1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS, DREAM 

DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA 

MAJORITY, ORGANIZE FLORIDA, 

RAY WINTERS, KATHLEEN 

WINTERS, and BIANCA MARIA 

BAEZ 

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of 

Florida, LAUREL M. LEE, in her 

official capacity as Florida Secretary of 

State, and FLORIDA ELECTIONS 

CANVASSING COMMISSION,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-67-RH- GRJ

PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

In the Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, this 

court indicated that the impact of the coronavirus on today’s election may yet 

“support a claim for relief affecting this primary.” (ECF No. 12.) The evidence from 

around the state, as reflected in the attached declarations of Rose Marie Barfield, 

Murray Heller, Cierra Medina, Jessica Alcocer, Carolyn Thompson, and Marina 
2

Golan-Vilella, demonstrates that the relief Plaintiffs seek in this litigation remains 

urgent and necessary to ensure the election reflects the will of all Floridians who 

want to participate. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) 

and (b), Plaintiffs respectfully renew their request that this Court issue a temporary 

restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants DeSantis, Lee, 

and the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission, to take whatever steps are 

necessary to permit Floridians unable to vote at the polls today to request and return 

a vote-by-mail ballot during the period immediately following today’s election. 

Specifically, with respect to vote-by-mail balloting,

1 Plaintiffs request the same 

relief as they sought in the TRO filed on March 16, 2020 (ECF No. 4), as follows:

(1) Extend deadlines for requesting and returning vote-by-mail ballots.

a. Extend the deadline to request a vote-by-mail ballot from 10 days 

before the election to March 24, 2020. Although this deadline is after 

Election Day, it is before the date through which counties will be 

counting military and overseas voters’ ballots (March 27), and such an 

extension is necessary to make access to vote-by-mail under these 

emergency circumstances meaningful.

1 Plaintiffs no longer seek curbside voting, which is applicable only in the context 

of election day polling procedures. For the same reason, Plaintiffs no longer seek 

public service announcements and other information about polling place changes. 
3

b. Accept returned vote-by-mail ballots and count them as long as they are 

postmarked by March 24, 2020, or later and are received by March 27, 

2020, the existing deadline for receipt of ballots cast by military and 

overseas voters.

(2) Expand vote-by-mail options.

a. Waive the requirement that any individual complete an Election Day 

Vote-by-Mail Ballot Delivery Affidavit as a condition of obtaining a 

vote-by-mail ballot. The present state of emergency establishes every 

voter’s eligibility to obtain their vote-by-mail ballot on or after Election 

Day.

b. Allow all voters to request that their ballot be sent to them via e-mail or 

fax, an option currently available only to military and overseas voters.

c. Provide drop-boxes for the return of vote-by-mail ballots at polling 

sites, and accept ballots returned via drop-boxes regardless of which 

precinct or county they are returned to.

d. Allow voters to designate other individuals to return their ballots in 

person, by mail, or via drop-boxes, and waive the current limit of two 

ballots per designee. Currently, designees may collect and return ballots 

only for two voters other than themselves and may only return them in 

person or by mail.
4

(3) Communicate critical information to Florida voters.

a. Develop state-wide public service announcements to be transmitted via 

print, radio, and social media to alert Floridians to the expanded 

opportunities to vote.

This motion is based on Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the declarations 

of Rose Marie Barfield, Murray Heller, Cierra Medina, Jessica Alcocer, Carolyn 

Thompson, and Marina Golan-Vilella, attached hereto. Plaintiffs also incorporate by 

reference their Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction dated March 16, 2020 (ECF No. 4), 

and the declarations attached thereto.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this matter be set for telephonic oral 

argument on an expedited basis.

Dated: March 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kira Romero-Craft

 Kira Romero-Craft

CHIRAAG BAINS*

Dēmos

740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 864-2746

cbains@demos.org

STUART NAIFEH*

KATHRYN C. SADASIVAN*

MIRANDO GALINDO*

JUDITH A. BROWNE DIANIS*

GILDA DANIELS*

JESS UNGER*

SHARION SCOTT*

Advancement Project National Office

1220 L Street N.W., Suite 850

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 728-9557

jbrowne@advancementproject.org

gdaniels@advancementproject.org
5

EMERSON GORDON-MARVIN*

Dēmos

80 Broad St, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 485-6055

snaifeh@demos.org 

ksadasivan@demos.org

mgalindo@demos.org 

egordonmarvin@demos.org

junger@advancementproject.org

sscott@advancementproject.org

KIRA ROMERO-CRAFT

(FL SBN 49927)

