1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS, DREAM 

DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA 

MAJORITY, ORGANIZE FLORIDA, 

TERRIAYNA SPILLMAN, 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’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (b), and for the reasons 

set forth in the complaint and memorandum submitted herewith, Plaintiffs 

respectfully move the Court for 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 implement the 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 28
2

following measures on a statewide basis and to direct all County Supervisors of 

Elections (SOEs) to undertake the following emergency measures to ensure free, 

fair, and accessible voting for all Floridians impacted by the coronavirus pandemic:

(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.

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.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 28
3

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 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.

(3) Make polling locations healthy, safe, and accessible for all voters.

a. Permit voters to vote curbside with a paper ballot.

(4) Communicate critical information to Florida voters.

a. Require County Supervisors of Elections to contact all voters whose 

polling places have changed as a result of site relocations, to post such 

notices in prominent public areas, such as entrances and exits of the 

closed voting sites, and to station a poll worker at each of these sites to 

alert voters that the polling place has changed.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 28
4

b. Require County Supervisors of Elections update their county websites 

to specifically flag polling places that have changed as a result of site 

relocations.

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

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

opportunities to vote.

As set forth in detail in the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of this 

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and the 

accompanying Declarations of Acacia Williams, Terriayna Spillman, Eva Robinson, 

Ray Winters, Kathleen Winters, Bianca Maria Baez, and Rachel Gilmore on behalf 

of Dream Defenders, filed herewith, Plaintiffs have established that they are likely 

to succeed on the merits of their claims; that they will and other Florida voters will 

suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue the requested injunction; that the 

harm to Plaintiffs and voters outweighs any harm Defendants would suffer if the 

Court were to order the emergency preliminary relief sought by Plaintiffs; that the 

balance of hardships tips strongly in Plaintiffs’ favor; and that a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction in this case advances the clear public 

interest. Accordingly, a Temporary Restraining Order should issue forthwith.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this matter be set for telephonic oral 

argument on an expedited basis.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 28
5

Dated: March 16, 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

New York, NY 10115

(212) 739-7572

ffajana@latinojustice.org

jchin@latinojustice.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DREAM DEFENDERS, NEW 

FLORIDA MAJORITY, ORGANIZE 

FLORIDA, TERRIAYNA 

SPILLMAN, ACACIA WILLIAMS, 

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 MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The United States is in the midst of an emergency that threatens not just our 

individual health and well-being, but also the health of the most vulnerable members 

of our families and communities. No American should be faced with the impossible

choice of having a voice at this critical moment in our democracy and putting 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 28
2

themself, their family, or their community at grave risk. No American should be 

denied the ability to cast a ballot because polling places cannot cope with long lines 

and confusion occasioned by the closure of polling sites and the failure to extend 

vote-by-mail options. It is crucial that every eligible voter be able to access the ballot 

in Florida’s presidential preference primary. 

The State of Florida, in this time of emergency, has failed and refused to 

extend the vote-by-mail request and return deadlines or to expand the means by 

which individuals may receive and return vote-by-mail ballots. 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

I. The Parties

A. Plaintiffs

Individual Plaintiffs are Florida voters whose voting plans have been 

disrupted by the COVID-19 outbreak and organizations whose members include 

such individuals. These voters will therefore be unable to vote in the Presidential 

Preference Primary (“PPP”) on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, if the relief sought in this 

motion is not granted.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 28
3

Plaintiff Acacia Williams is a student at the University of Florida in 

Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Her family resides in Sullivan County, New 

York. Ms. Williams complied with a directive from the University of Florida to leave 

her dorm and not to return to campus until March 30, 2020, due to the coronavirus 

outbreak. Ms. Williams is currently at her parents’ home in Sullivan County, New 

York, and is unable to travel back to Florida. The coronavirus and its displacement 

of students has disrupted Ms. Williams’ plan to vote in person and she is presently 

unable to request a vote by mail ballot due to the expired deadline. She would vote 

if she could request a vote-by-mail ballot.

Plaintiff Terriayna Spillman is a student at Bethune-Cookman University in 

Daytona Beach, Volusia County. She complied with a directive from the university 

not to return to campus until March 30, 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak. Ms. 

