United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Florida 

Tallahassee Division 

Kirk Nielsen, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Ron DeSantis, in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of 

Florida, et al., 

Defendants. 

Consolidated 

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

MIAMI-DADE DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF AND, IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board and Christina White, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for Miami-Dade County, (“Miami-Dade 

Defendants”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, hereby files this Supplemental Trial 

Brief and, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Miami-Dade Defendants have joined and adopted the Secretary of State’s 

Trial Brief for all claims that are asserted against the Miami-Dade Defendants 

because Florida law requires Supervisors of Elections to defer to the Secretary of 

State on “the proper and equitable interpretation and implementation” of Florida’s 

Election Code. See Fla. Stat. § 97.012 (authorizing Secretary of State to “[o]btain 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 1 of 21
2 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election 

laws”). However, the Miami-Dade Defendants provide this supplemental trial brief 

to address issues or present evidence that relate exclusively to Miami-Dade County. 

Memorandum of Law 

I. The Miami-Dade Defendants are Entitled to Judgment in their Favor 

on All Claims raised by the Nielsen Plaintiffs 

In this consolidated action, the plaintiffs in Nielsen, et al. v. DeSantis, et al. (Case 

No. 4:20-cv-00236) have filed a five-count complaint challenging three aspects of 

Florida election law: (1) the absence of a requirement that vote-by-mail ballots 

include pre-paid return envelopes; (2) the requirement that a domestic vote-by-mail 

ballot be received no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted (Fla. 

Stat. § 101.67); and (3) the prohibition on any person accepting “a pecuniary or other 

benefit in exchange for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, delivering, or 

otherwise more than two vote-by-mail ballots per election in addition to his or her 

own ballot or a ballot belonging to an immediate family member” (Fla. Stat. § 

104.0616).1 

1

 The operative complaint for the Nielsen Plaintiffs can be found at D.E. 292-1. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 2 of 21
3 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

Because this Court has already dismissed the claims relating to pre-paid postage 

for vote-by-mail ballots, the Miami-Dade Defendants will only address the two 

remaining aspects of Florida election law that the Nielsen Plaintiffs challenge. 

A. The Nielsen Plaintiffs have Conceded that the “Voter Assistance Ban” 

Claims Do Not Apply to the Miami-Dade Defendants 

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Nielsen Plaintiffs assert that Counts I 

IV, and V, which deal with the Voter Assistance Ban in whole or in part, are 

applicable to all defendants. See D.E. 291-1 at pp. 51, 63, 67. In response to that claim, 

County defendants have argued through multiple filings that they are not proper 

parties to any claims relating to the Voter Assistance Ban because “neither 

supervisors of election nor canvassing boards play any role in enforcing Fla. Stat. § 

104.0616(2).” D.E. 105 at 13-17. Accord D.E. 237 at 5-6.2

Since then, the Nielsen Plaintiffs have conceded that they agree with the County 

Defendants’ position. See D.E. 285 at 19, n.19 (“The Nielsen Plaintiffs do not 

contend the County Defendants are proper Defendants for Plaintiffs’ claims related 

to the Voter Assistance Ban. The Defendants to whom that claim is addressed are 

the Secretary and the Attorney General. See ECF No. 245 at 27-33.”). 

2

 In a supplemental declaration accompanying this trial brief, Supervisor White 

also attests that the Miami-Dade Defendants “do not enforce the provisions of 

Fla. Stat. § 104.0616” and “count all valid, timely received vote-by-mail ballots 

regardless of the method of delivery.” See Supplemental Declaration at ¶¶ 19-20. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 3 of 21
4 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

Given this concession, the Miami-Dade Defendants ask that this Court dismiss 

or enter judgment in their favor on Counts I, IV, and V as they relate to the Voter 

Assistance Ban. 

B. The “Election Day Receipt Deadline” Does Not Unduly Burden the 

Right to Vote and Does Not Violate Procedural Due Process 

With respect to Counts I and II, which deal with the Election Day Receipt 

Deadline in whole or in part, the Miami-Dade Defendants rely upon the arguments 

and evidence provided in prior filings by defendants in this matter. See, e.g., D.E. 