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

523 West Colonial Drive

Orlando, Florida 32804

(321) 418-6354

kromero@latinojustice.org

FRANCISCA FAJANA*

JACKSON CHIN*

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901

New York, NY 10115

(212) 739-7572

ffajana@latinojustice.org

jchin@latinojustice.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS, DREAM 

DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA 

MAJORITY, ORGANIZE FLORIDA, 

RAY WINTERS, KATHLEEN 

WINTERS, and BIANCA MARIA 

BAEZ 

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of 

Florida, LAUREL M. LEE, in her 

official capacity as Florida Secretary of 

State, and FLORIDA ELECTIONS 

CANVASSING COMMISSION,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-67-RH- GRJ

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

OF RENEWED MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The United States is facing a pubic health emergency created by the COVID19 virus, which has threated the health and well-being of millions of Americans, 

shuttered schools and businesses, and led public health officials to recommend that 

Americans remain at home and avoid public gatherings. But today, the State of 
2

Florida conducted its Presidential Preference Primary (“PPP”) without making any 

accommodation for those impacted by the current public health crisis. As a result,

without emergency relief ordered by this Court, Plaintiffs will be entirely deprived 

of the opportunity to vote in the Presidential Preference Primary, in violation of their 

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Most of the facts relevant to this motion are set forth in Plaintiffs’ original 

Motion for a Temporary Restraining order and are incorporated here by reference. 

Below, Plaintiffs set forth new facts that have come to light today during the course 

of voting in an election in which no accommodations were made to address the 

impact of the coronavirus pandemic. 

I. The March 17, 2020, Presidential Preference Primary.

As election day began, Supervisors of Elections around the state faced 

shortages of poll-workers after many withdrew or failed to show up at their assigned 

polling sites. E.g., “The Latest: DNC chair urges vote-by-mail in primary states,” 

Associated Press (Mar. 17, 2020) (noting that in Palm Beach County, 800 pollworkers had withdrawn as of Monday, March 16, 2020), available at 

https://wgem.com/2020/03/17/the-latest-florida-polls-open-in-presidentialprimary/. For example, in Okeechobee, Florida, one individual, a seventy-threeyear-old voter with chronic health conditions, withdrew from her planned work as a 
3

poll worker out of concern that being around other people in this time of coronavirus

would put her health at too high a risk. Declaration of Rose Marie Barfield, ¶¶ 2-4.

The evidence so far is that turnout in today’s election will be low, despite 

record numbers of voters who voted early and by mail. Carolyn Thompson, a longtime voter protection advocate who visited multiple polling precincts in Broward 

County today, observed low voter turnout in at least six of these polling locations. 

Decl. of Carolyn Thompson, ¶¶ 3, 6-7. In previous PPP elections, Ms. Thompson

observed “fifty to one hundred” people in line at these same sites. Id. ¶ 7. Today, 

there was a trickle of “only one or two voters” in the 30 minutes she spent observing 

each polling location. Id. ¶ 6.

II. Existing Emergency Balloting Procedures Failed to Enable Many to 

Floridians to Vote.

Despite the difficulties experienced at polling places, Supervisors of Elections 

were making no exceptions to the rules for obtaining emergency vote-by-mail ballots 

that voters can complete at home and return by the close of polling. Under normal 

circumstances, such ballots are available on election day only to voters experiencing 

an emergency that keeps them from voting at their assigned polling places. The 

process is cumbersome, requiring the voter to complete an affidavit explaining the 

emergency as well as, often, a vote-by-mail ballot request form. If the voter wishes 

to send someone else to pick up the ballot, the voter and the designee must both sign 

a separate form making the designation. Although the entire nation is facing an 
4

emergency that has resulted in many people being advised to stay away from public 

gatherings, Defendants failed to authorize supervisors to relax these requirements in 

any way, and calls to several supervisors indicated most were continuing to strictly 

comply with these procedures. Declaration of Marina Golan-Vilella, ¶¶ 5-14. One

county even imposed its own heightened requirements, demanding a doctor’s note 

corroborating the voter’s emergency, and that requirement remained in effect today. 