Spillman is currently at her parents’ home in Lake County and does not have reliable 

transportation back to Daytona Beach. The coronavirus has disrupted Ms. Spillman’s 

plan to vote in person and she is presently unable to request a vote by mail ballot 

due to the expired deadline. She would vote if she could request a vote-by-mail 

ballot.

Plaintiff Ray Winters is an elderly voter in Miami Dade County who is unable 

to vote in Florida’s PPP on March 17, 2020, without severe risks to his health. Mr. 

Winters is seventy-eight years old and has heart problems and experiences seizures. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 28
4

Mr. Winters had planned to vote in person at his regular polling place, but now, the 

risk to his health of potentially being exposed to the virus is too great. He would vote 

if he could request a vote-by-mail ballot.

Plaintiff Kathleen Winters is an elderly voter in Miami Dade County who is 

unable to vote in Florida’s PPP on March 17, 2020, without risking her own health 

and the health of her husband, Plaintiff Ray Winters. Ms. Winters is sixty-seven 

years old, and she and her husband are at a higher risk of severe or fatal outcomes 

from COVID-19. Before the emergency created by COVID-19, Ms. Winters had 

planned to vote in person at her regular polling place, but now, the risk to her health 

and that of her husband is too great to go to the ballot box. She would vote if she 

could request a vote-by-mail ballot. 

Plaintiff Bianca Maria Baez is a voter who just returned to the U.S. from an 

international trip and, in accordance with public health recommendations, is 

practicing social distancing. She is unable to vote in Florida’s PPP on March 17, 

2020, without risking her health and that of others in her community. Ms. Baez was 

planning to vote in-person however due to her recent travel and the risk of being 

asymptomatic while still having the virus presents an undue risk to herself and 

members of her community. Ms. Baez would vote-by-mail if she had the 

opportunity to do so. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 9 of 28
5

Organizational plaintiffs are non-profit organizations whose missions and or 

members interfered with or affected by Defendants’ refusal to extend the voter 

registration deadline.

Plaintiff New Florida Majority, Inc. (“NewFM”) is a Florida non-profit 

corporation and membership organization that works with individual members and 

organizations across the State of Florida engaged in civic and democratic endeavors 

to assist underserved communities in voter registration, voter education and get out 

the vote efforts. Defendants’ failure to extend vote-by-mail and other 

accommodations during the state of emergency caused by COVID-19 thwarts the 

organization’s efforts to increase voter participation and will prevent many of its 

members who are registered voters in the State of Florida from voting.

Plaintiff Dream Defenders is a Florida nonprofit corporation. Dream 

Defenders trains and organizes youth and students to confront structural inequality

specifically through civic engagement activities across the State of Florida and get 

out the vote efforts. The membership of Dream Defenders includes college students 

who have been displaced from their schools due to the coronavirus pandemic. The 

State’s failure to offer appropriate accommodations in the PPP in response to the 

pandemic continues to thwart the organization’s efforts to secure the participation of 

registered Floridians in the election and will prevent many of its members who are 

registered voters in the State of Florida from voting. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 10 of 28
6

Plaintiff Organize Florida is a community-based, nonprofit member 

organization whose membership consists of low- and moderate-income people 

dedicated to the principles of social, racial, and economic justice and the promotion 

of an equal and fair Florida for all. Organize Florida’s major campaigns have 

included supporting children and families and increasing Latinx voter turnout. 

Defendants’ failure to extend vote-by-mail and other accommodations during the 

emergency caused by the coronavirus outbreak and the State’s failure to take 

appropriate steps to accommodate impacted voters hinders the organization’s efforts 

to secure voter participation and will prevent many of its members who are registered 

voters in the State of Florida from voting.

B. Defendants

Defendants are Florida election officials, sued in their official capacity for 

their failure to take action necessary to prevent the unconstitutional deprivation of 

Plaintiffs right to vote. Defendant Ron DeSantis is sued in his official capacity as 

Governor of the State of Florida. As Governor of Florida, Defendant DeSantis is the 

State’s chief executive officer and is responsible for the administration of all state 

laws, including those pertaining to elections. Defendant DeSantis is also a member 

of the Elections Canvassing Commission as established in Florida Statute § 102.111. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 11 of 28
7

Defendant Laurel M. Lee is sued in her official capacity as Florida Secretary 

of State. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 97.012, the Secretary of State is the chief 

elections officer of the State and is responsible for the administration of state laws 

affecting voting.

