1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISON

KIRK NIELSEN, MORGAN 

OUTLAW, REVEL LUBIN, FELICIA 

BRUCE, BARBARA DEVANE, RAY 

DAVIS, DONESA JACKSON, 

ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC., 

FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED 

AMERICANS, INC., and PRIORITIES 

USA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official 

capacity as Florida Governor, LAUREL 

M. LEE, in her official capacity as 

Florida Secretary of State, ASHLEY 

MOODY, in her official capacity as 

Florida Attorney General, THE 

FLORIDA ELECTIONS 

CANVASSING COMMISSION, KIM 

A. BARTON, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for ALACHUA 

County, the ALACHUA COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, NITA 

CRAWFORD, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for BAKER 

County, the BAKER COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, MARK 

ANDERSEN, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for BAY 

County, the BAY COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, TERRY L. 

VAUGHAN, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

 Case No. 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR INJUNCTIVE AND 

DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 78
2

BRADFORD County, the BRADFORD 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

LORI SCOTT, in her official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

BREVARD County, the BREVARD 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

PETER ANTONACCI, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

BROWARD County, the BROWARD 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

SHARON CHASON, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

CALHOUN County, the CALHOUN 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

PAUL A. STAMOULIS, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

CHARLOTTE County, the 

CHARLOTTE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, SUSAN A. 

GILL, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for CITRUS 

County, the CITRUS COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, CHRIS H. 

CHAMBLESS, in his official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for CLAY 

County, the CLAY COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, JENNIFER J. 

EDWARDS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for COLLIER 

County, the COLLIER COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, ELIZABETH 

P. HORNE, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

COLUMBIA County, the COLUMBIA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

MARK F. NEGLEY, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

DESOTO County, the DESOTO 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, 

STARLET CANNON, in her official 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 78
3

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

DIXIE County, the DIXIE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, MIKE 

HOGAN, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for DUVAL 

County, the DUVAL COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, DAVID H. 

STAFFORD, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for ESCAMBIA 

County, the ESCAMBIA COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, KAITI 

LENHART, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for FLAGLER 

County, the FLAGLER COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, HEATHER 

RILEY, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for FRANKLIN 

County, the FRANKLIN COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, SHIRLEY G. 

KNIGHT, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for GADSDEN 

County, the GADSDEN COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, CONNIE 

SANCHEZ, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for GILCHRIST 

County, the GILCHRIST COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, ALETRIS 

FARNAM, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for GLADES 

County, the GLADES COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, JOHN 

HANLON, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for GULF 

County, the GULF COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, LAURA 

HUTTO, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

HAMILTON County, the HAMILTON 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

DIANE SMITH, in her official capacity 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 78
4

as Supervisor of Elections for HARDEE 

County, the HARDEE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, BRENDA 

HOOTS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for HENDRY 

County, the HENDRY COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, SHIRLEY 

ANDERSON, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

HERNANDO County, the 

HERNANDO COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, PENNY 

OGG, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

HIGHLANDS County, the 

HIGHLANDS COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, CRAIG 

LATIMER, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

HILLSBOROUGH County, the 

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, THERISA 

MEADOWS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for HOLMES 

County, the HOLMES COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, LESLIE 

ROSSWAY SWAN, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

INDIAN RIVER County, the INDIAN 

RIVER COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, in 

her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for JACKSON County, the 

JACKSON COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, MARTY BISHOP, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for JEFFERSON County, the 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, TRAVIS 

HART, in his official capacity as 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 78
5

Supervisor of Elections for 

LAFAYETTE County, the 

LAFAYETTE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, ALAN 

HAYS, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for LAKE 

County, the LAKE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, TOMMY 

DOYLE, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for LEE 

County, the LEE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, MARK 

EARLEY, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for LEON 

County, the LEON COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, TAMMY 

JONES, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for LEVY 

County, the LEVY COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, GINA 

MCDOWELL, in her official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

LIBERTY County, the LIBERTY 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

THOMAS “TOMMY” R. HARDEE, in 

his official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MADISON County, the 

MADISON COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, MICHAEL BENNETT, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MANATEE County, the 

MANATEE COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, WESLEY WILCOX, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MARION County, the 

MARION COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, VICKI DAVIS, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

MARTIN County, the MARTIN 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 78
6

CHRISTINA WHITE, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

MIAMI-DADE County, the MIAMIDADE COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, JOYCE GRIFFIN, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MONROE County, the 

MONROE COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, VICKI P. CANNON, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for NASSAU County, the 

NASSAU COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, PAUL A. LUX, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

OKALOOSA County, the OKALOOSA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

DIANE HAGAN, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

OKEECHOBEE County, the 

OKEECHOBEE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, BILL 

COWLES, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for ORANGE 

County, the ORANGE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, MARY

JANE ARRINGTON, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

OSCEOLA County, the OSCEOLA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

WENDY SARTORY LINK, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for PALM BEACH County, 

the PALM BEACH COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, BRIAN E. 

CORLEY, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for PASCO 

County, the PASCO COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, DEBORAH 

CLARK, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for PINELLAS 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 78
7

County, the PINELLAS COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, LORI 

EDWARDS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for POLK 

County, the POLK COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, CHARLES 

OVERTURF, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for PUTNAM 

County, the PUTNAM COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, TAPPIE A.

VILLANE, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for SANTA

ROSA County, the SANTA ROSA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

RON TURNER, in his official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

SARASOTA County, the SARASOTA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

CHRIS ANDERSON, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

SEMINOLE County, the SEMINOLE 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

VICKY OAKES, in her official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for ST. 

JOHNS County, the ST. JOHNS 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

GERTRUDE WALKER, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

ST. LUCIE County, the ST. LUCIE 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

WILLIAM KEEN, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

SUMTER County, the SUMTER 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

GLENDA B. WILLIAMS, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for SUWANNEE County, the 

SUWANNEE COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD, DANA 

SOUTHERLAND, in her official 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 78
8

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

TAYLOR County, the TAYLOR 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for UNION County, the 

UNION COUNTY CANVASSING 

BOARD, LISA LEWIS, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

VOLUSIA County, the VOLUSIA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

HENRY WELLS, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

WAKULLA County, the WAKULLA 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

BOBBY BEASLEY, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

WALTON County, the WALTON 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

CAROL F. RUDD, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

WASHINGTON County, and the 

WASHINGTON COUNTY 

CANVASSING BOARD,

Defendants.

__________________________________________

Plaintiffs KIRK NIELSEN, MORGAN OUTLAW, REVEL LUBIN, 

FELICIA BRUCE, BARBARA DEVANE, RAY DAVIS, DONESA JACKSON, 

ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC., FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED 

AMERICANS, INC., and PRIORITIES USA, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and 

through the undersigned attorneys, file this First Amended Complaint for 

Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against Defendants RON DESANTIS, in his 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 78
9

official capacity as Florida Governor, LAUREL LEE, in her official capacity as 

Florida Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), ASHLEY MOODY, in her official 

capacity as Florida Attorney General, THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS 

CANVASSING COMMISSION; and the Supervisor of Elections (“Supervisor”) 

for each Florida County, in his or her official capacity (collectively, the 

“Supervisors”) and the County Canvassing Board (“CCB”) of each Florida County 

(collectively, the “CCBs”), who respectively include: KIM A. BARTON, as 

Supervisor for ALACHUA County, the ALACHUA CCB, NITA CRAWFORD, as 

Supervisor for BAKER County, the BAKER CCB, MARK ANDERSEN, as 

Supervisor for BAY County, the BAY CCB, TERRY L. VAUGHAN, as 

Supervisor for BRADFORD County, the BRADFORD CCB, LORI SCOTT, as 

Supervisor for BREVARD County, the BREVARD CCB, PETER ANTONACCI, 

as Supervisor for BROWARD County, the BROWARD CCB, SHARON 

CHASON, as Supervisor for CALHOUN County, the CALHOUN CCB, PAUL A. 

STAMOULIS, as Supervisor for CHARLOTTE County, the CHARLOTTE CCB, 

SUSAN A. GILL, as Supervisor for CITRUS County, the CITRUS CCB, CHRIS 

H. CHAMBLESS, as Supervisor for CLAY County, the CLAY CCB, JENNIFER 

J. EDWARDS, as Supervisor for COLLIER County, the COLLIER CCB, 

ELIZABETH P. HORNE, as Supervisor for COLUMBIA County, the 

COLUMBIA CCB, MARK F. NEGLEY, as Supervisor for DESOTO County, the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 78
10

DESOTO CCB, STARLET CANNON, as Supervisor for DIXIE County, the 

DIXIE CCB, MIKE HOGAN, as Supervisor for DUVAL County, the DUVAL 

CCB, DAVID H. STAFFORD, as Supervisor for ESCAMBIA County, the 

ESCAMBIA CCB, KAITI LENHART, as Supervisor for FLAGLER County, the 

FLAGLER CCB, HEATHER RILEY, as Supervisor for FRANKLIN County, the 

FRANKLIN CCB, SHIRLEY G. KNIGHT, as Supervisor for GADSDEN County, 

the GADSDEN CCB, CONNIE SANCHEZ, as Supervisor for GILCHRIST 

County, the GILCHRIST CCB, ALETRIS FARNAM, as Supervisor for GLADES 

County, the GLADES CCB, JOHN HANLON, as Supervisor for GULF County, 

the GULF CCB, LAURA HUTTO, as Supervisor for HAMILTON County, the 

HAMILTON CCB, DIANE SMITH, as Supervisor for HARDEE County, the 

HARDEE CCB, BRENDA HOOTS, as Supervisor for HENDRY County, the

HENDRY CCB, SHIRLEY ANDERSON, as Supervisor for HERNANDO 

County, the HERNANDO CCB, PENNY OGG, as Supervisor for HIGHLANDS 

County, the HIGHLANDS CCB, CRAIG LATIMER, as Supervisor for

HILLSBOROUGH County, the HILLSBOROUGH CCB, THERISA MEADOWS, 

as Supervisor for HOLMES County, the HOLMES CCB, LESLIE ROSSWAY 

SWAN, as Supervisor for INDIAN RIVER County, the INDIAN RIVER CCB, 

SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, as Supervisor for JACKSON County, the JACKSON 

CCB, MARTY BISHOP, as Supervisor for JEFFERSON County, the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 78
11

JEFFERSON CCB, TRAVIS HART, as Supervisor for LAFAYETTE County, the 

LAFAYETTE CCB, ALAN HAYS, as Supervisor for LAKE County, the LAKE 

CCB, TOMMY DOYLE, as Supervisor for LEE County, the LEE CCB, MARK 

EARLEY, as Supervisor for LEON County, the LEON CCB, TAMMY JONES, as 

Supervisor for LEVY County, the LEVY CCB, GINA MCDOWELL, as 

Supervisor for LIBERTY County, the LIBERTY CCB, THOMAS “TOMMY” R. 