See Miami-Dade County Ordinances, § 12-14(b). In at least one case, a supervisor 

was not permitting any voters to obtain vote-by-mail ballots, even if they were 

willing and able to comply with the requirements. Golan-Vilella Decl. ¶ 5. In another 

case, apparent confusion over the requirements lead to an individual seeking to 

obtain a ballot for her grandmother having to make multiple tripsto the supervisor’s 

office, taking a total of four hours to obtain all of the required forms,. Declaration of 

Jessica Alcocer, ¶¶ 6-9.

III. Defendants’ Failure to Expand Voting Opportunities Prevented Many 

Floridians From Participating.

In addition to the Plaintiffs and their members, whose obstacles to voting are 

set forth in Plaintiffs’ original Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining 

Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4), and the declarations attached there 

to, many other Florida voters were unable to vote due to Defendants’ failure to 

extend the vote-by-mail deadline or offer other accommodations. For example, Rose 

Marie Barfield, a seventy-three year old resident of Okeechobee County, with 
5

diabetes and high blood pressure, wanted to vote early in person last Friday, March 

13, 2020. However, due to the public news about the unsafety of COVD-19 

contagion, she decided it would be too great a risk to her health to work the polls or 

go in for early voting. She also did not vote this Tuesday primary for the same 

reasons. She would have voted by mail if it had been possible. Declaration of Rose 

Marie Barfield. 

Likewise, Murray Heller is an eighty-six year old voter who did not vote today 

because he is afraid to leave his home in Delray Beach, Florida, during the COVID19 public health crisis. Mr. Heller would have voted in person at his local polling 

station today if there were no public health emergency. He has found news reports 

of the spike in cases, and the higher risk of severe and even fatal outcomes for elderly 

persons who contract COVID-19 to be “pretty frightening.” Mr. Heller would vote 

in Florida’s Presidential Primary Election if he could request and submit a mail 

ballot. Declaration of Murray Heller.

Cierra Medina, a thirty-year-old resident of Broward County, and a pregnant 

mother with two toddlers to care for, stated that before the COVID-19 public health 

crisis, she planned to go in person to her local polling site to cast her ballot. Medina 

Decl. ¶ 2. As a result of the public health emergency caused by COVID-19 

contagion, fearing for her health, and that of her unborn child and two toddlers who 

are at home with her because their school has been canceled, Ms. Medina did not 
6

vote in person today in Broward County. Medina Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. She would have voted

by mail if that had been an option. Medina Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.

The stories of Plaintiffs, their members, and these other voters is typical of the 

experience of voters throughout the State.2

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiffs seek a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and a Preliminary 

Injunction (“PI”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (a) and (b), to 

enjoin defendants to ensure that all eligible Florida electors whether they be 

mandatorily quarantined, self-quarantined, self-distancing, displaced by the 

pandemic or otherwise prevented from casting a regular ballot on election day by 

the novel corona virus, COVID-19, and who desire to vote in the primary preference 

primary election in Florida are able to cast a ballot that counts.

To prevail on a motion for a TRO and PI, a movant must establish: (1) a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the movant will suffer

irreparable injury in the absence of the requested injunctive relief; (3) that the

threatened harm outweighs the harm that the nonmovant would suffer if the

2 See, e.g., WESH2, “Complete 2020 Florida presidential primary election results” 

(Mar. 17, 2020) (“Jonathan Castoire, a Broward County telecommunications 

engineer, said it was too dangerous for him to vote, because he has multiple 

sclerosis and his voting station is in a senior center. Castoire said he tried calling 

elections officials for help, but got nowhere, leaving him feeling like he has been 

given ‘an ultimatum’ to choose between his health and his right to vote.”)
7

injunctive relief is issued; and (4) that the injunctive relief would not be adverse to

the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 

7, 20 (2008) (setting out the standard for a preliminary injunction); Windsor v. 

United States, No. 09-13998, 2010 WL 1999138, at *4 (11th Cir. May 10, 2010) 

(noting that the standard for a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard 

for a preliminary injunction). “The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent 

irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision 

on the merits.” United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450, 1459 (11th Cir. 1986)

(affirming grant of a preliminary injunction). 

ARGUMENT

As laid out in more detail in Plaintiffs’ original Motion for an Emergency 

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and as briefly reiterated 

below, Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order mandating the 

additional voting opportunities sought in this motion. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail 

on the merits as Florida’s statutory scheme has totally denied many voters the 

opportunity to cast a ballot in the PPP and put others in the untenable position of 

choosing between their own or their family’s health and well-being and exercising 

their fundamental right to vote.