Defendant Elections Canvassing Commission is sued as a state-created entity. 

Its membership consists of the Governor and two members of the Cabinet selected 

by the Governor, as set forth in Florida Statute § 102.111. Pursuant to Florida Statute 

§ 101.698, the Elections Canvassing Commission is tasked with adopting emergency 

rules to facilitate absentee voting during emergency situations.

II. The Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

On December 1, 2019, the first confirmed COVID-19 patient began 

experiencing symptoms in China’s Hubei province. Fernando Duarte, Who Is 

‘Patient Zero’ in the Coronavirus Outbreak, BBC, Feb. 23, 2020, 

www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-harmful-hunt-for-covid19s-patient-zero. The novel coronavirus infection rapidly spread to other countries. 

By January 21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed 

the first patient in the United States. Elizabeth Cohen, First US Case of Wuhan 

Coronavirus Confirmed by CDC, CNN, Jan. 21, 2020,

www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/health/wuhan-coronavirus-first-us-case-cdcbn/index.html. There are now at least 1,629 confirmed COVID-19 cases in 46 U.S. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 12 of 28
8

states and the District of Columbia. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the 

U.S., Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (updated Mar. 13, 2020),

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. The number of actual cases 

is likely far higher because effective testing procedures have only slowly become 

widely available. Thus far, the outbreak has led to 41 deaths in the United States.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S., Ctrs. for Disease Control &

Prevention, Mar. 13, 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. 

On Friday, March 13, President Trump declared a national emergency to begin 

mobilizing the extraordinary measures necessary to address the rapidly expanding 

public health crisis. Transcript: Trump’s Coronavirus News Conference, N. Y.

Times, Mar. 13, 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/politics/trumpcoronavirus-news-conference.html. 

The outbreak has reached Florida. As of today, the Florida Department of 

Health has confirmed 149 cases among Floridians, including four deaths. 2019 

Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), Fla. Dep’t of Health, Mar. 15, 2020, 

www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/COVID-19/. The true number may 

well be much higher. Florida Department of Education Commissioner Richard 

Corcoran has urged school districts statewide to keep schools closed for an 

additional week of spring break. Florida Department of Education Provides 

Recommendations for Spring Break, Fla. Dep’t of Ed., Mar. 13, 2020,

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 13 of 28
9

www.fldoe.org/newsroom/latest-news/florida-department-of-education-providesrecommendations-for-spring-break.stml. Tens of thousands of Floridians who work 

for state agencies have been asked to work from home and to cancel travel for 30 

days. Gov. DeSantis Orders 2,500 Coronavirus Test Kits, Asks for Limited Mass 

Gatherings, News4Jax, Mar. 12, 2020, www.news4jax.com/health/2020/03/12/govdesantis-we-have-to-increase-our-ability-to-test-for-coronavirus/. On Friday, March 

13, Secretary Lee released a joint statement with the chief election officials of 

Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio, confirming that the scheduled presidential preference 

primary election would proceed on Tuesday, March 17, despite the emergent 

circumstances. Statement from Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio Chief Elections 

Officials on the Status of the March 17th State Primaries, Ohio Sec’y of State, Mar. 

13, 2020, www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2020/2020-03-13/. And 

just yesterday, the CDC recommended that for the next eight weeks, groups and

individuals throughout the United States cancel or postpone in-person events that 

consist of 50 people or more. Interim Guidance for Coronavirus Disease 2019 

(COVID-19), Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Mar. 15, 2020,

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Today, the President’s 

Office issued new guidance for the public to avoid all social groupings of 10 or more

people. The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, Mar. 16, 2020, 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 14 of 28
10

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirusguidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf.

The ongoing COVID-19 emergency has disrupted the normal functioning of 

this election. 

SOEs have closed, moved or consolidated 112 polling places in 22 counties,

including many at assisted living facilities. The closure of polling places at assisted 

living facilities not only affects residents of the facilities but also the non-residents 

who vote at those locations. Numerous poll workers may withdraw from 

participating in this election due to concerns about the pandemic and following the 

CDC’s guidance regarding gatherings of 50 people or more. See, e.g., Anna Bryson, 

Coronavirus Florida: Sarasota County Voting Locations Change as Poll Workers 

Quit, Herald-Tribune, Mar. 14, 2020,

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200314/coronavirus-florida-sarasotacounty-voting-locations-change-as-poll-workers-quit. With a lack of poll workers, 

SOEs may close or consolidate yet more polling places. This will inevitably hinder 

voters’ ability to access polling sites within reasonable distances of their homes and 

will create confusion. Polling places that remain open with fewer poll workers may 

experience longer lines with wait times for voters, increasing health risks. Where 

SOEs utilize volunteers from other government departments to fill vacant poll 

worker positions, the lack of time to fully train those volunteers in election law, 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 15 of 28
11

rules, and procedures may result in the dissemination of inaccurate information to 

voters or to eligible voters being wrongfully turned away from the polls. Between 

people who can no longer risk going to the polls and those who will face barriers at 

the polls due to closures, confusion, and long lines, the extension of vote-by-mail 

deadlines and related accommodations are necessary to protect voting rights in 

Florida.

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 16 of 28
12

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

I. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims.

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Florida’s 

elections rules, without accommodations for extended vote-by-mail and other vital 

changes to ensure ballot access in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, places an 

undue burden on their right to vote by severely burdening and in some cases totally 

denying hundreds of thousands of eligible Florida citizens the opportunity to cast a 

ballot that counts in the 2020 presidential preference primary.

Voting forms “the beating heart of democracy.” League of Women Voters v. 

Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1215 (N.D. Fla. 2018). But “voting alone is not 

enough to keep democracy’s heart beating. . . [V]otes must then be counted.” 

Democratic Executive Comm. of Fla. V. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019).

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 17 of 28
13

In the Eleventh Circuit, a court must evaluate the constitutionality of an 

election law challenged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by applying the 

Anderson-Burdick test. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); Burdick 

v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992). That test requires the court to weigh the 

character and magnitude of the asserted First and Fourteenth Amendment injury 

against the state’s proffered justifications for the burdens imposed by the rule, taking 

into consideration the extent to which those justifications require the burden to 

plaintiffs’ rights. See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434.

A law that severely burdens the right to vote must be narrowly drawn to serve 

a compelling state interest. Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434; Democratic Executive 

Committee of Fla., 915 F.3d at 1318. Even for a law that “imposes only a slight 

burden on the right to vote, relevant and legitimate interests of sufficient weight still 

must justify that burden.” Democratic Executive Committee of Fla., 915 F.3d at 

1318-19 (citing Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1352 (11th Cir. 

2009)). The more a challenged law burdens the right to vote, the stricter the scrutiny

to which the law is subjected. Democratic Executive Committee of Fla., 915 F.3d at 

1319 (citing Stein v. Ala. Sec. of State, 774 F.3d 689, 694 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating 

that challenges to state election laws arising solely under the First Amendment are 

governed by Anderson v. Celebrezze)).

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 18 of 28
14

In Florida Democratic Party v. Scott, this court explained, in the context of 

Hurricane Matthew forcing voters to evacuate the State, that there is no Florida 

statutory provision allowing for an extension of the voter registration deadline in the 

event of an emergency, and that without such a provision, Florida law “completely 

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

vote.” 215 F. Supp. 3d. 1250, 1257 (N.D. Fla. 2016). 

COVID-19 has placed a severe burden on the right to vote by disenfranchising 

thousands of voters. Despite Defendant DeSantis’s own declaration of a state of 

emergency on Friday, March 13th, the State has refused to make a reasonable effort 

to accommodate the needs of its voting eligible citizens that are quarantined and 

voters who need accommodations in order to cast a ballot in light of the global 

pandemic and its risks. Absent relief, hundreds of thousands of eligible Floridians 

will be prevented from participating in the presidential preference primary election.

The burden this scheme places on thousands of Floridians right to vote greatly 

outweighs any proffered justifications the State could put forward, whether under a 

more stringent Anderson-Burdick analysis akin to strict scrutiny or under the 

intermediate standard. And as this court explained in Florida Democratic Party v. 

Scott, even assuming the State of Florida could point to a valid compelling interest,

“it is nonsensical to argue that it is narrowly tailored to that interest” in a 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 19 of 28
15

circumstance where the scheme totally denies eligible voters the opportunity to cast 

a ballot as a result of an un expected state emergency. 215 F. Supp. 3d at 1257.