HARDEE, as Supervisor for MADISON County, the MADISON CCB, 

MICHAEL BENNETT, as Supervisor for MANATEE County, the MANATEE 

CCB, WESLEY WILCOX, as Supervisor for MARION County, the MARION 

CCB, VICKI DAVIS, as Supervisor for MARTIN County, the MARTIN CCB, 

CHRISTINA WHITE, as Supervisor for MIAMI-DADE County, the MIAMIDADE CCB, JOYCE GRIFFIN, as Supervisor for MONROE County, the 

MONROE CCB, VICKI P. CANNON, as Supervisor for NASSAU County, the 

NASSAU CCB, PAUL A. LUX, as Supervisor for OKALOOSA County, the 

OKALOOSA CCB, DIANE HAGAN, as Supervisor for OKEECHOBEE County, 

the OKEECHOBEE CCB, BILL COWLES, as Supervisor for ORANGE County, 

the ORANGE CCB, MARY JANE ARRINGTON, as Supervisor for OSCEOLA 

County, the OSCEOLA CCB, WENDY SARTORY LINK, as Supervisor for

PALM BEACH County, the PALM BEACH CCB, BRIAN E. CORLEY, as 

Supervisor for PASCO County, the PASCO CCB, DEBORAH CLARK, as 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 78
12

Supervisor for PINELLAS County, the PINELLAS CCB, LORI EDWARDS, as 

Supervisor for POLK County, the POLK CCB, CHARLES OVERTURF, as 

Supervisor for PUTNAM County, the PUTNAM CCB, TAPPIE A. VILLANE, as 

Supervisor for SANTA ROSA County, the SANTA ROSA CCB, RON TURNER, 

as Supervisor for SARASOTA County, the SARASOTA CCB, CHRIS 

ANDERSON, as Supervisor for SEMINOLE County, the SEMINOLE CCB, 

VICKY OAKES, as Supervisor for ST. JOHNS County, the ST. JOHNS CCB, 

GERTRUDE WALKER, as Supervisor for ST. LUCIE County, the ST. LUCIE 

CCB, WILLIAM KEEN, as Supervisor for SUMTER County, the SUMTER CCB, 

GLENDA B. WILLIAMS, as Supervisor for SUWANNEE County, the 

SUWANNEE CCB, DANA SOUTHERLAND, as Supervisor for TAYLOR 

County, the TAYLOR CCB, DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, as Supervisor for

UNION County, the UNION CCB, LISA LEWIS, as Supervisor for VOLUSIA 

County, the VOLUSIA CCB, HENRY WELLS, as Supervisor for WAKULLA 

County, the WAKULLA CCB, BOBBY BEASLEY, as Supervisor for WALTON 

County, the WALTON CCB, CAROL F. RUDD, as Supervisor for

WASHINGTON County, and the WASHINGTON CCB. Plaintiffs allege the 

following facts in support of their claims: 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 12 of 78
13

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs bring this case to ensure that all eligible Florida voters have 

a fair and safe opportunity to exercise their right to vote in the August 18, 2020 

primary (“August Primary”) and November 3, 2020 general election (“November 

General”), as required by the U.S. Constitution. A novel coronavirus pandemic is 

sweeping through the country, with known infections exceeding 1.5 million and 

fatalities approaching 92,000. No states have been spared. In Florida, as of May 

20, 2020, there are 46,944 confirmed cases, and 2,052 people have died; tragically, 

there is no end in sight to this crisis. Indeed, the Director of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recently cautioned that the country may 

encounter a second, more deadly wave of COVID-19, which will “be even more 

difficult than the one we just went through.”1

2. The pandemic’s impact is not limited to Floridians’ health; it also 

endangers their right to vote. The threat to Floridians’ right to vote is so imminent 

that just weeks ago⸺still reeling from the challenges of administering the March 

17, 2020 presidential preference primary election (“PPP”) during the 

pandemic⸺all 67 Supervisors laudably sent Governor DeSantis a letter outlining 

the challenges their respective County election offices will face in the upcoming 

 

1 Zack Budryk, CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus might be ‘more 

difficult’, THE HILL (Apr. 21, 2020), https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/493973-

cdc-director-warns-second-wave-of-coronavirus-might-be-more-difficult.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 13 of 78
14

August Primary and November General, as social distancing measures continue 

and unprecedented vote-by-mail turnout occurs. While Florida commendably 

allows widespread voting by mail, multiple laws and practices governing mail 

voting already burden and disenfranchise thousands of voters in the State and are 

certain to burden and disenfranchise thousands more in the current crisis without 

injunctive relief from this Court. 

3. On March 17, 2020, in the early stages of the pandemic, Florida held 

its PPP. While voters clad in gloves and masks waited to vote, county Supervisors 

witnessed significant challenges: polling places were unavailable, hand sanitizer 

and other materials were in short supply, and a substantial numbers of poll 

workers⸺most of whom were over 65 and at high risk for experiencing severe 

cases of COVID-19⸺decided not to work, many at the last minute. In Palm Beach 

County alone, over 800 poll workers backed out just shortly before the election due 

to coronavirus concerns. And shortly after the election, at least two poll workers in 

Broward County tested positive for COVID-19, at least one of whom was on duty 

for all nine days of early voting. The Supervisors anticipate that these challenges 

will persist in the August Primary and November General and, much like recent 

historic absentee turnout in Wisconsin, that Florida will see significant increases in 

voting by mail⸺much of it by first-time or new mail voters, given that most 

Florida voters have typically voted in person in past elections. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 14 of 78
15

4. But Florida’s vote-by-mail regime is ill-equipped to handle this influx 

of new mail voters, which is certain to exacerbate the disenfranchising effects of 

Florida’s failure to provide prepaid postage (“Vote-by-Mail Postage 

Requirement”), its requirement that vote-by-mail ballots be received by 7 p.m. on 

Election Day (“Election Day Receipt Deadline”), Fla. Stat. §§ 101.67(2), 

101.6103(2), 101.64, and its prohibition on the use of paid organizers to assist 

voters with collecting ballots (“Voter Assistance Ban”), Fla. Stat. § 104.0616

(collectively, “Challenged Provisions”). The burdens of the Challenged Provisions

fall particularly heavily on Florida’s elderly citizens, low-income citizens, and 

student voters, many of whom require assistance with delivering their ballots and 

do not have easy access to postage. 

5. Even under normal circumstances, Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage 

Requirement, which dictates that voters pay for the postage necessary to mail their 

vote-by-mail ballot unless individual counties choose to take on that burden for 

them, significantly increases the monetary and transaction costs associated with 

voting. Not only must a mail voter pay for postage to vote, but they also must 

acquire the postage, which, in this digital age when many people do not keep 

stamps at home, often requires a trip to the post office or other essential business. 

For those with stamps, many voters must still determine the correct amount of 

postage, which varies by ballot size and weight. As a result, these voters are also 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 15 of 78
16

forced to travel to local post offices to inquire about postage, which adds 

significant cost to the voting process, especially for those with limited access to 

transportation, including elderly citizens and students. These trips to the post office 

also create risks of exposure to COVID-19, which is a concern for all voters and 

particularly for elderly voters in Florida who are especially vulnerable to the 

coronavirus. Moreover, as the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) continues to 

face massive budget shortfalls and its workers themselves succumb to illness due 

to their exposure to coronavirus, there is no guarantee that voters’ local post offices

will be open and available to answer questions; it is all but certain that for many 

voters, the time used to acquire postage or determine the correct postage amount 

will delay the voting process and place voters at greater risk of disenfranchisement 

due to the Election Day Receipt Deadline.

6. Similarly, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline disenfranchises 

thousands of voters who complete and mail their ballot prior to Election Day, but 

whose ballots⸺through no fault of the voter⸺do not arrive in the mail at their 

county Supervisor of Elections’ Office by 7 p.m. on Election Day. See Fla. Stat. §§ 

101.67(2), 101.6103(2), 101.64. In 2018 alone, Florida discarded over 17,000

ballots⸺nearly 56% of all vote-by-mail ballots that were rejected⸺simply because 

they arrived after the Election Day Receipt Deadline. More alarmingly, it did so 

notwithstanding that over 20,000 Florida voters did not even receive their mail 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 16 of 78
17

ballot until just days before Election Day, leaving them with insufficient time to 

return it by mail through no fault of their own. While the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline is constitutionally problematic in its own right, under the current 

circumstances⸺where a global pandemic will lead to a significant increase in mail 

voting while at the same time severely burdening an already compromised USPS

and thinly stretched local elections staff⸺it cannot survive judicial scrutiny. If left 

in place, the Election Day Receipt Deadline is certain to disenfranchise countless 

more voters this fall and, as a result, necessitates the precise change that the U.S. 

Supreme Court accepted in Wisconsin for its recent primary election⸺a postmark 

deadline that requires counting all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day 

and received within a reasonable time after Election Day. See Republican Nat’l 

Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 19A1016, 2020 WL 1672702, at *2 (Apr. 

6, 2020). 

7. Finally, Florida’s Voter Assistance Ban, codified at Fla. Stat. § 

104.0616, also significantly raises the risk that large swaths of lawful, eligible 

voters⸺many of whom are likely to have limited mobility and limited access to 

mail⸺will be disenfranchised. The Voter Assistance Ban makes it a misdemeanor 

for any individual paid by any organization to assist with returning more than two 

vote-by-mail ballots each election, unless the individual is an immediate family 

member of the voter. The Voter Assistance Ban hamstrings the ability of 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 17 of 78
18

organizations like Priorities USA and Alianza to assist voters and their constituents 

in making the transition to vote by mail and to ensure that voters’ ballots arrive on 

time to be counted. This is particularly problematic for the upcoming elections, not 

only because there will be a substantial increase in the number of individuals 

needing assistance with turning in their ballot, but also because it will be 

exceptionally difficult to find individuals unaffiliated with political organizations 

who are willing to volunteer to assist voters given COVID-19 and the public health 

risks of exposing themselves to other individuals. 

8. For decades, Florida has been ground zero for election mishaps. In 

2000, the fate of the U.S. Presidency remained in limbo for over a month due to 

voting machine failures in Florida. In 2012, Florida made national headlines by 

having some of the longest voting lines in the country. And in 2018, Florida faced 

three statewide recounts⸺at least one of which could have been decided by the 

number of mail votes that were not counted because they arrived after the Election 

Day Receipt Deadline. While 2020 is certainly an unprecedented year, it does not 

have to be the next year on the long list of Florida’s election debacles. This Court 

can help prevent that outcome by ensuring that Florida’s vote-by-mail regime 

complies with the Constitution and provides a mechanism for all voters to vote in 

the upcoming elections.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 18 of 78
19

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United 

States Constitution and by an Act of Congress.

10. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy 

arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction because each of the Defendants 

resides in Florida, has continuous and systematic contact with Florida, and is 

subject to service of process in Florida in their official capacities. Among the 

Defendants, Governor Ron DeSantis, Secretary of State Laurel Lee, Attorney 

General Ashley Moody, and the Florida Election Canvassing Commission all 

reside and carry out a substantial amount of their official duties in within this 

judicial district, as do 23 of the Defendant Supervisors of Elections and the 

Defendant CCBs within their respective counties in this judicial district. The 

remaining 44 Defendant Supervisors and Defendant CCBs reside and carry out 

substantially all of their official duties within their respective counties elsewhere in 

Florida. 

12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because (1) 

all Defendants are residents of Florida, in which this judicial district is located, and 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 19 of 78
20

numerous Defendants reside in this judicial district; and (2) a substantial part of the 

events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in this judicial district.

13. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to 

provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

14. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this case and 

Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred, been performed, or otherwise been waived.

PARTIES

15. Plaintiff KIRK NIELSEN is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. Nielsen is an investigative journalist and an adjunct 

professor at the University of Miami. Nielsen has been a registered voter in Florida 

for twenty-five years and regularly participates in elections. In the 2018 general 

election, Nielsen cast his vote-by-mail ballot via first class mail on October 29, 

2018—eight days before Election Day—from a post office at the University of 

Miami’s Coral Gables campus. Through public record requests that Nielsen 

submitted himself, Nielsen later learned that his ballot was not received by the 

Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections until November 14, 2018—sixteen 

days after sending in his ballot and eight days after Election Day. As a result, 

Miami-Dade County did not count Nielsen’s ballot. Nielsen intends to participate 

in upcoming elections in Florida, and he wants his ballot to count. While Nielsen 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 20 of 78
21

would prefer to vote in person given his prior experience with vote-by-mail ballots, 

Nielsen no longer feels comfortable voting in person during the coronavirus 

pandemic. Nielsen intends to cast a mail ballot in upcoming elections. As Nielsen’s 

experience from the 2018 general election demonstrates, under Florida’s current 

standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that his ballot will not be 

counted because it will not be received by his county by the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline. This risk exists even if Nielsen sends in his ballot well in advance of 

Election Day and in compliance with the guidance provided by both the USPS and 

the Miami-Dade Supervisors’ office with respect to when ballots should be mailed. 

16. Plaintiff MORGAN OUTLAW is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter 

in Okaloosa County, Florida, the state where she was raised and where her family 

still resides today. For both the 2016 and 2018 general elections, while Outlaw was 

a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, she requested a mail ballot to 

vote. Outlaw sent back both ballots to Okaloosa County, Florida in advance of 

Election Day, but neither ballot was counted because those ballots did not reach 

the Supervisor’s office until shortly after Election Day. The county did not notify 

her after either election to inform her that her ballot did not arrive on time. Today, 

Outlaw is obtaining her Masters in Disability Studies through the City University 

of New York. While she lives out of state, she still considers Florida to be her 

permanent home. Because Outlaw is immunocompromised and has limited 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 21 of 78
22

mobility, she cannot easily travel home to vote, especially in light of the current 

COVID-19 pandemic. Outlaw intends to participate in upcoming elections in 

Florida, and she wants her ballot to count this time. Because Outlaw will be away 

from her home this upcoming Fall, she will need to cast a mail ballot again. 

Because Okaloosa County does not provide pre-paid postage for its vote-by-mail 

ballots, Outlaw will be required to acquire and pay for postage in order to cast her 

ballot. And as Outlaw’s experience from the prior two general elections shows, 

under Florida’s current standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that 

Outlaw’s ballot will not be counted because it will not be received by her county 

by 7 p.m. on Election Day even if she sends in her ballot in advance of Election 

Day. 

17. Plaintiff REVEL LUBIN is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in 

Florida, the state where he was raised and where his family still resides today. 

Since voting for the first time by mail in the 2018 general election, Lubin started a 

graduate program at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut, where he will be 

attending school during the 2020 Primary and General Elections. Although he will 

be attending school out of state, he still considers Florida to be his permanent 

home. Lubin is avoiding air travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and 

has neither the financial resources nor the time to travel home to vote. Lubin 

intends to participate in upcoming elections in Florida and is concerned about 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 22 of 78
23

whether his mail ballot will be counted, particularly with the time it takes under 

normal circumstances for mail deliveries between his home in Orlando, Florida 

and his temporary apartment in Connecticut; and the prospect of greater delay 

during the pandemic gives him further concern. Because Lubin will be away from 

home this upcoming Fall, he will need to cast a mail ballot again. Lubin does not 

have a car at school, and the nearest post office, where he could verify collection of 

his mail ballot, is a 32-minute walk from his temporary apartment. With his 

demanding schedule, it is likely to take several days from when he receives his 

mail ballot until he can take his mail ballot to the post office. Under Florida’s 

current standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that Lubin’s ballot 

will not be counted because it will not be received by his county by 7 p.m. on 

Election Day even if he sends in his ballot in advance of Election Day. 

18. Plaintiff FELICIA BRUCE is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in 

St. Lucie County, Florida. Bruce is 70 years old, a retired school teacher, and a 

member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Since moving to Florida, 

Bruce has usually voted by mail so that she can volunteer during the election, 

which she has done during every election since she moved to Florida. On Election 

Day, Bruce typically serves as a volunteer poll watcher or poll worker or provides 

free transportation to the polls to other Florida voters. Before the pandemic, Bruce 

had signed up to be a poll worker again this year, but she no longer believes she 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 23 of 78
24

will be able to serve as a poll worker because of concerns about exposing herself to 

coronavirus. Bruce has a pre-existing condition that places her at heightened risk 

for COVID-19. For that reason, Bruce does not feel it is safe to vote in person this 

year and will cast a mail ballot. Because St. Lucie County does not provide prepaid postage for its vote-by-mail ballots, Bruce will be required to acquire and pay 

for postage in order to cast her ballot. Bruce is also particularly concerned that the 

anticipated surge in mail voting will overwhelm the election Supervisor’s staff and 

the postal service, leading to delays in delivery of mail ballots. She fears that her 

mail ballot will arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline as a result; she 

would be less at risk if Florida were required to count every mail ballot that is 

completed and mailed on or before Election Day.

19. Plaintiff BARBARA DEVANE is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter 

in Leon County, Florida. She is 77 years old, a retired social studies teacher, and a 

member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Participating in elections is 

important to DeVane, and she usually tries to be the first person in line at her 

polling location in Tallahassee. DeVane strongly prefers to vote in person to ensure 

that her ballot is counted, but is concerned about voting in person this year due to 

the coronavirus pandemic. DeVane has a weakened immune system and worries 

that voting in person will expose her to the coronavirus. DeVane intends to vote by 

mail to protect her health. Because Leon County does not provide pre-paid postage 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 24 of 78
25

for its vote-by-mail ballots, DeVane will be required to acquire and pay for postage 

in order to cast her ballot. And because DeVane has experienced mail delays in the 

past, she is concerned that she will experience similar delays this year, and that her 

mail ballot will arrive late and not be counted. She fears both that her ballot may 

not arrive at her home with enough time for her to mail it back and that there will 

be delay when she sends it to the local election office. DeVane strongly believes 

her ballot should count as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. Because 

DeVane does not like to gamble with her ballot, DeVane would also utilize a ballot 

collection service to have a trusted person personally deliver her ballot for her, if 

such a service were available to her.

20. Plaintiff RAY DAVIS is a U.S. citizen and registered voter in Pinellas 

County, Florida. Davis is 76 years old, a retired auto worker, and a member of the 

Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Voting is important to Davis, who usually 

casts his ballot by personally hand-delivering his mail ballot to his local elections 

office or by driving his ballot to a drop-off location. Due to the coronavirus 

pandemic, however, Davis does not want to take the unnecessary risk of venturing 

out to cast his ballot, particularly because his wife has pre-existing conditions, 

which make her vulnerable to the disease. As a result, Davis intends to rely on the 

mail to cast is ballot this year. Because Pinellas County does not provide prepaid 

postage, Davis must acquire and pay for postage before he can return his vote-byCase 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 25 of 78
26

mail ballot. Davis is also particularly concerned that his ballot will not be counted 

if it is not received by his Supervisors’ office by the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline. Davis does not want to choose between his family’s health and ensuring 

that his vote counts. He would be more confident that his ballot would be counted 

if Florida were required to count ballots postmarked by Election Day. In addition, 

Davis is concerned about fellow members of the Alliance, many of whom are 70-

80 years old and at heightened risk for coronavirus. He has been encouraging them 

to vote by mail as well and wants to make sure that all of them have a fair 

opportunity for their ballots to be sent and counted. In particular, he knows that 

many do not have stamps and will have to obtain them to vote, which is an 

additional step that might put them at risk and potentially delay their ballot from 

being sent and arriving on time. 

21. Plaintiff DONESA JACKSON is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter 

in Seminole County, Florida. Jackson is 82 years old, a retired teacher, and a

member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Voting is extremely 

important to Jackson; she believes that she has voted in every election since she 

has been registered to vote. Jackson intends to vote by mail this year and would not 

feel safe voting in person. Jackson believes she is particularly at risk for 

developing severe complications should she contract coronavirus given her age, 

her asthma, and the fact that she is immunocompromised. For that same reason, 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 26 of 78
27

while Jackson usually purchases stamps from the post office, she no longer feels 

comfortable putting herself at risk to do so. And, because Seminole County does 

not provide prepaid postage, Jackson must acquire and pay for postage before she 

can return her vote-by-mail ballot. Jackson would utilize a ballot collection service 

to have a trusted person personally deliver her ballot for her, if such a service were 

available to her. Jackson knows these services are essential to help voters cast their 

ballots, as she herself used to assist her friends with returning their ballots when 

they had no other means to do so. If such services are not available, Jackson will 

mail her ballot, but she is worried her ballot will not be counted if it is not received 

by her Supervisor’s Office until after the Election Day Receipt Deadline.

22. Plaintiff ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC. (“Alianza”) is a 

nonpartisan political organization dedicated to uniting the Puerto Rican and 

Hispanic population in the state of Florida and developing leaders from within the 

community that will support progressive policies. To accomplish those goals, 

Alianza is active in, and dedicated to, enabling and protecting the rights of voters, 

especially with the Puerto Rican and Hispanic population, who are at elevated risk 

of disenfranchisement because of the language barriers, recent migration, 

economic disadvantage, and other structural barriers to effective political speech 

and association.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 27 of 78
28

23. Alianza runs field, digital organizing, and communications campaigns 

directed at Florida’s Puerto Rican and Latinx communities, who are the core 

constituencies that Alianza exists and works to serve. In order to assist in 

advancing progressive policies and issues to improve the lives of its members and 

members of its voting constituencies, Alianza has engaged in efforts to educate its 

members and members of its voting constituencies about the voting process and to 

assist them to effectively exercise their right to vote by properly registering to vote, 

understanding the means available to vote, and assuring that they cast and have 

their votes counted. But for the Voter Assistance Ban, Alianza would have its 

professional field staff, who are and would be compensated for their work, also 

work to collect and deliver mail ballots to the polls on behalf of its members and 

members of its voting constituencies. 

24. The age range of Alianza’s members and members of its voting 

constituencies covers the entire range of voting-age population, from the elderly to 

newly eligible voters, who often live in multi-generational households that rely on 

mature adults working multiple jobs to support both aging parents and young 

children. Many of these voters are economically disadvantaged recent migrants to 

Florida who speak limited or no English and face particular challenges in 

navigating the process to access and exercise their voting rights under the best of 

circumstances. The current COVID-19 Pandemic further exacerbates the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 28 of 78
29

challenges faced by Alianza’s members and members of its voting constituencies, 

in that many of them —especially the elderly, those in frequent contact with the 

elderly, and those who cannot afford to become ill and incapable of supporting 

their family—will find it unacceptably risky to vote in person in the August 

Primary and November General due to concerns about being exposed to COVID19. As a consequence, they will have no safe option to vote other than by mail—

requiring them to determine, acquire and pay for sufficient (anywhere up to three 

stamps of) postage, which may further delay the process and require exposing 

themselves by visiting the post office—and put them at substantial risk of being 

disenfranchised due to the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement and Election Day 

Receipt Deadline. Among Alianza’s members and members of its voting 

constituencies are voters unaccustomed to using USPS on a regular basis, such as 

newly eligible young voters, recent citizen migrants, and economically challenged 

voters, who if faced with having to determine, acquire, or pay for required postage 

may well be disenfranchised by delay or non-delivery of their vote-by-mail ballots. 