The Plaintiffs and the other Floridians who have submitted declarations in 

support of this motion could not and did not predict the COVID-19 pandemic. 
8

Neither did the poll workers who did not show up today or polling sites that 

ultimately closed in accordance with federal guidance against gatherings of more 10 

people. Now, with the election over and the deadline to apply for and cast a vote-bymail ballot long past, these voters will be wholly deprived of their right to vote 

without intervention by this court. Under this court’s precedent, as well as the 

precedent of other courts in the Eleventh Circuit in analogous situations, this severe 

burden on the right to vote cannot be countenanced under our constitutional system. 

See Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda v. Deal, 214 F.Supp.3d 1344 (S.D. 

Ga. 2016) (granting emergency preliminary injunction extending voter registration

deadline for one week where state officials’ failure to extend deadline, despite 

mandatory evacuations imposed due to hurricane, violated plaintiffs First and 

Fourteenth Amendments); Florida Democratic Party v. Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d. 1250, 

1257 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (finding that Florida’s statutory voter registration deadline, 

which permitted no change in the deadline in the event of emergency, “completely 

disenfranchises thousands of voters, and amounts to a severe burden on the right to 

vote.”).

The total denial of a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot in the PPP 

constitutes irreparable injury that cannot be remedied absent action by this Court—

action that the Court can and has exercised in past states of emergency. As this Court 

said in another emergency impacting an election “[o]f course, the State of Florida 
9

has the ability to set its own deadlines and has an interest in maintaining those 

deadlines . . . [b]ut it would be nonsensical to prioritize those deadlines over the right 

to vote, especially given the circumstances here.” 215 F. Supp. 3d at 1258. 

With the end of in-person voting in today’s PPP, any burden on the State in 

extending the vote-by-mail deadlines and relaxing the other vote-by-mail 

requirements will be slight, especially compared to the total deprivation of the right 

to vote faced by Plaintiffs, their members, and thousands of other Floridians. Thus,

the balance of the equities favors issuing the TRO and Preliminary Injunction 

plaintiffs seek. 

Finally, a TRO and Preliminary Injunction are in the public interest. In 

general, “the public has a strong interest in exercising the fundamental political right 

to vote. That interest is best served by favoring enfranchisement and ensuring that 

qualified voters’ exercise of their right to vote is successful.” Obama for Am. v. 

Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436-437 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 

1 (2006)) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “The public interest therefore 

favors permitting as many qualified voters to vote as possible.” Obama for Am., 697 

F.3d at 437. With the polls closed, there is now no countervailing public interest in 

allowing elections officials to conduct Election Day business while “voting is in 

progress,” as this Court noted in denying the initial motion this morning. Order 

Denying a Temporary Restraining Order at 3 (ECF No. 12). A TRO allowing the 
10

modest extension to the vote-by-mail deadline that Plaintiffs seek will allow as many 

qualified Floridians to vote as possible and will advance the public interest.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter a Temporary Restraining 

Order awarding the requested relief. 

Dated: March 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Kira Romero-Craft

 Kira Romero-Craft

CHIRAAG BAINS*

Dēmos

740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 864-2746

cbains@demos.org

STUART NAIFEH*

KATHRYN C. SADASIVAN*

MIRANDO GALINDO*

EMERSON GORDON-MARVIN*

Dēmos

80 Broad St, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 485-6055

snaifeh@demos.org 

ksadasivan@demos.org

mgalindo@demos.org 

egordonmarvin@demos.org

JUDITH A. BROWNE DIANIS*

GILDA DANIELS*

JESS UNGER*

SHARION SCOTT*

Advancement Project National Office

1220 L Street N.W., Suite 850

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 728-9557

jbrowne@advancementproject.org

gdaniels@advancementproject.org

junger@advancementproject.org

sscott@advancementproject.org

KIRA ROMERO-CRAFT

(FL SBN 49927)

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

523 West Colonial Drive

Orlando, Florida 32804

(321) 418-6354

kromero@latinojustice.org

FRANCISCA FAJANA*

JACKSON CHIN*

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901
11

New York, NY 10115

(212) 739-7572

ffajana@latinojustice.org

jchin@latinojustice.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

Pursuant to Northern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(F), I certify that, 

according to the word count of the word processing system used to prepare this 

document, the foregoing memorandum contains 2,872 words. 

/s/ Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft