner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Pamela Jo Bondi, in her official capacity as
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 83 Filed 08/30/12 Page 3 of 5
Page 3 of 5
Attorney General for the State of Florida, and Gisela Salas, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking any step to demand compliance with or enforce the following provisions:
i. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(c), to the extent it requires identification of volunteer registration agents or employee registration agents who solicit but do not collect or handle voter registration applications;
ii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d); iii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an
application within 48 hours—or any period less than 10 days; iv. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5), to the extent it requires third-party voter
registration organizations to report on the number of voter registration applications used by, distributed to, or collected from registration agents; v. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(a), to the extent it requires disclosure of: any volunteer registration agent; any employee who does not actually collector handle voter-registration applications; or a volunteer’s termination; vi. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(c); vii. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(d);
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 83 Filed 08/30/12 Page 4 of 5
Page 4 of 5
viii. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(e), to the extent it requires disclosure of volunteer registration agents or their termination;
ix. Rule 1S-2.042(4)(b), to the extent it requires recording the time of collection of any voter registration applications;
x. Rule 1S-2.042(5); xi. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(a), to the extent it requires an accounting of the
number of voter registration forms provided to or held by a third party voter registration organization; xii. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(b), to the extent it requires notice of termination of volunteer registration agents; xiii. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(c), to the extent it addresses form DS-DE 123; and xiv. Rule 1S-2.042(7)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an application within 48 hours—or any period less than 10 days; to the extent it requires recording the time of delivery; and to the extent it imposes a fine for late delivery because of the absence of a ‘clear postmark’ on any organization that actually mailed an application within 10 days after collecting it. b. This injunction does not affect any other portion of Florida Statutes § 97.0575 or Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-2.042. This injunction is binding on the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Director of the Division
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 83 Filed 08/30/12 Page 5 of 5
Page 5 of 5
of Elections and their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce this injunction.
4. All other claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice. 5. No costs or attorneys’ fees will be taxed by the Court. 6. The clerk must enter a judgment with the terms set out in paragraph 3 and 4 above. SO ORDERED on August 30, 2012.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:11cv628-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 84 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al.,

VS

CASE NO. 4:11cv628-RH

KENNETH W. DETZNER, et al.,

JUDGMENT

A permanent injunction is entered with these terms: a. Defendants Kenneth W. Detzner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Pamela Jo Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, and Gisela Salas, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking any step to demand compliance with or enforce the following provisions: i. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(c), to the extent it requires identification of volunteer registration agents or employee registration agents who solicit but do not collect or handle voter registration applications; ii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d); iii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an application within 48 hours—or any period less than 10 days; iv. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5), to the extent it requires third-party voter registration organizations to report on the number of voter registration applications used by, distributed to, or collected from registration agents; v. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(a), to the extent it requires disclosure of: any volunteer registration agent; any employee who does not actually collector handle voter-registration applications; or a volunteer’s termination;

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 84 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 3
vi. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(c); vii. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(d); viii. Rule 1S-2.042(3)(e), to the extent it requires disclosure of volunteer registration agents or their termination; ix. Rule 1S-2.042(4)(b), to the extent it requires recording the time of collection of any voter registration applications; x. Rule 1S-2.042(5); xi. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(a), to the extent it requires an accounting of the number of voter registration forms provided to or held by a third party voter registration organization; xii. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(b), to the extent it requires notice of termination of volunteer registration agents; xiii. Rule 1S-2.042(6)(c), to the extent it addresses form DS-DE 123; and xiv. Rule 1S-2.042(7)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an application within 48 hours—or any period less than 10 days; to the extent it requires recording the time of delivery; and to the extent it imposes a fine for late delivery because of the absence of a ‘clear postmark’ on any organization that actually mailed an application within 10 days after collecting it. b. This injunction does not affect any other portion of Florida Statutes § 97.0575 or Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-2.042. This injunction is binding on the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Director of the Division of Elections and their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce this injunction.
All other claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice.
2

Case 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS Document 84 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 3

August 31, 2012 DATE

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS CLERK OF COURT
s/Pam Lourcey Deputy Clerk: Pam Lourcey

3

 
 U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:11−cv−00628−RH−CAS

CLOSED

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA et al v. BROWNING et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/15/2011 Date Terminated: 08/31/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA

represented by ABIGAIL EMILY PARENT COFFEY BURLINGTON − MIAMI FL 2699 S BAYSHORE DR #PH MIAMI, FL 33133 305−858−2900 Fax: 305−858−5261 Email: aparent@coffeyburlington.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2012

DIANA KASDAN BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 12TH FL NEW YORK CITY, NY 10013 646−292−8310 Fax: 212−463−7308 Email: diana.kasdan@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FARRAH ROBYN BERSE PAUL WEISS RIFKIND ETC − NEW YORK NY 1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10019−6064 212−373−3008 Fax: 212−757−3990 Email: fberse@paulweiss.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JULIE A EBENSTEIN ACLU OF FLORIDA − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−4434 Fax: 786−363−1257 Email: jebenstein@aclufl.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEE BERKLEY ROWLAND BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 12TH FL NEW YORK CITY, NY 10013 646−292−8310 Fax: 212−463−7308 Email: lee.rowland@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND

MIMI MURRAY DIGBY MARZIANI BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 12TH FL NEW YORK CITY, NY 10013 646−292−8310 Fax: 212−463−7308 Email: mimi.marziani@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RANDALL C MARSHALL ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−2700 Fax: 786−363−1108 Email: rmarshall@aclualabama.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WENDY ROBIN WEISER BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 12TH FL NEW YORK CITY, NY 10013 646−292−8310 Fax: 212−463−7308 Email: wendy.weiser@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ZACHARY ALAN DIETERT PAUL WEISS RIFKIND ETC LLP − WASHINGTON DC 2001 K ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006−1047 202−223−7474 Fax: 202−403−3276 Email: zdietert@paulweiss.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENDALL COFFEY COFFEY BURLINGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FL 33133 305−858−2900 Fax: 305−858−5261 Email: kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ABIGAIL EMILY PARENT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012
DIANA KASDAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FARRAH ROBYN BERSE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROCK THE VOTE

JULIE A EBENSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEE BERKLEY ROWLAND (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MIMI MURRAY DIGBY MARZIANI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RANDALL C MARSHALL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WENDY ROBIN WEISER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ZACHARY ALAN DIETERT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENDALL COFFEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ABIGAIL EMILY PARENT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012
DIANA KASDAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FARRAH ROBYN BERSE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JULIE A EBENSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEE BERKLEY ROWLAND (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MIMI MURRAY DIGBY MARZIANI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RANDALL C MARSHALL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WENDY ROBIN WEISER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ZACHARY ALAN DIETERT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant KURT S BROWNING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant PAMELA JO BONDI IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA Defendant GISELA SALAS IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS WITHIN THE STATE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
V. Intervenor Defendant

KENDALL COFFEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
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@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BLAINE H WINSHIP OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL − TALLAHASSEE FL THE CAPITOL STE PL−01 400 S MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3657 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: blaine.winship@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP − TALLAHASSEE FL 215 S MONROE ST − STE 804 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−521−0600 Fax: 850−521−0604 Email: dnordby@shutts.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BLAINE H WINSHIP (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ASHLEY E DAVIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BLAINE H WINSHIP (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN E WIGHTMAN TERMINATED: 08/06/2012
Intervenor Defendant GUILLERMINA T MOORE TERMINATED: 08/06/2012
Intervenor Defendant MARK E PIONESSA TERMINATED: 08/06/2012
Intervenor Defendant GUILLERMINA C TARAFA TERMINATED: 08/06/2012

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

Date Filed 12/15/2011
12/15/2011 12/15/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011
12/16/2011 12/19/2011 12/19/2011
12/19/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 1129−2091415.), filed by LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons Browning, # 2 Exhibit Summons Bondi, # 3 Exhibit Summons Salas) (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
3 Summons Issued as to PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons) (pll) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by RANDALL C MARSHALL on behalf of All Plaintiffs (MARSHALL, RANDALL) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants., filed by LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Summons Browning, # 2 Exhibit Amended Summons Bondi, # 3 Exhibit Amended Summons Salas) (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by JULIE A EBENSTEIN on behalf of All Plaintiffs (EBENSTEIN, JULIE) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
7 Summons Issued as to PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons) (pll) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
9 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Memorandum of Law, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/19/2011 12/19/2011 12/19/2011 12/19/2011 12/19/2011 12/19/2011 12/20/2011
12/20/2011 12/20/2011
12/22/2011 12/22/2011 12/22/2011 12/22/2011 12/29/2011

10 AFFIDAVIT re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Ben Wilcox by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
11 AFFIDAVIT re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Heather Smith by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
12 AFFIDAVIT re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Brad Ashwell by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
13 AFFIDAVIT re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Deirdre Mcnab by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
14 AFFIDAVIT re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Pamela Goodman by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
15 AMENDED DOCUMENT by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. Amendment to 14 Affidavit Corrected Certificate of Service. (COFFEY, KENDALL) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
16 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: Re 9 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. **All proposed orders should be emailed to Judge Robert L. Hinkle: flnd_hinkle@flnd.uscourts.gov. This email address is not to be used for any correspondence other than proposed orders. Please note that proposed orders must be emailed as an attachment in a word processing format ONLY (no.pdf files for proposed orders please). (pll) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
17 ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MEMORANDA. Granting 9 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/20/11. (pll) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
18 ORDER SETTING RULE 26(f) DEADLINES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SET A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. ( Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/19/2012.) The clerk must set a scheduling conference for the first available date on or after January 26, 2012. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/20/11. (pll) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by DANIEL ELDEN NORDBY on behalf of KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS (NORDBY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by ASHLEY E DAVIS on behalf of KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by BLAINE H WINSHIP on behalf of PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS (WINSHIP, BLAINE) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
22 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER : Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 1/5/2012. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/6/2012. Discovery due by 4/20/2012. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/22/2011. (erl) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action, Complaint with Exhibits and Amended Complaint with Exhibits served on Kurt S. Browning on 12−19−11, filed by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

12/29/2011 12/29/2011 12/29/2011 12/30/2011
12/30/2011 12/30/2011 01/03/2012
01/05/2012 01/06/2012

24 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action, Complaint with Exhibits and Amended Complaint with Exhibits served on Pamela J. Bondi on 12−19−11, filed by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
25 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action, Complaint with Exhibits and Amended Complaint with Exhibits served on Gisela Salas on 12−19−11, filed by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: PAMELA JO BONDI answer due 1/9/2012; KURT S BROWNING answer due 1/9/2012; GISELA SALAS answer due 1/9/2012. (pll) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
26 NOTICE OF HEARING: Scheduling Conference set for 1/26/2012 03:00 PM 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: 12/30/2011)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by ABIGAIL EMILY PARENT on behalf of FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
28 Joint MOTION re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
29 SCHEDULING ORDER. GRANTING IN PART 28 Joint MOTION for Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply. The plaintiffs must file by /17/12, any declaration, exhibit, or other written evidence on which they will rely in support of their preliminary injunction motion, other than those already filed. But the plaintiffs may file by 2/14/12 an additional declaration, exhibit, or other written evidence if the need for it first becomes apparent as a result of the defendants response to the preliminary−injunction motion. The defendants must file by 1/24/12, their memorandum in opposition to the preliminary−injunction motion, and each declaration, exhibit, or other written evidence on which they will rely in opposition to the motion. But they may file by 2/21/12, an additional declaration, exhibit, or other written evidence if the need for it first becomes apparent as a result of the plaintiffs reply memorandum or accompanying evidence in support of the preliminary−injunction motion. The plaintiffs may file by 2/14/12, a reply memorandum in support of the preliminary−injunction motion. By separate notice, the clerk must set a preliminary−injunction hearing for 13/1/12, at noon. Each party must file by 2/24/12, a list of witnesses it will or may call for live testimony at the hearing. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/3/12. (pll) Modified on 1/5/2012 (pll). (Entered: 01/04/2012)
30 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
31 ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES ON THE PRELIMINARY−INJUNCTION MOTION AND EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT re 29 Order. Signed by

01/09/2012 01/09/2012
01/16/2012 01/16/2012
01/17/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012
01/24/2012 01/27/2012 01/27/2012 01/27/2012 01/31/2012 02/14/2012

JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/6/12. (pll) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
32 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING: Scheduling Conference set for 1/26/2012 03:00 PM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE has been canceled. (erl) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
33 NOTICE of Hearing on 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 3/1/2012 12:00 PM 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: 01/09/2012)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by ZACHARY ALAN DIETERT on behalf of FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE (DIETERT, ZACHARY) (Entered: 01/16/2012)
35 NOTICE / Declaration of Zachary A. Dietert in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M) (DIETERT, ZACHARY) (Entered: 01/16/2012)
36 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT Re 35 Notice (Other). **Five CD's of Original Record received and forwarded to chambers. (pll) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
37 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (DIETERT, ZACHARY) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
38 SCHEDULING ORDER. This order sets the schedule that will apply unless modified at a scheduling conference that will be conducted on or at a date set on March 1, 2012, at the conclusion of the preliminary−injunction hearing. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 5/21/2012., Discovery due by 4/30/2012 or 60 days after the scheduling conference.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/20/12. (pll) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
39 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dr. Gisela Salas, # 2 Affidavit Dr. Gisela Salas) (WINSHIP, BLAINE) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by LEE BERKLEY ROWLAND on behalf of All Plaintiffs (ROWLAND, LEE) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by DIANA KASDAN on behalf of All Plaintiffs (KASDAN, DIANA) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by MIMI MURRAY DIGBY MARZIANI on behalf of All Plaintiffs (MARZIANI, MIMI) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by FARRAH ROBYN BERSE on behalf of FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Attachments:

02/21/2012 02/22/2012 02/23/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012
03/07/2012

# 1 Declaration of Farrah R. Berse, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Declaration of Deirdre Macnab, # 7 Declaration of Lisa Garcia Bedolla, # 8 Exhibit A, # 9 Affidavit of Cynthia Slater, # 10 Exhibit A) (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
45 NOTICE of Filing Additional Written Evidence by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
46 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness Lists by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
47 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR WITNESS LISTS. GRANTING 46 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness Lists. ( Witness List due by 2/28/2012.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/23/12. (pll) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
48 Witness List by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
49 Witness List by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Motion Hearing held on 3/1/2012 re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . A ruling will be forthcoming in an order. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
51 NOTICE / Joint Submission of Additional Evidence Concerning Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE, GISELA SALAS re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
52 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Preliminary Injunction Proceedings held on 03/01/2012, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter Judy A. Nolton, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

03/14/2012 04/02/2012
04/23/2012 05/16/2012

Redaction Request due 3/14/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/12/2012. (jag) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
53 NOTICE of Appearance by WENDY ROBIN WEISER on behalf of All Plaintiffs (WEISER, WENDY) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
54 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A. STAMPELOS. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C. SHERRILL no longer assigned to case. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 4/2/2012. **Please use case number with new judge initials on all future filings: 4:11cv628−RH/CAS. (kjw) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
55 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A Part 3) (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
56 REQUEST Telephonic Status Conference by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/31/2012
05/31/2012 06/04/2012 06/14/2012 06/15/2012
06/20/2012 06/27/2012 06/27/2012 06/27/2012 06/28/2012

57 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 6/15/2012 02:00 PM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (888) 684−8852. Access Code: 8131706# Security Code: 0615# 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 Kimberly Westphal 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/ Kimberly Westphal Deputy Clerk (kjw) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
58 ORDER GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 8 , is GRANTED IN PART. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/31/12. (pll) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
59 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT Re 58 Preliminary Injunction. Security in the amount of $500 has been posted. Receipt # 4−16163. (pll) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
60 Joint MOTION to Extend Time/ Reset Telephonic Scheduling Conference by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE, GISELA SALAS. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
61 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Scheduling Conference reset for 6/28/2012 11:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (888) 684−8852 Access Code: 8131706# Security Code: 0628# 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: 06/15/2012)
62 ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint, by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
63 First MOTION to Intervene by JOHN E WIGHTMAN, GUILLERMINA T MOORE, MARK E PIONESSA, GUILLERMINA C TARAFA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (RODRIGUEZ, RAQUEL) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
64 First MOTION to Expedite CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION by GUILLERMINA T MOORE, MARK E PIONESSA, GUILLERMINA C TARAFA, JOHN E WIGHTMAN. (RODRIGUEZ, RAQUEL) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
65 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH N.D. FLA. LOC.R.7.1(B) by GUILLERMINA T MOORE, MARK E PIONESSA, GUILLERMINA C TARAFA, JOHN E WIGHTMAN (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Scheduling Conference held on 6/28/2012. Parties discuss schedule of case and state that they plan to file an agreement soon in the case. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered:

06/29/2012
07/02/2012 07/02/2012
07/05/2012
07/05/2012 07/05/2012 07/16/2012 07/16/2012
07/18/2012 07/23/2012
07/23/2012
07/23/2012 07/27/2012 08/03/2012 08/06/2012 08/10/2012