25. To carry out its mission and outreach efforts, Alianza relies on 

membership dues, donations, and grants, which are limited resources. In light of 

the Challenged Provisions and how their burdens imposed by those Provisions are 

further exacerbated by the risks of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Alianza feels 

compelled to take resources away from developing content and organizing efforts 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 29 of 78
30

directed at advancing particular progressive policies, and shift those resources to 

increased education and outreach efforts in the hope of mitigating at least some of 

the burdens of the Challenged Provisions that serve to burden and disenfranchise 

Alianza’s members and members of its voting constituencies. For example, 

because of the significant paid-staff time and financial resources that Alianza will 

spend on outreach efforts to mitigate the effect of the Challenged Provisions on its 

voting constituencies, Alianza will have less paid-staff time and financial resources 

to support its advocacy campaigns on key issues affecting its members and 

constituencies, including advocacy for greater language access, increased 

affordable housing, food assistance, addressing discrimination, Covid-19 

awareness, Medicaid expansion, a comprehensive redevelopment program for 

Puerto Rico, and its petition drive to rename Stonewall Jackson Middle School to 

Roberto Clemente Middle School. As a result of the Challenged Provisions, 

Alianza faces the burden of having fewer resources available to advance such key 

progressive policies because of the effort and costs to help its members and 

members of its voting constituencies simply to vote and have their votes counted 

against the headwinds of the Challenged Provisions that serve to reduce their 

participation and cause their votes to go uncounted. 

26. Plaintiff FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, 

INC. (“the Alliance”) is incorporated in Florida as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, social 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 30 of 78
31

welfare organization. The Alliance has almost 200,000 members, comprising of 

retirees from public and private sector unions, community organizations, and 

individual activists. It is a chartered state affiliate of the Alliance for Retired 

Americans. The Alliance’s mission is to ensure social and economic justice and 

full civil rights that retirees have earned after a lifetime of work. The Challenged 

Provisions frustrate the Alliance’s mission because they deprive individual 

members of the right to vote and to have their votes counted, threaten the electoral 

prospects of Alliance-endorsed candidates whose supporters will face greater 

obstacles casting a vote and having their votes counted, and make it more difficult 

for the Alliance and its members to associate to effectively further their shared 

political purposes. Because of the burdens on mail-in voting created by the 

Challenged Provisions, the Alliance will be required to devote time and resources 

to educating its members about these requirements and assisting them in 

complying so that their mail-in ballots are received by Election Day, accepted, and 

counted. These efforts will reduce the time and resources the Alliance has to 

educate its members and legislators on public policy issues critical to the 

Alliance’s members, including the pricing of prescription drugs and the expansion 

of Medicare and Medicaid benefits. In light of these injuries, the Alliance joins in 

the Equal Protection, Due Process, Poll Tax, and Voting Rights Act claims to the 

Challenged Provisions. The Alliance does not join in the First Amendment claim to 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 31 of 78
32

the Voter Assistance Ban because the Alliance does not currently intend to hire 

organizers to help collect voters’ ballots. 

27. The Alliance also brings this action on behalf of its members who face 

burdens on their right to vote as a consequence of the Challenged Provisions. 

Because all of the Alliance’s members are of an age that place them at a 

heightened risk of complications from coronavirus, all members are 

overwhelmingly likely to vote by mail this year and consequently face the burdens 

that the Challenged Provisions place on mail voters. The Alliance’s members, for 

example, are voters who are likely to face difficultly acquiring postage or 

delivering a mail ballot themselves should they be unable to return it through the 

mail in sufficient time for their ballot to counted. Additionally, many of the 

Alliance’s members are likely to be voting for mail for the first time, and thus will 

be more susceptible to be disenfranchised by the Election Day Receipt Deadline.

28. Plaintiff PRIORITIES USA (“Priorities”) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, 

voter-centric progressive advocacy and service organization. Priorities’ mission is 

to build a sustainable infrastructure to engage Americans in the progressive 

movement by running a permanent digital campaign to persuade and mobilize 

citizens around issues and elections that affect their lives. In furtherance of this 

mission, Priorities works to help educate, mobilize, and turn out voters across the 

country, including in Florida. In 2020, Priorities expects to make millions of 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 32 of 78
33

dollars of contributions and expenditures to educate, mobilize, and turn out voters 

in state and federal elections around the country, including thousands of dollars to 

educate, mobilize, and turn out voters in Florida elections. Florida’s Vote-By-Mail 

Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt Deadline, and Voter Assistance Ban 

directly harm Priorities because they burden and disenfranchise the very voters 

Priorities supports through its work and contributions in Florida. As a result, 

Priorities has to expend and divert additional funds and resources in get-out-thevote, voter education efforts, mobilization, and turn-out activities in Florida, at the 

expense of its voter support initiatives in other states and other voter education and 

turnout programs in Florida. Specifically, the resources Priorities must divert to 

address the Challenged Provisions will directly affect the breadth of Priorities’ 

advertising campaigns in Florida and other states in support of candidates and to 

educate voters about issues central to Priorities’ mission of advancing progressive 

public policies. This diversion of resources also will reduce the funds available to 

Priorities to engage in voter turnout initiatives in Florida and other states. In 

addition, Priorities intends to engage in an organized effort, relying on paid 

workers, to assist voters with delivering ballots to election offices in the August 

Primary Election and the November General Election, which it cannot currently do 

under the Voter Assistance Ban. Specifically, if the Ban is enjoined, Priorities will 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 33 of 78
34

engage persons working on its behalf and paid by Priorities to help voters who 

need assistance in delivering their ballots to election offices. 

29. Defendant RON DESANTIS is sued in his official capacity as the 

Governor of Florida. The Governor exerts control over the Supervisors, as he may 

suspend them for failure to perform their duties. See Fla. Const. art. IV, § 7; see 

also, e.g., Fla. Exec. Order No. 19-19 (executive order suspending the Supervisor

of Elections for Palm Beach County); Fla. Exec. Order No. 18-342 (executive 

order suspending the Supervisor of Elections for Broward County).

30. Defendant LAUREL LEE is sued in her official capacity as Secretary 

of State of the State of Florida. The Secretary is a person within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 97.012, the 

Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the State and is therefore 

responsible for the administration of state laws affecting voting, including with 

respect to the August Primary and November General. The Secretary’s duties 

consist, among other things, of “[o]btain[ing] and maintaining uniformity in the 

interpretation and implementation of the election laws.” Id. at § 97.012(1). The 

Secretary is also tasked with ensuring that county Supervisors perform their 

statutory duties, see id. at § 97.012(14), is responsible for providing technical 

assistance to county Supervisors on voter education, election personnel training 

services, and voting systems, see id. at §§ 97.012(4)-(5), and is responsible for 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 34 of 78
35

“[p]roviding written direction and opinions to the Supervisors of Elections on the 

performance of their official duties with respect to the Florida Election Code or 

rules adopted by the Department of State.” Id. at § 97.012(16).

31. Defendant ASHLEY MOODY is sued in her official capacity as the 

Attorney General of Florida. The Attorney General is a person within the meaning 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. The Attorney General’s 

authority includes overseeing the Office of the Florida Statewide Prosecutor, which

has the responsibility to “investigate and prosecute . . . any crime involving voter 

registration, voting, or candidate or issue petition activities.” Fla. Stat. § 16.56.

This responsibility includes, based on information and belief, enforcing the 

criminal misdemeanor provision of the Voter Assistance Ban. The Attorney 

General also has oversight authority over Florida’s state attorneys, who may also 

prosecute violations of the Voter Assistance Ban. See Fla. Stat. § 16.08. (“The 

Attorney General shall exercise a general superintendence and direction over the 

several state attorneys of the several circuits as to the manner of discharging their 

respective duties . . .”). 

32. Defendant FLORIDA 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. The Commission has the authority to move back the deadline for counties

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 35 of 78
36

to submit their election returns “if the returns are not received . . . due to an 

emergency.” See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. “Emergency” is defined as “any occurrence, 

or threat thereof, whether accidental, natural, or caused by human beings, in war or 

in peace, that results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or 

substantial damage to or loss of property to the extent it will prohibit an election 

officer’s ability to conduct a safe and orderly election.” Fla. Stat. § 101.732. The 

coronavirus pandemic meets this definition, giving the Commission the authority 

to push back the statutory deadline for counties to submit their election returns.

33. Defendants FLORIDA ELECTION SUPERVISORS, sued in their 

official capacities only, are elected officials in each of Florida’s 67 counties who 

are responsible for administering elections in their respective counties. Their 

responsibilities include administering voting by mail, arranging polling locations, 

determining when to start early voting, and, in some instances, providing drop off 

locations for vote-by-mail ballots. Their duties include determining the legality of 

vote by mail ballots in terms of timeliness, and marking the time and date on vote 

by mail ballots received after 7 p.m. the day of the election. Fla. Stat. § 101.67(2). 

Their duties also include otherwise determining the validity of vote by mail ballots

and, as part of a respective county’s CCB, supervising ballot counts and certifying 

results. See, e.g., id. §§ 101.68(2)(c)1; 102.112; 102.141(1), (6); and 102.151. 

Most of Florida’s 67 counties do not provide prepaid postage for mail ballots in 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 36 of 78
37

statewide or national elections. However, Plaintiffs have identified at least five

counties that previously provided prepaid postage for statewide and national 

elections and likely will again: Broward, Hillsborough, Lee, Miami-Dade, and 

Orange Counties. Accordingly, Defendants PETER ANTONACCI, as Supervisor

for BROWARD County, CRAIG LATIMER, as Supervisor for HILLSBOROUGH

County; TOMMY DOYLE, as Supervisor for LEE County, CHRISTINA WHITE, 

as Supervisor for MIAMI-DADE County, and BILL COWLES, as Supervisor for 

Orange County are not included as Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Poll Tax or Equal 

Protection claims for the Vote-by-Mail Postage Requirement. Similarly, upon 

information and belief based on conferral with counsel for certain Supervisors, the 

Supervisors in Alachua, Bay, Duval, Escambia, Levy, Marion, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole, and Volusia have committed to provide postage 

for statewide and national elections in the August Primary and November General. 

Accordingly, to the extent each Defendant admits and confirms that he or she will 

provide postage for statewide and national elections in the August Primary and 

November General, he or she will not be included as a Defendant in Plaintiffs’ Poll 

Tax or Equal Protection claims for the Vote-by-Mail Postage Requirement. 