237, 290. 

II. The Miami-Dade Defendants are Entitled to Judgment in their Favor on 

All Claims Raised by the Williams Plaintiffs 

In this consolidated action, the plaintiffs in Williams, et al. v. DeSantis, et al. (Case 

No. 1:20-cv-00067) have filed a six-count complaint that has now been 

supplemented by a Notice of More Definite Statement containing 34 alleged acts 

that they ascribe to certain groups of defendants with varying levels of specificity, 

D.E. 68. The Third Amended Complaint brings the following six counts: (1) a claim 

that various aspects of the State of Florida’s vote-by-mail laws place an undue 

burden on the right to vote under the Anderson-Burdick framework; (2) a claim that 

various aspects of Florida’s vote-by-mail laws and the implementation of its online 

voter registration system violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; (3) a 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 4 of 21
5 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

claim that various aspects of Florida’s election laws violate Title II of the American 

with Disabilities Act; (4) a related claim that those same aspects of Florida’s election 

laws violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (5) a claim that the failure to 

provide Spanish-language ballots and other election-related material in some parts 

of the state violates Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and (6) a claim that 

various aspects of Florida’s vote-by-mail laws violate the Due Process Clause of the 

14th Amendment. See D.E. 341-1. 

After being ordered to provide a more definite statement, the Williams Plaintiffs 

listed 34 separate actions and, for each action, they included—with varying degrees 

of specificity—the defendants that correspond to that action. D.E. 68. The Williams

Plaintiffs did not, however, identify which of their six claims applied to each of the 

34 separate actions. 

In addition, the Williams Plaintiffs’ discovery responses have suggested 

additional uncertainty over what they are claiming and against whom. For example, 

in response to interrogatories from other supervisors of elections concerning Fla. 

Stat. § 104.0616, the Williams Plaintiffs responded that they “ha[ve] not asserted 

any cause of action against the [ ] Supervisors Defendants challenging the prohibition 

set forth in section 104.0616 Florida Statutes.” The Williams Plaintiffs made this 

representation despite asserting in their More Definite Statement that Item 16 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 5 of 21
6 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

applied to “all supervisors of elections” even though that item exclusively deals with 

Fla. Stat. § 104.0616. See D.E. 68 at 5. 

In a similar vein, the Williams Plaintiffs have indicated that other items apply to 

“all supervisors of elections” without any supporting allegations in their pleadings 

or, in many instances, a good faith basis to make such a claim. In so doing, they have 

treated the 67 Supervisors of Elections as a monolithic group with no allegations as 

to what any specific county has done and left it for each supervisor of elections to 

determine whether they have sufficiently acted in a manner that meets the Williams

Plaintiffs’ litmus test. For example, the Williams Plaintiffs assert a claim in Item 13 

against all supervisors of election for “failing to deliver Spanish-language mail ballots 

or requiring voters to make a second request to receive a Spanish-language ballot” 

even though multiple counties, including Miami-Dade County, provide all ballots in 

Spanish. See D.E. 68 at 4. In many instances, the inapplicability of certain claims to 

certain counties should have been apparent to the Williams Plaintiffs following the 

reasonable inquiry required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). But, rather than assume the 

responsibility of clarifying their claims through one of their three amended 

complaints, they have left it for the defendants and the Court to do it for them. 

“Under the Civil Rules, notice of a claim is a defendant's entitlement, not a 

defendant's burden.” Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 6 of 21
7 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

1995). In this case, the Williams Plaintiffs slipshod filings have created a burden for 

the Miami-Dade Defendants to discern what claims apply to them and what evidence 

needs to be offered in defense of those claims. This Trial Brief and Motion for 

Summary Judgment represents the Miami-Dade Defendants’ best effort to divine 

the Williams Plaintiffs’ intent. 

A. Count V and Items 8, 9, 10, and 13 (Spanish Language Claims) 

Under Count V, the Williams Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants have 

“fail[ed] to provide VBM ballots, related instructions and documents to request, 

mark, return, and cure VBM ballots and other electoral materials in Spanishlanguage as provided to English-language voters.” D.E. 341-1 at ¶ 144. Similarly, 

Items 8, 9, 10, and 13 from the More Definite Statement relate to Spanish language 

issues. See D.E. 68 at 3-4. In Miami-Dade County, all ballots and election-related 

materials are provided in three languages—English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole. See

Deposition of Christina White at 147:20-148:20. See also Ex. A-C in Supplemental 

Declaration. 