Similarly, under the Anderson-Burdick standard, the State cannot argue that 

some limitation requires it to burden the constitutional rights of aspiring eligible 

voters in these circumstances. Nor would the State, given the declared state of 

emergency and the potential burden to the state health system, want all eligible 

registered voters to show up in person from around the United States, including 

asymptomatic individuals who are self-quarantining or practicing social distancing,

to come to the polls to cast a ballot. Finally, even under rational basis review, it “is 

wholly irrational in this instance for Florida to refuse to extend the voter registration 

deadline when the State already allows the Governor to suspend or move the election 

date due to an unforeseen emergency.” Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 1257 (citing § 

101.733, Fla. Stat.)

Under these circumstances, the State’s enforcement of the March 7 vote-bymail request deadline and its refusal to allow the delivery of ballots by e-mail or fax 

or accommodate voters who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 constitute an 

undue burden on the right to vote. As a result, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the 

merits. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 20 of 28
16

II. In the Absence of a Restraining Order, Plaintiffs Will Suffer 

Irreparable Harm by Being Permanently Denied the Right to Vote in 

Florida’s 2020 Presidential Preference Primary Election.

It is plain that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if a temporary restraining 

order is not granted. The State has refused to extend vote-by-mail deadlines, adjust 

early voting dates, and expand mail ballot transmission options despite a pandemic 

that has forced many Floridians to leave the State, quarantine at home, or avoid 

public gatherings—all interrupting ordinary plans to vote in person on Election Day. 

Plaintiffs and voters across Florida now face an unenviable choice: brave the polls 

and subject themselves to risks the State itself has asked them not to take, or forfeit 

their right to vote. Unless they are granted the relief requested, there is a strong 

likelihood that the right to vote of thousands of Floridians, including the Individual 

Plaintiffs and Organizational Plaintiffs’ members and constituents, will be severely 

burdened or eliminated in the 2020 presidential preference primary. 

Because of the crisis created by COVID-19, many Floridians who planned to 

vote in person on Election Day, including the individuals who have submitted the 

attached declarations, are not able or willing to vote in person at the polls on Tuesday 

as they had planned and have now missed the March 7, 2020, deadline to requested 

vote-by-mail ballots. Moreover, the President has instructed all persons to avoid 

gatherings of 10 persons or more, an instruction many voters would have to disregard 

to cast their ballots at the polls.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 21 of 28
17

These individuals now have no means of casting a ballot except by appearing 

in person at their Supervisor of Elections office to request an emergency vote-bymail ballot or appearing and voting in person at their assigned polling place. 

For many of these voters—such as Ms. Robinson, who went to her parents’ 

home in North Carolina after the University of Florida asked students to leave 

campus, and Ms. Williams, who went to her parents’ home in New York under the 

same circumstances—neither of these options is practicable because they are not 

presently in the State. Ms. Spillman is now at her parents’ home in Lake County 

rather than in Volusia County, where she attends Bethune-Cookman University and 

where she is registered to vote, because the university directed students not to return. 

She lacks transportation to get back to Volusia County because her mother, who 

would have to drive her, has been ordered to continue to report to work.

In addition, the health risks of voting in person are prohibitive for many 

voters. Plaintiff Ray Winters is 78 years old, has heart problems, and experiences 

seizures. His wife, Plaintiff Kathleen Winters, is 67 years old and must take 

precautions to safeguard Mr. Winters’ health as well as her own. Both intended to 

vote in person on Election Day, but with the rapidly evolving news about 

coronavirus, are now unable to go into the polls without grave risk to their health. 

They avoid leaving their home and have even made arrangements to have their 

groceries and medication delivered. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Baez is unwilling to risk 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 22 of 28
18

her health or that of others as she recently returned from international travel. Untold 

numbers of Floridians who are ill or have health conditions, who live with people 

who do, or who are simply committed to social distancing of the sort the country’s

highest government officials have implored all to undertake will be barred from 

voting unless they can receive, execute, and return vote-by-mail ballots. 

This is not a case where denial of relief would merely inconvenience 

Plaintiffs, declarants, and organizational plaintiffs’ members. Denial of relief would 

leave people to risk their health, and the health of the wider community, or to forfeit 

their fundamental right to vote and have a voice in their own democracy.