34. Defendant CCBs are sued as state-created entities. Their membership 

is drawn from officeholders or electors in each respective Florida County and, 

subject to statutory conditions and alternates, consists of a county court judge, the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 37 of 78
38

respective Supervisor, and the chair of the board of county commissioners, as set 

forth in Florida Statute § 102.141(1). Their duties include canvassing and 

determining the legality of vote by mail ballots. Id. § 102.141(2)(a); see, e.g., id. § 

101.68(2)(c)5. Their duties also include supervising ballot counts and certifying 

and reporting results. See, e.g., id. §§ 101.68(2)(d), 102.112, 102.141(6), 102.151. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Vote by Mail in Florida 

35. Since 2001, Florida has permitted any registered voter to request a 

vote-by-mail ballot without an excuse. Fla. Stat. § 101.62. Voters may request a 

vote-by-mail ballot in person, in writing, or by telephone up to ten days before an 

election. Id.

36. As a result, mail balloting has steadily grown in Florida. In 2012, 27.8 

percent of voters voted by mail; in 2016, 28.7 percent of voters voted by mail; and 

in 2018, 31.6 percent of all ballots cast in the 2018 general election were cast by 

mail⸺the highest share of votes cast by mail in any of the last six Florida 

elections. Yet, the majority of Florida voters still cast their ballots in person, either 

during early voting or at polling locations on Election Day. There is good reason 

for that. 

37. Voting by mail requires additional steps that must be taken 

deliberately and well in advance of Election Day to ensure that a voter’s ballot is 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 38 of 78
39

counted. First, a voter must request a mail ballot by the statutory deadline. Next, 

the voter must receive it in the mail and complete the required signature fields. 

Finally, a voter must mail it with sufficient time and postage for it to arrive to the 

county Supervisor’s office by Election Day. These steps are not insubstantial, often 

requiring significant time and effort from voters to complete. Moreover, a misstep 

at any point⸺including a misstep by the local election official, not the 

voter⸺often results in complete disenfranchisement.

38. Florida requires most voters who choose to return their ballots by mail 

must also provide their own postage, see Fla. Stat. § 101.65 (instructing voters to 

“be sure there is sufficient postage if mailed”), and prominently displays “Postage 

Required” on the front of each return envelope that is mailed out. This requirement 

imposes both monetary and transaction costs that bear most heavily on individuals 

who are least likely to be able to overcome them, including students, the elderly, 

and low-income citizens. 

39. In this digital era, many voters do not regularly keep postage stamps 

in their homes, and therefore must visit a post office or other essential business to 

obtain the correct postage. Purchasing a book of 20 stamps online, for example, 

will cost voters $11—an unnecessary expense that could be cost-prohibitive for 

students and individuals with lower incomes, posing a significant hurdle to 

returning the ballot and voting. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 39 of 78
40

40. The amount of postage required for a mail ballot is also not readily 

apparent to voters. Vote-by-mail ballots are generally a non-standard size, include 

two envelopes, and have varying weight depending upon the number of elections 

on the ballot. Fla. Stat. § 101.64. As a result, even where a person has stamps,

mailing their ballot may still necessitate a trip to the post office to weigh the 

envelope and determine the proper amount of postage to affix. 

41. For elderly voters, voters who have disabilities, who live far from a 

post office, have limited access to transportation, are immunocompromised or have 

other high-risk factors for COVID-19, this trip deters them from voting as it may 

be nearly impossible for some voters to make and for others it poses grave health 

and safety risks. The extra time spent acquiring postage or inquiring about the 

amount of postage needed also increases the transaction cost of voting, slowing

down the voting process and making the voter more likely to mail the ballot later in 

election cycle. In turn, this places these voters at heightened risk of their mail 

ballot arriving after the Election Day Receipt Deadline.

42. Indeed, even where a voter is able to overcome the hurdles placed on 

them by Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement, their risk of 

disenfranchisement remains high. Each year, Florida rejects a significant number 

of ballots that arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline. See Fla. Stat. §§ 

101.67(2), 101.6103(2), and 101.64. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 40 of 78
41

43. In 2018, for example, Florida disenfranchised over 17,000 voters, 

refusing to even count their ballots⸺the vast majority of which were completed 

and mailed before Election Day⸺simply because they arrived after the Election 

Day Receipt Deadline. 

44. There is no question that these ballots’ late arrivals were due to no 

fault of the voter. Despite requesting vote-by-mail ballots well before the deadline, 

due either to delayed mail times or the inability of local Supervisors to respond to 

requests by the statutory deadline (eight days before Election Day, see Fla. Stat. § 

101.62), over 20,700 vote-by-mail ballots were delivered to voters just days before 

Election Day in 2018. As a result, many voters⸺a disproportionate number of 

whom were young, college students⸺did not receive their vote-by-mail ballots

until just days before the 2018 general election, leaving them with insufficient time

to return their ballots so that they would arrive by the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline. See Sarah Blaskey, South Florida’s absentee-ballot blues: ‘I am 

infuriated that I was not able to vote’, Miami Herald, (Nov. 13, 2018), 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politicsgovernment/election/article221518235

.html. 

45. And year after year, voters are disenfranchised by the Election Day 

Receipt Deadline in part because Defendants fail to adequately communicate when 

ballots must be mailed to ensure they will be counted. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 41 of 78
42

46. According to USPS and multiple local election Supervisors, ballots 

must be mailed at least a week before Election Day to ensure timely arrival. See, 

e.g., United States Postal Service, State and Local Election Mail: User’s Guide

(Jan. 2020), https://about.usps.com/publications/pub632.pdf (“[T]he Postal Service 

recommends that voters mail their marked return ballots at least 1 week before the 

due date”); Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Office, Frequently Asked 

Questions- Voting by Mail, https://www.votepinellas.com/Mail-Ballots/FAQsVoting-By-Mail (“PLEASE NOTE: Postal delivery service has changed. Voters 

are advised to allow at least ONE WEEK for their ballot to be returned by mail to 

the Supervisor of Elections office.”). Ballots arriving less than a week before 

Election Day, like those in 2018, simply will not arrive in time to be counted

unless the voter undertakes extraordinary efforts, and even then, such efforts may 

not be enough.

47. Indeed, in 2018, at least one young voter reported attempting to send 

the mail ballot she received the day before Election Day at her temporary home in 

Philadelphia via FedEx or UPS, but even those commercial services were not able

to deliver the ballot in time for it to be counted. Sarah Blaskey, South Florida’s 

absentee-ballot blues: ‘I am infuriated that I was not able to vote’, Miami Herald, 

(Nov. 13, 2018), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politicsgovernmentpoliticsgovernment/election /article221518235.html. When the voter called the MiamiCase 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 42 of 78
43

Dade Supervisor to inquire about her options, she was told effectively that there 

were none. 

48. In addition to untimely receipt of ballots, cost cutting measures and a 

shrinking USPS workforce have led to delivery delays in south Florida since at 

least 2014. And in 2018, the south Florida town of Opa-locka made headlines 

when 266 ballots were discovered in the back of a USPS mail-sorting facility and 

were not delivered to the local Supervisors’ office until four days after the Election 

Day Receipt Deadline. None of these ballots were counted, and it was through no 

fault of the voters.

49. The number of ballots rejected due to the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline is not inconsequential either. In 2018, former Governor Rick Scott 

defeated incumbent Senator Bill Nelson by just 10,000 votes in the race for U.S. 

Senate, well within the range of ballots discarded due to the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline. 

50. Despite the substantial number of late ballots, the State places 

significant limits on critical voter assistance that could help ensure that voters’

ballots arrive on time. 

51. Florida’s Voter Assistance Ban prohibits paid collectors from 

assisting more than two nonfamily member voters with returning their ballots. If 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 43 of 78
44

they do, these collectors risk a misdemeanor charge punishable by a term of 

imprisonment up to a year. Fla. Stat. §§ 104.0616, 775.082.

52. As a result, organizations like Priorities USA and Alianza are 

unconstitutionally prohibited from exercising their First Amendment rights to 

assist voters. This leaves particularly vulnerable populations, such as disabled

voters, elderly voters, and voters with limited access to the mail and transportation

with limited options for help turning in their ballots. It similarly reduces the 

support available to voters who receive their mail ballots with insufficient time to 

return them. 

53. While these inadequacies in Florida’s vote-by-mail system are 

constitutionally problematic in their own right, they will only be exacerbated by 

the current coronavirus crisis, burdening and disenfranchising significantly more 

voters in the upcoming August Primary and November General elections.

B. The Exacerbating Effect of the Coronavirus Crisis on Florida’s 

Vote-By-Mail System

54. COVID-19, the severe and sometimes deadly disease caused by the 

novel coronavirus, has been spreading through Florida for several months. To date, 

there are 46,944 confirmed cases in the state, and 2,052 Floridians have died from 

the disease. Current models predict that approximately 4,721 people in Florida will 

die from COVID-19 by August. To slow the curve and to protect their health as 

well as the health of their friends, family, and community, Floridians across the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 44 of 78
45

state are engaging in social distancing and continue to avoid public places. These 

actions have helped protect Floridians health, but they have also had a severe 

economic impact on the state, with over 3.8 million Floridians filing for 

unemployment benefits since the crisis began. 

55. While the Governor has formed a task force to re-open the state, there 

is no clear end in sight to the spread of COVID-19 or the economic devastation it 

is causing and, by all accounts, the crisis is expected to last many months and 

likely well into the 2020 general election cycle.

56. The federal government has announced that it is preparing for the 

COVID-19 crisis to last 18 months and has warned that the pandemic could come 

in “multiple waves.” The White House’s coronavirus advisor and the Director of 

the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was 

asked at a White House press conference whether the United States was “prepared 

for [coronavirus] to strike again, say, in the fall?” Dr. Fauci responded that, “[i]n 

fact I would anticipate that that would actually happen because of the degree of 

transmissibility.” Joseph Guzman, Fauci predicts another coronavirus outbreak in 

fall with ‘very different’ outcome, THE HILL (Mar. 31, 2020), 

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/490326-faucipredicts-another-coronavirus-outbreak-in. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 45 of 78
46

57. Similarly, the Director of the National Center for Immunization and 

Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, Dr. Nancy Messionnier, said in March 2020 that 

she expected the virus to continue spreading in the United States until next year. 

These sentiments are also shared by scientists outside the United States 

government. The COVID-19 Response Team at the Imperial College of London 

has estimated that social distancing and other preventative measures will be 

required until a vaccine is developed and distributed widely, which they predict 

could take “18 months or more.” 

58. Even if the community spread of COVID-19 in Florida has 

significantly decreased by this upcoming election season, CDC guidelines 

recommend that individuals take meaningful social distancing measures even if 

there is a “minimal” threat of community transmission of COVID-19 in the area. 

This guidance is necessitated by the reality that asymptomatic carriers appear to be 

contributing significantly to community spread, and until there is a vaccine or 

widespread “herd immunity” (i.e., at least 60% of the population has been infected 

and recovered), Americans will remain at serious risk of contracting this 

unpredictable and deadly virus. 

59. Florida’s Supervisors, recognizing that this crisis will last months and

affect the August Primary and November General, have alerted the Governor to the 

challenges they faced in the March 17 PPP, and asked for changes meant to ease 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 46 of 78
47

the burdens that local election officials will encounter due to a likely record 

increase in voting by mail. 

60. The Supervisors are right to seek changes. The CDC, anticipating 

difficulties in conducting elections during the COVID-19 crisis, has now 

recommended that jurisdictions encourage voting by mail and reduce methods of 

voting that lead to direct contact with other voters or poll workers. Other federal, 

state, and local officials have increasingly come to the same realization. Congress, 

for example, has authorized $400 million to help states transition to voting-bymail. 

61. To date, at least eighteen states and Puerto Rico have been forced to 

postpone their primary elections or shift entirely to mail voting to avoid public 

health risks posed by the virus. States that have not postponed their elections and 

attempted to conduct in-person voting have seen utter chaos result. In Wisconsin, 

for example, Milwaukee was forced to reduce its polling locations from 180 to just 

five locations because of a severe shortage of poll workers, forcing voters to decide 

whether to risk their health to cast their ballot and, ultimately, leading to thousands 

of Wisconsin citizens being forced to stand in long lines for hours to cast their 

ballots, many wearing masks, gloves, and other protective gear as they congregated 

together to vote several hour-long lines at the polls. At least 50 individuals who 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 47 of 78
48

participated in the election have been diagnosed with COVID-19—a number that is 

anticipated to grow. 

62. The inherent challenges to voting in-person during this pandemic led 

voters in Wisconsin to request absentee ballots at unprecedented rates, with more 

than a million voters requesting absentee ballots for the recent primary, four times 

the number who did so in the 2016 general election. This increased interest in 

voting by mail, combined with decreases in available elections staff and other 

social distancing efforts, placed a significant strain on local election boards, several 

of which were not able to send voters a ballot in time for it to be returned—or even 

delivered to them—by the normal Wisconsin Election Day Receipt Deadline. See 

Democratic National Comm. v. Bostelmann, No. 20-cv-249-wmc, 2020 WL 

1638374, at *38-39 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2020). This crisis ultimately necessitated 

federal litigation that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in the 

implementation of a postmark rule, whereby ballots postmarked by Election Day 

could be counted as long as they are received within six days of Election Day. See 

Republican Nat’l Comm., 2020 WL 1672702, at *2. Over 100,000 ballots in 

Wisconsin were postmarked by, but arrived after, Election Day. Each of those 

Wisconsin voters would have been disenfranchised without court intervention. 

63. Like Wisconsin, Florida did not postpone its March 17, 2020 PPP, and 

counties’ election operations were acutely affected by the crisis, even though the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 48 of 78
49

crisis was just beginning. Supervisors across the state reported significant poll 

worker cancellations, including many at the last minute. Polling locations were

changed as many counties moved polling locations out of senior facilities. And on 

Election Day, counties reported a significant lack of hand sanitizer. Shortly after 

the PPP, at least two poll workers in Broward County tested positive for COVID19. 

64. Across the state, the Supervisors anticipate that many of these 

challenges will persist in the August Primary and November General, and that due 

to a lack of desire to be in the same place as other individuals as well as continued 

social distancing, there will be a significant increase in voting by mail. 

65. The Duval County Supervisor has reported that he will likely need to 

replace more than half his poll workers, 60 percent of whom are older than 65, in 

the upcoming elections. The Miami-Dade Supervisor is concerned that she will be 

unable to secure the 600 polling locations necessary to conduct in-person voting, 

while also preparing for an increase in mail voting. In Hillsborough County, the 

Supervisor of Elections anticipates that mail balloting will double. 

66. Given that in 2018, with just 31 percent of voters voting by mail,

Supervisors across the state were unable to process mail ballot applications before 

the statutory cutoff, leaving voters with insufficient time to mail them back before 

the Election Day Receipt Deadline, it is all but certain (and understandable) that 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 49 of 78
50

they will be unable to process the influx of applications that they will receive for 

the August Primary and November General in a timely fashion. This is precisely 

what happened in Wisconsin in its April 7 primary election, resulting in over 

100,000 ballots arriving after Election Day. 

67. An increase in voting by mail also means that a significant number of 

voters who typically vote in person will be voting by mail, and many of those 

voters will be voting by mail the first time. These voters differ from current mail 

voters in important respects that make them even more likely to be burdened by 

having to pay for postage and by being required to have their ballots arrive by 

Election Day instead of postmarked on or before Election Day. These first-time 

mail voters, in particular, will require assistance in completing the mail voting 

process.

68. Compared to traditional mail voters, in-person voters tend to be of a 

lower socio-economic status, meaning that as they transition to mail voting, they

are far more likely to face challenges in paying for or obtaining postage and, as 

new mail voters, they are less likely to know how much postage is needed. 

Moreover, given the devastating economic impacts of the coronavirus, many 

voters’ sources of income have been eradicated due to the mounting crisis, further 

increasing the number of individuals who likely will find the costs of stamps or the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 50 of 78
51

costs of traveling to obtain stamps prohibitive in this increasingly desperate 

economic situation. 

69. Given that many voters who switch to mail voting will be doing so 

precisely because they are immunocompromised, have conditions placing them at 

high risk for COVID-19, or are generally concerned about their health or the health 

of their family and friends, they will be far less likely to venture out to purchase 

stamps if they do not already have them in their home or to leave home to go to the 

post office to determine the proper amount. 

70. Those voters transitioning to mail voting from Election Day voting 

also tend to be “late deciders;” that is, they decide who they will vote for later in 

the process, typically at the end of the campaign. Because of that, they are more 

likely to cast a mail ballot at the end of the voting process with only a few days to 

go until Election Day.

71. It is unremarkable that these voters would be more likely to cast their 

vote-by-mail ballots later given that they are also likely to be less familiar with the 

voting by mail, including the Election Day Receipt Deadline. Nor would it be 

unreasonable for them to think that their ballots can be mailed later in the election 

cycle as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, as many other deadlines in 

Florida voters’ lives⸺including voter registration deadlines⸺are postmark 

deadlines. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 97.053 (accepting voter registrations postmarked 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 51 of 78
52

by the deadline); id. § 101.6952 (accepting postmark deadlines for overseas 

ballots); id. § 192.047 (applying a postmark deadline to tax returns or 

applications); id. § 607.15092 (applying a postmark deadline to annual fees for 

corporate registrations); id. § 197.582 (applying a postmark deadline for property 

claim filings). 

72. For the same reasons, these voters are much more likely to need 

assistance with casting their ballots so that they can avoid the pitfalls that too often 

lead to rejection. And absent the option for paid and trained organizers to help 

collect their ballots, such assistance is likely to be hard to find as people continue 

to social distance. 

73. Finally, at the same time that mail balloting increases, USPS is facing 

a budget crisis that will likely lead to delays in mail delivery, raising particular 

concerns for Florida, which already experiences slow and unreliable mail service 

and, as a result, has had to ask voters to mail their ballots up to a week days before 

Election Day even before COVID-19⸺and, even when that advice is followed, has 

still had ballots arrive well after Election Day. Together, these circumstances 

guarantee that as the COVID-19 crisis continues, Florida voters will find it 

increasingly difficult to ensure that their ballots arrive before the Election Day 

Receipt Deadline without assistance. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 52 of 78
53

C. The State Has No Adequate Interest in the Challenged Laws and 

Policy Generally, and Even Less Interest During the Pandemic

74. Even before the coronavirus crisis, the State’s interests in the 

Challenged Provisions were thin. In the context of COVID-19, they are virtually 

nonexistent. 

75. The State has no legitimate interest in imposing the Vote-By-Mail 

Postage Requirement. Providing postage to allow citizens to complete voting as 

well as other important government-related functions is a common practice that has 

been adopted by federal, state, and county governments. For instance, at least 

sixteen states prepay postage on vote-by-mail ballots. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-

542; Cal. Elec. Code § 3010; 15 Del. Code § 5504; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-102; Ind. 

Code § 3-11-4-20; Iowa Code Ann. § 53.8; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 203B.07; Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 115.285; Mont. Code § 13-13-214; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.323; N. M. Stat. 

Ann. § 1-6-8; Ore. Rev. Stat. § 254.473; R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-20-10; Wash. Rev. 

Code § 29A.40.091; W. Va. Code Ann. § 3-3-5; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 6.87. Likewise, 

the United States Census Bureau sends census surveys with postage-prepaid return 

envelopes. Florida provides, as the National Voter Registration Act requires, a 

postage-prepaid return envelope when it asks voters to verify their address for the 

purpose of voter registration. And, in its coronavirus stimulus package, Congress 

allocated $400 million for elections, which can be used to cover the cost of 

prepaying postage, among other expenses.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 53 of 78
54

76. Moreover, studies have shown that sending absentee ballots in 

postage-prepaid envelopes increases mail voting turnout. When King County, 

Washington launched prepaid postage pilot programs during the 2017 and 2018 

primary elections, the county found that voters returned their absentee ballots via 

USPS at higher rates when they received return envelopes with postage prepaid. In 

the 2016 general election, before pre-paid postage was implemented, 48% of the 

tested group of voters returned their absentee ballots via USPS. In 2017, after prepaid postage was implemented, 81% of those same voters did. Voters were not 

only more likely to return their ballots by mail, they were also more likely to vote. 

In the 2017 primary, turnout rose 10%. In the 2018 primary, it rose 6%. Following 

these pilot programs, King County sent all absentee ballots with postage-prepaid 

return envelopes. Shortly after that, the Governor and Secretary of State of 

Washington funded prepaid postage for every county in the state. This experience 

shows, not surprisingly, the enfranchising effects of prepaid postage and, 

conversely, the impediments to voting that result from voters having to pay for 

postage.

77. The justifications for Election Day Receipt Deadline also fail to hold 

water, and this is particularly true where the State has a history of mailing ballots 

to voters after the statutory deadlines and known mail distribution challenges. 

While Florida may set a reasonable deadline for receiving ballots to ensure the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 54 of 78
55

finality of election results, the Election Day Receipt Deadline is not reasonable: 

voters do not reasonably expect that they must submit their ballots so far in 

advance of Election Day⸺particularly where they are not even receiving them 

until mere days before. And where the vast majority of deadlines that voters 

encounter in their daily lives, including the voter registration deadline and the 

deadline for UOCAVA ballots, are postmark deadlines, it is all the more 

reasonable for voters, and especially new voters, to expect that their ballots will be 

counted if they are postmarked by Election Day. 

78. The Election Day Receipt Deadline is also unnecessary to ensure that 

all ballots are received and counted within a reasonable time. In fact, as noted, 

ballots from overseas voters are not required to be received until ten days after 

Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day.2Fla. Stat. § 

101.6952. Thus, vote tallies are not final on Election Day, and there is no reason 

that regular vote-by-mail ballots could not be placed on the same timeline as 

UOCAVA ballots. This is particularly true during the pandemic where mailing 

 

2 The term “postmark” refers to any type of imprint applied by the postal service to 

indicate the location and date the postal service accepts custody of a piece of mail, 

including bar codes, circular stamps, or other tracking marks. Where a ballot does 

not bear a postmark date, it should be presumed to have been mailed on or before 

Election Day unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates it was mailed 

after Election Day.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 55 of 78
56

delays are imminent and in-state voters now find themselves similarly positioned 

to UOCAVA voters in that regard. 

79. Finally, the State’s justifications for the Voter Assistance Ban are also

weak. Indeed, voter fraud is extremely rare in Florida. Moreover, Florida has other 

protections in place that would better protect directly against such actions such as 

prohibiting: fraud in connection with casting a vote, Fla. Stat. § 104.041, the 

designation of a choice on a ballot for another person, id. § 104.047, voting a 

fraudulent ballot, id. § 104.16, as well as “vote-buying” and “vote-selling,” id. §§ 

104.061(2), 104.045. This kind of voter assistance is particularly needed in the 

current crisis where existing methods of turning in ballots through volunteers are 

increasingly less likely to occur as people attempt to socially distance and paid,

trained, and organized campaign staff may be the only functional way to assist 

people with turning in their ballots in the August Primary and November General 

elections.

80. Absent relief from this Court the individual and cumulative impacts of 

the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt Deadline, and Voter 

Assistance Ban will impose a severe burden on Florida voters, deterring them from 

participating in the August Primary and November General and disenfranchising 

them. If these laws stand, many Florida voters will find themselves faced with the 

same unconscionable choice that Wisconsin voters faced on April 7⸺their health 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 56 of 78
57

and safety versus their right to vote. This Court has the ability to ensure that both

are protected, and it should do so. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I– AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(except as set forth in paragraph 33)

Equal Protection

U.S. Const. Amend. I & XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Undue Burden on the Right to Vote

(Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter Assistance Ban, & Vote-by-Mail Postage 

Requirement)

81. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-80 of 

this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein, and pursue this 

count against all Defendants, except as provided in paragraph 33. 

82. Under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, a court considering a 

challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and 

magnitude of injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff 

seeks to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State for the burdens 

imposed by the rule. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson 

v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). 

83. This balancing test utilizes a flexible sliding scale, where the 

rigorousness of scrutiny depends upon the extent to which the challenged law 

burdens voting rights. See Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 

1318–19 (11th Cir. 2019).

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 57 of 78
58

84. Courts need not accept a state’s justifications at face value, 

particularly where those justifications are “speculative,” otherwise it “would 

convert Anderson-Burdick’s means-end fit framework into ordinary rational-basis 

review wherever the burden a challenged regulation imposes is less than severe.” 

Soltysik v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 438, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Pub. Integrity All., 

836 F.3d at 1024–25); see also Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 

181, 191 (2008) (Stevens, J., controlling op.) (“However slight th[e] burden may 

appear, . . . it must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently 

weighty to justify the limitation.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) 

(emphasis added); Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla., 915 F.3d at 1318-19 (“And 

even when a law imposes only a slight burden on the right to vote, relevant and 

legitimate interests of sufficient weight still must justify that burden. The more a 

challenged law burdens the right to vote, the stricter the scrutiny to which we 

subject that law.”). 

85. Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt 

Deadline, and Voter Assistance Ban impose a severe burden on all Florida voters 

who vote by mail. 

86. Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement imposes monetary costs 

on the only safe alternative to voting for individuals who would otherwise have to 

subject themselves to the health risks of waiting to vote at the few consolidated and 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 58 of 78
59

potentially crowded polling locations available. These costs bear most heavily on 

low-income voters and those who are affected by the devastating economic impact 

of the ongoing public health emergency. Even for voters able to withstand the 

economic costs, the postage requirement imposes practical burdens—i.e., traveling 

to a post office to purchase stamps—that will deter voters with disabilities, limited 

access to transportation, and voters concerned about the attendant health risks. 

There is little justification for failing to provide such postage given the benefits for 

voter turnout as well as the ready source of funding provided by the federal 

government. Thus, Florida’s failure to provide an opportunity for eligible citizens 

to vote by mail, without cost, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

87. The Election Day Receipt Deadline also poses a severe burden on 

voters’ right to vote. Voters must first learn about the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline and accurately guess when their ballot must be mailed for it to be 

counted, if they have even received their ballot in time to mail it. For those voters 

who, through no fault of their own, misjudge how long it will take for their ballot 

to arrive back in the county, or for those whose ballots are simply left unopened in 

a mail processing center, or do not reach the voter until a day or two before 

Election Day, the punishment is swift and severe: total disenfranchisement. But 

Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline also severely burdens all voters who vote 

by mail even if those voters’ ballots are successfully counted. By requiring voters 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 59 of 78
60

to cast their vote-by- vote-by-mail ballots a week before the election for those 

ballots to be counted, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline forces Florida 

voters to cast their ballots before they can account for any critical information 

about the election or the candidates that arise in the final week leading up to 

Election Day. Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline thus deprives voters of the 

ability in to engage in this robust period of civic engagement, because it effectively 

requires them to have already cast their vote. Moreover, the magnitude of 

individuals burdened by the Election Day Receipt Deadline is certain to rise in the 

August Primary and November General in light of the current public-health 

emergency due to increased mail delays and processing times needed for 

Supervisors to vote-by-mail ballots out. 

88. Similarly, the Voter Assistance Ban imposes a severe burden on the 

right to vote because it will effectively disenfranchise voters who require 

assistance turning in their vote-by-mail ballots, but lack access to a family member 

or friend who is able to provide such assistance. The State’s interest in enforcing 

the Voter Assistance Ban cannot justify disenfranchising voters who require 

assistance but lack individuals to provide it. Other Florida laws already criminalize 

any exercise of undue influence or voting fraud that might be captured by the 

Voter Assistance Ban. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 60 of 78
61

89. In short, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter Assistance 

Ban, and Vote-by-Mail Postage Requirement are not supported by a state interest 

that is sufficient to justify the resulting burden on the right to vote, and thus unduly 

burden the right to vote of all Florida voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter

judgment:

A. Declaring that Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter 

Assistance Ban, and Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement violate the 

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, Defendants, their respective 

agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in 

concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are 

postmarked by Election Day and arrive at their respective Supervisor’s 

office within ten days; 

C. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective agents, 

officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert 

with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance Ban, 

allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid or not⸺to 

assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail ballots; 

D. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective agents, 

officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert 

with each or any of them, from requiring that voters provide postage on 

their vote-by-mail ballots and further require that Florida provide 

prepaid postage on all vote-by-mail ballots; 

E. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; 

and 

F. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 61 of 78
62

COUNT II – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Due Process

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Denial of Procedural Due Process

(Election Day Receipt Deadline) 

90. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-80 of 

this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein, and pursue this 

count against all Defendants.

91. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits 

the states from depriving “any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of 

law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Which protections are due in a given case 

requires a careful analysis of the importance of the rights and the other interests at 

stake. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976); Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. 

of City of L.A., 806 F.3d 1178, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015). Courts must first consider 

“the nature of the interest that will be affected” by the government’s action as well 

as the “degree of potential deprivation that may be created” by existing procedures. 

Id. at 1192–93. Second, “courts must consider the ‘fairness and reliability’ of the 

existing procedures and the ‘probable value, if any, of additional procedural 

safeguards.’” Id. at 1193 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343). Finally, courts must 

consider “the public interest, which ‘includes the administrative burden and other 

societal costs that would be associated with’ additional or substitute procedures. Id.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 62 of 78
63

(quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347). Overall, “due process is flexible and calls for 

such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews, 424 

U.S. at 334, (quotation and citation omitted).

92. Florida’s vote-by-mail procedures must comport with due process. 

See Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1358 (D. 

Ariz. 1990). “Such due process is not provided when the election procedures [for 

voting by mail]” do not adequately protect the right to vote or ensure that an 

“individual is not continually and repeatedly denied so fundamental a right.” Id.; 

see also Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 217 (D.N.H. 2018) (“Having 

induced voters to vote by absentee ballot, the State must provide adequate process 

to ensure that voters’ ballots are fairly considered and, if eligible, counted.”). 

93. “When an election process reache[s] the point of patent and 

fundamental unfairness,’ there is a due process violation.” Fla. State Conference of 

N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1183 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Roe v. 

Alabama, 43 F.3d 574, 580 (11th Cir. 1995)). A state’s elections system, “the 

specifics of which are not explicitly made known to potential voters, that leaves 

potential voters in the dark as to its effect on a voter’s [ability to vote] and that fails 

to give voters a fair opportunity to [participate], is fundamentally unfair and 

violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 1185.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 63 of 78
64

94. The nature of the interest at stake in this case⸺the right to vote and to 

have that vote count⸺is the most precious liberty interest of all because it is 

preservative of all other basic civil and political rights. 

95. But Florida’s existing procedures for counting vote-by-mail ballots

too often deprive voters of having their ballot counted because (1) many voters do 

not learn of the Election Day Receipt Deadline before Election Day, and (2) even 

voters who do learn of the Election Day Receipt Deadline may not have their 

ballots counted if those ballots do not arrive in the mail at the county Supervisor’s 

office, through no fault of their own, by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Florida’s Election 

Day Receipt Deadline further deprives all Florida voters who vote by mail of the 

ability to cast a meaningful and informed vote by requiring voters to cast their 

ballots a full week before Election Day if they wish to ensure that their ballots will 

actually be counted.

96. Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline is neither a reliable nor fair 

way to administer voting by mail. The Election Day Receipt Deadline and the 

corresponding cutoff for casting ballots is, in fact, devoid of reliability because 

many voters are not even sent their vote-by-mail ballots until after the mailing 

cutoff, leaving them with no options for placing their ballots in the mail to be 

counted. Nor is the Election Day Receipt Deadline fair because it forces those 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 64 of 78
65

voters to cast their ballots with incomplete information and before candidates have 

delivered their final pitches to the voters. 

97. The value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards to ensure 

that the votes of Florida’s mail voters are both meaningfully cast and actually 

counted is readily apparent. A substitute procedure⸺requiring vote-by-mail ballots

to be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the county within, at a 

minimum, ten days after Election Day to be counted⸺solves the inequities 

inherent in Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline. A postmark date not only 

offers a reliable date to Florida voters by which they must cast their ballots, but it 

also ensures that voters who receive their ballots late through no fault of their own, 

are still able to engage in the franchise. A postmark date additionally ensures that 

all of Florida’s voters can consider any information that may arise and influence 

voters’ choices in the last week of the election.

98. Because Florida counties are not required to finalize its election 

results for twelve days after the election, see Fla. Stat. § 102.112, and already 

allows UOCAVA voters to mail their ballots in for up to ten days after Election 

Day, see Fla. Stat. §§ 101.6952(5), requiring Florida to accept ballots that are 

postmarked on or before Election Day and which arrive within ten days of Election 

Day would put no administrative burden on the state. And, as the Supreme Court 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 65 of 78
66

has explained, “administrative convenience” cannot justify the deprivation of a 

constitutional right. See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 535 (1975). 

99. Having induced its voters to vote by mail, Florida must establish 

adequate procedures to ensure that voters have a reliable, fair, and effective 

method to cast their ballots. Because Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline is 

markedly inadequate in all those respects, and Florida is readily capable of 

instituting a substitute procedure which would protect those voters’ rights with 

minimal burden to the state, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline violates 

Florida voters’ procedural due process rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter 

judgment:

A. Declaring that the Election Day Receipt Deadline violates the Due 

Process Clause; 

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, Defendants, their respective 

agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in 

concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are 

postmarked by Election Day and arrive at their respective 

Supervisor’s office within ten days; 

C. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable 

laws;

D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 66 of 78
67

COUNT III – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(except as set forth in paragraph 33)

Poll Tax

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and XXIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Imposition of a Poll Tax

(Vote-by-Mail-Postage Requirement)

100. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-80 of

this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein, and pursue this 

count against all Defendants except as provided in paragraph 33.

101. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

provides that: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or 

other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice 

President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or 

abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax 

or other tax.” U.S. Const. amend XXIV, § 1.

102. But Florida requires individuals who cast a mail ballot to pay for 

postage to return their ballots by mail. Requiring voters to spend money to submit 

a mail ballot imposes an unconstitutional poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth 

Amendment. Indeed, Florida voters⸺and particularly voters who are low-income, 

disabled, or homebound due to COVID-19⸺are being forced to pay “a price for 

the privilege of exercising the franchise.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 

539 (1965).

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 67 of 78
68

103. Based on the foregoing, the Secretary has deprived and will continue 

to deprive Plaintiffs and their members and constituents of their right to vote in 

federal elections, secured to them by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter 

judgment:

A. Declaring that the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement violates the 

Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments as an unconstitutional 

poll tax; 

B. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective 

agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in 

concert with each or any of them, from requiring that voters provide 

postage on their vote-by-mail ballots and further require that Florida 

provide prepaid postage on all vote-by-mail ballots; 

C. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable 

laws; and 

D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 68 of 78
69

COUNT IV – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Free Speech and Association

U.S. Const. Amend. I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of Free Speech and Associational Rights 

(Voter Assistance Ban)

104. Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza reallege and reincorporate by 

reference paragraphs 1-80 of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set 

forth herein, and pursue this count against all Defendants.

105. The First Amendment protects against the promulgation of laws 

“prohibiting the free exercise [of] or abridg[ment] of freedom of speech.” U.S. 

Const. amend. I. 

106. The Supreme Court has applied “exacting scrutiny” to review laws 

governing election-related speech. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 

U.S. 334, 345 (1995); see also League of Women Voters v. Hargett, 400 F. Supp. 

3d 706, 722 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (“[L]aws that govern the political process 

surrounding elections—and, in particular, election-related speech and 

association—go beyond merely the intersection between voting rights and election 

administration, veering instead into the area where ‘the First Amendment has its 

fullest and most urgent application.’”) (quoting Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. 

Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989)). Restrictions on such speech are 

unconstitutional when they “significantly inhibit” election-related speech and 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 69 of 78
70

association and are “not warranted by the state interests . . . alleged to justify [the] 

restrictions.” Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 192 (1999).

107. Voter turnout efforts, including assisting voters with the submission 

of vote-by-mail ballots, are a means by which Plaintiffs Priorities USA and 

Alianza communicate their belief in the power and importance of participating in 

democratic elections. Such activity is “the type of interactive communication 

concerning political change that is appropriately described as ‘core political 

speech.’” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23 (1988); see League of Women 

Voters, 400 F. Supp. 3d at 720 (“Encouraging others to register to vote is pure 

speech, and, because that speech is political in nature, it is a core First Amendment 

activity.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). And it does not 

matter if the individuals performing those acts are paid, trained organizers or 

volunteers. The act of assisting voters to submit ballots by any individuals is 

inherently expressive and an individual or organization that conducts such 

activities engages in speech by encouraging voting. See Bernbeck v. Moore, 126 

F.3d 1114, 1115 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejecting the argument that regulating an election 

“process” raises no First Amendment concerns).

108. Furthermore, under the United States Constitution, First Amendment 

rights “include the right to band together for the advancement of political beliefs.” 

Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 364 (1969). “An organization’s attempt to broaden 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 70 of 78
71

the base of public participation in and support for its activities is conduct 

‘undeniably central to the exercise of the right of association.’” Am. Ass’n of 

People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1202 (D.N.M. 2010) 

(citing Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 214-15 (1986)). 

109. The conversations and interactions between Plaintiffs Priorities and 

Alianza and their respective organizers and voters surrounding the submission of 

ballots are forms of protected political speech and association. See Williams v. 

Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968) (describing the “overlapping” rights “of 

individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs” and “of qualified 

voters . . . to cast their votes effectively”); Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F. Supp. 

2d 694, 700-01 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (explaining that “participation in voter 

registration implicates a number of both expressive and associational rights which . 

. . belong to—and may be invoked by—not just the voters seeking to register, but 

by third parties who encourage participation in the political process”). Florida’s 

Voter Assistance Ban violates that speech by “limit[ing] the number of voices who 

will convey [Priorities USA and Alianza’s] message,” and “the size of the audience 

they can reach.” Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422-23. Indeed, given the current public-health 

crisis, the form of speech that Priorities USA and Alianza seek to engage in is “the 

most effective, fundamental, and [likely] economical avenue of political 

discourse,” yet it is directly foreclosed by the Voter Assistance Ban. Id. at 424. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 71 of 78
72

110. Moreover, the threat of criminal penalties for violating the Voter 

Assistance Ban deters individuals from participating in Plaintiff Priorities USA and 

Alianza’s get-out-the-vote efforts and thus has a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ getout-the-vote efforts—the means by which Plaintiffs associate with each other and 

voters, and communicate with voters about the importance of voting. See League 

of Women Voters, 400 F. Supp. 3d at 720 (noting that even the threat of civil 

penalties “is likely to have a chilling effect on the entirety of [a voter registration] 

drive, including its communicative aspects.”).

111. These burdens are severe, and the Voter Assistance Ban are not 

narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. The Voter Assistance Ban 

thus represent an overbroad restriction on political speech and political organizing 

that infringes the constitutional rights of Priorities USA, Alianza, and other

Floridians.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza respectfully request 

that this Court enter judgment:

A. Declaring that the Voter Assistance Ban violates the First Amendment 

as an unreasonable restriction on speech and association; 

B. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective 

agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in 

concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance 

Ban, thus allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid 

or not⸺to assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail 

ballots;

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 72 of 78
73

C. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable 

laws; and 

D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

COUNT V – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,

52 U.S.C. § 10508 

Preemption

(Voter Assistance Ban)

112. Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza reallege and reincorporate by 

reference paragraphs 1-80 of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set 

forth herein, and pursue this count against all Defendants.

113. The Voter Assistance Ban conflicts with and violates Section 208 of 

the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10508, and is thus preempted and invalid. 

Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 (2008) (“[S]tate laws that conflict with 

federal law are without effect.”) (citations omitted); Gade v Nat’l Solid Wastes 

Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) (conflict preemption occurs when (a) where 

state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full 

purposes and objectives of Congress, or (b) “where state law stands as an obstacle 

to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of 

Congress”) (quotation marks omitted). 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 73 of 78
74

114. Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act provides that “[a]ny voter who 

requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or 

write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice.” Within the 

context of the Voting Rights Act, the act of voting includes “all action necessary to 

make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.” 52 U.S.C. § 

10310(c)(1). This includes casting an absentee ballot. OCA-Greater Hous. v. 

Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 615 (5th Cir. 2017) (“‘To vote,’ therefore, plainly 

contemplates more than the mechanical act of filling out the ballot sheet. It 

includes steps in the voting process before entering the ballot box, ‘registration,’ 

and it includes steps in the voting process after leaving the ballot box, ‘having such 

ballot counted properly.’ Indeed, the definition lists ‘casting a ballot’ as only one 

example in a non-exhaustive list of actions that qualify as voting.”). Section 208’s 

only limitation on this right is that the person providing assistance may not be 

connected to the voter’s employer or union.

115. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to correct entrenched “racial 

discrimination in voting” that was “an insidious and pervasive evil.” South 

Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309 (1966). In recommending that Section 

208 be added to the Voting Rights Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized 

that voters with disabilities “run the risk that they will be discriminated against at 

the polls and that their right to vote in State and Federal elections will not be 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 74 of 78
75

protected.” S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 62 (1982). To limit that risk, those voters “must 

be permitted to have the assistance of a person of their own choice.” Id.

116. Section 208 preempts the Voter Assistance Ban because state law 

criminalizes conduct expressly allowed by Section 208. The Voter Assistance Ban 

unlawfully limits the rights afforded to voters by Section 208 by prohibiting voters 

who need help returning their vote by mail ballots from receiving assistance from 

the person of their choice. Under Florida law, a voter is not free to choose anyone 

they like to help return an absentee ballot. See Fla. Stat. § 104.0616. Section 208 

cannot be interpreted to permit the Voter Assistance Ban to stand. See OCAGreater Hous., 867 F.3d 604 (Section 208 preempted a Texas law restricting who 

may provide interpretation assistance to English-limited voters); United States v. 

Berks Cty., Pa., 277 F. Supp. 2d 570, 580 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (county election law 

restricting who may provide language assistance to Spanish-speaking voters 

violated Section 208).

117. In fact, in its report recommending that this protection be added to the 

Voting Rights Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee noted that state restrictions that 

“deny the assistance at some stages of the voting process during which assistance 

was needed” would violate Section 208. S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 63 (1982). By 

prohibiting a voter who needs assistance completing their absentee ballot 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 75 of 78
76

application from being helped by anyone who offers to help them, the Voter

Assistance Ban also violates Section 208. 

118. The Voter Assistance Ban affects Florida citizens with disabilities

disproportionately. According to the CDC, approximately 28.1% of adults in 

Florida suffer from some disability. CDC, Disability & Health U.S. State Profile 

Data for Florida (Adults 18+ years of age), 

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/impacts/florida.html. In 2012, 

“close to one-tenth of people with disabilities who voted by mail reported having 

difficulties in doing so, saying they needed assistance filling out or sending the 

ballot.” Lisa Schur et al., Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for 

People with Disabilities, 14 Election Law J. 60, 63 (2015). 

119. Defendants’ enforcement of the Voter Assistance Ban prevents 

Florida voters with disabilities from receiving the voting assistance that Section 

208 of the Voting Rights Act guarantees them.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza respectfully request 

that this Court enter judgment:

A. Declaring that the Voter Assistance Ban is preempted by Section 208 

of the Voting Rights Act; 

B. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective 

agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in 

concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance 

Ban, thus allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 76 of 78
77

or not⸺to assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail 

ballots;

C. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable 

laws; and 

D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

Dated: May 20, 2020 By: /s/ Frederick S. Wermuth

Frederick S. Wermuth

Florida Bar No.: 0184111

KING, BLACKWELL, ZEHNDER

& WERMUTH, P.A.

P.O. Box 1631

Orlando, FL 32802-1631

Telephone: (407) 422-2472

Facsimile: (407) 648-0161

fwermuth@kbzwlaw.com 

Marc E. Elias

John Devaney

Amanda R. Callais

Christina A. Ford

PERKINS COIE LLP

700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20005-3960

Telephone: (202) 654-6200

Facsimile: (202) 654-9959

melias@perkinscoie.com

jdevaney@perkinscoie.com

acallais@perkinscoie.com

christinaford@perkinscoie.com

Lilian Timmermann*

PERKINS COIE LLP

1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 77 of 78
78

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on May 20, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will 

send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Frederick S. Wermuth

Frederick S. Wermuth

Florida Bar No.: 0184111

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 291-2300

Facsimile: (303) 291-2400

ltimmermann@perkinscoie.com

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

* Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 37 Filed 05/20/20 Page 78 of 78