06/29/2012)
66 ORDER DENYING 64 THE MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE. A party who opposes the motion to intervene must file a memorandum by July 16, 2012. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/29/2012. (dlt) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
68 NOTICE of Appeal by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS re 58 Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
69 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 58 Preliminary Injunction by PAMELA JO BONDI, KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS. ( Filing fee $455 Receipt Number 1129−2334075.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
70 Appeal Instructions re: 69 Notice of Appeal : The Transcript Request Form is available on the Internet at http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/forms/Attorney/ECCA_transcript_form_fillable.pdf **PLEASE NOTE** Separate forms must be filed for each court reporter. Transcript Order Form due by 7/19/2012. (dlt) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
71 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 69 Notice of Appeal ; (dlt) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
Set Deadlines re 69 Notice of Appeal : Clerk to check status of Appeal on 9/5/2012. (dlt) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
72 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by KURT S BROWNING, GISELA SALAS (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
73 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 63 First MOTION to Intervene filed by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
74 USCA PROCEDURAL LETTER re: 69 NOTICE OF APPEAL. USCA Appeal # 12−13522−FF. (pll) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
75 First MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Permissive Intervention by GUILLERMINA T MOORE, MARK E PIONESSA, GUILLERMINA C TARAFA, JOHN E WIGHTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
76 RULE 7.1(B) CONFERENCE STATEMENT Amending Certification Contained in Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum (D.E. #75) by GUILLERMINA T MOORE, MARK E PIONESSA, GUILLERMINA C TARAFA, JOHN E WIGHTMAN. (AXELMAN, DAVID) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 75 First MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Permissive Intervention. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 8/10/2012). (pll) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
77 NOTICE of Withdrawal by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE (PARENT, ABIGAIL) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
78 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW − PARENT. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/3/12. (pll) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
79 ORDER DENYING 63 LEAVE TO INTERVENE. Granting 75 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/6/12. (pll) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
80 Joint MOTION for Permanent Injunction by FLORIDA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ROCK THE VOTE. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 8/28/2012). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (BERSE, FARRAH) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/24/2012 08/28/2012 08/30/2012
08/31/2012

82 MANDATE of USCA as to 69 Notice of Appeal. Appellants' voluntary motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice is GRANTED. USCA # 12−13522−FF. (pll) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
81 INDICATIVE RULING ON THE MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/28/12. (pll) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
83 PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. The joint motion for entry of a permanent injunction, ECF No. 80 , is GRANTED. A permanent injunction is entered with these terms: a. Defendants Kenneth W. Detzner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Pamela Jo Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, and Gisela Salas, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking any step to demand compliance with or enforce the following provisions: i. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(c), to the extent it requires identification of volunteer registration agents or employee registration agents who solicit but do not collect or handle voter registration applications; ii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(1)(d); iii. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(3)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an application within 48 hoursor any period less than 10 days; iv. Fla. Stat. § 97.0575(5), to the extent it requires third−party voter registration organizations to report on the number of voter registration applications used by, distributed to, or collected from registration agents; v. Rule 1S−2.042(3)(a), to the extent it requires disclosure of: any volunteer registration agent; any employee who does not actually collector handle voter−registration applications; or a volunteers termination; vi. Rule 1S−2.042(3)(c); vii. Rule 1S−2.042(3)(d); viii. Rule 1S−2.042(3)(e), to the extent it requires disclosure of volunteer registration agents or their termination; ix. Rule 1S−2.042(4)(b), to the extent it requires recording the time of collection of any voter registration applications; x. Rule 1S−2.042(5); xi. Rule 1S−2.042(6)(a), to the extent it requires an accounting of the number of voter registration forms provided to or held by a third party voter registration organization; xii. Rule 1S−2.042(6)(b), to the extent it requires notice of termination of volunteer registration agents; xiii. Rule 1S−2.042(6)(c), to the extent it addresses form DS−DE 123; and xiv. Rule 1S−2.042(7)(a), to the extent it requires delivery of an application within 48 hoursor any period less than 10 days; to the extent it requires recording the time of delivery; and to the extent it imposes a fine for late delivery because of the absence of a clear postmark on any organization that actually mailed an application within 10 days after collecting it. b. This injunction does not affect any other portion of Florida Statutes § 97.0575 or Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S−2.042. This injunction is binding on the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Director of the Division of Elections and their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce this injunction. All other claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/30/12. (pll) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
84 CLERK'S JUDGMENT, entered pursuant to 83 Order. (pll) (Entered: 08/31/2012)