III. The Harm to Plaintiffs Outweighs Any Burden to the State in 

Accommodating the Situation Caused By the COVID-19 Pandemic.

If Florida does not provide the requested relief, Plaintiffs and thousands of 

Florida voters will be stripped of their most fundamental freedom—the right to vote. 

Because any burden on Defendants certainly outweighs the public health and civic 

consequences of not taking prompt action, the balance of hardships favors Plaintiffs.

As this Court said in another state emergency “[o]f course, the State of Florida 

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.” Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 1258. In 

that case, this court was referring to Hurricane Matthew, which ravaged Florida and 

left many Florida residents evacuated outside of the state. Here, the COVID-19 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 23 of 28
19

emergency is impacting not just the State of Florida, but the United States, and the 

numbers affected in Florida are expected to rise, perhaps dramatically. America’s 

chief public health department has issued guidance urging individuals and groups to 

cancel or postpone in-person events that consist of 50 people or more throughout the 

United States for the next eight weeks. State governments have required persons 

showing symptoms of COVID-19 not leave their homes for 14 days. The State of 

Florida has issued a state of emergency, as has the United States. The President’s 

Office just advised that people not gather in groups of ten or more. There is no 

question that under these extraordinary circumstances it is both prudent and 

necessary for the State to undertake swift action to ensure that the thousands of 

affected Florida residents do not have to choose between their health or the health 

of their loved ones and exercising a voice in our democracy.

Any burden the state might experience in having to extend the mail-ballot 

deadline or take the other actions Plaintiffs seek is limited. Even if government 

guidance on public gatherings changes, the extension that Plaintiffs request will be 

sufficient to allow voters to request and return ballots by mail or via the drop boxes 

Plaintiffs seek, providing a full opportunity to participate even for those with severe 

limitations on their activities.

It would be unreasonable to prioritize pre-COVID-19 deadlines over the right 

to vote in this extraordinary circumstance.

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 24 of 28
20

IV. The Requested Relief Is in the Public Interest Because It Will Help 

Protect the Health and Safety of Florida Residents, Assist the State in 

Complying with CDC Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Help 

Prevent the Spread of a Novel and Deadly Virus, and Safeguard Eligible 

Florida Voters’ Fundamental Right to Vote.

Defendants cannot provide any colorable justification for their refusal, in light 

of the COVID-19 pandemic, to extend the vote-by-mail request and return deadlines 

or to expand the mechanisms for delivering vote-by-mail ballots. Plaintiffs’ 

requested relief is in the public interest because it will help protect the health and 

safety of Florida residents by preventing mass gatherings which could expose the 

elderly or infirm to the virus. The requested relief assists the State in complying with 

CDC guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic, helps prevent the spread of a novel, 

deadly virus from overwhelming the State of Florida’s health system, and safeguards 

eligible Florida voters’ fundamental right to vote. By every measure, the requested 

relief is in the public interest. These voters have already had their lives indefinitely 

turned upside down, and they should not have to risk their wellbeing and potentially 

their lives to cast a ballot. Ensuring that they can exercise their constitutional right 

to vote thus promotes the public interest.

CONCLUSION

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

Order awarding the requested relief. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 25 of 28
21

Dated: March 16, 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

New York, NY 10115

(212) 739-7572

ffajana@latinojustice.org

jchin@latinojustice.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 26 of 28
22

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 5,571 words. 

/s/ Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 27 of 28
23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 16, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing motion and memorandum has been furnished to the following parties via 

electronic mail:

Nicholas Allen Primrose

Executive Office of the Governor

400 S Monroe Street, # 209

Tallahassee, FL 32399-6536

(850) 717-9310

nicholas.primrose@eog.myflorida.com

Attorney for the Governor 

Brad McVay

General Counsel

Florida Department of State

R.A. Gray Building

500 S. Bronough Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

(850) 245-6511

Brad.McVay@dos.myflorida.com

Attorney for the Secretary of State

Amit Agarwal, 

Solicitor General 

Office of the Attorney General

PL-01 The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

amit.agarwal@myfloridalegal.com

Attorney for Defendant Elections Canvassing Commission

/s/Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 4 Filed 03/16/20 Page 28 of 28