In light of this unrebutted testimony from Supervisor White, the various multilingual election-materials attached to this filing, and the lack of any allegation by the 

Williams Plaintiffs relating to Miami-Dade County, there is no material dispute that 

Miami-Dade County meets its obligations under Section 203 of the Voting Rights 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 7 of 21
8 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

Act. See United States v. Sandoval Cty., N.M., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1253–54 

(D.N.M. 2011) (explaining that the reasonable effectiveness standard under Section 

203 “does not demand perfection, but only” something akin to “substantial 

compliance”).3 Accordingly, this Court should enter summary judgment in favor of 

the Miami-Dade Defendants on these corresponding claims. 

B. Other Acts Relating to Mail Ballot Requests (Items 1, 2, 6, and 11) 

For Items 1, 2, and 6, this Court has already determined that the Williams

Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits with these claims. See D.E. 332 at 3. 

The Miami-Dade Defendants, therefore, will not belabor over these issues. Instead, 

for Items 1 and 2, the Miami-Dade Defendants simply incorporate by reference the 

argument on these issues that they offered in their Motion to Dismiss, see D.E. 256 

at 6-8, and note the election administration concerns raised in Supervisor White’s 

original declaration, see D.E. 290-3. For Item 6, the Miami-Dade Defendants note 

3

 In their forthcoming answer, the Miami-Dade Defendants will also assert as an 

affirmative defense that the plain language of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act 

does not contain a private right of action because the enforcement provision, 

codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10504, only authorizes the Attorney General to take action 

to enforce compliance. The Miami-Dade Defendants recognize that the 11th 

Circuit, in Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 1284, found an implied right of action for a 

different provision of the Voting Rights Act. However, the 6th Circuit has held 

the opposite. See McKay v. Thompson, 226 F.3d 752, 756 (6th Cir. 2000). And the 

Supreme Court has yet to reconcile this circuit split. As a result, the Miami-Dade 

Defendants seek to preserve this defense and argument.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 8 of 21
9 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

this issue is moot as to Miami-Dade County because the Miami-Dade Elections 

Department has already sent “every household with at least one voter who does not 

have a vote-by-mail ballot request on file a vote-by-mail ballot form for each 

registered voter in the household without a vote-by-mail ballot request on file along 

with instructions on how to request a vote-by-mail ballot and the importance and 

process for updating the voter’s signature on file with elections to encourage the 

expanded use of vote-by-mail.” Miami-Dade County, Resolution No. R-453-20. See 

also Deposition of Christina White 27:2-9, 89:22-90:3, 93:12-15 (describing how voteby-mail request forms were sent to over 700,000 households and that prepaid 

postage was provided as well). 

For Item 11, voters in Miami-Dade County are already given notice of a potential 

address issues when making vote-by-mail requests in at least three different ways. 

First, Miami-Dade’s Vote-By-Mail Ballot Request Form explicitly asks the voter to 

provide their “Current Miami-Dade County Residence Address,” and it also gives 

the voter the option to mark “if this is a change of your residential address.” See

Supplemental Declaration of Christina White at ¶ 12.4 Second, if a voter requests a 

4

 The form also states: “The U.S. Post Office will not forward vote-by-mail ballots 

to a different address. Pursuant to State Law, if any first class mail addressed to 

you is returned as undeliverable to our office, the request for ballots will be 

cancelled until a new address is provided. It is up to you to keep us informed 

when you leave during the election season.” Id.

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 9 of 21
10 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

vote-by-mail ballot online and “provides a residence address that does not match the 

information on file, the online portal notifies the voter that the system could not find 

the voter’s record using the information provided.” Id. at ¶ 13. Third, if a voter 

requests a vote-by-mail ballot online and “provides the residential address on file but 

then requests to send their ballot to a different address, the system notifies the voter 

that the specified delivery address is not currently on file in the Florida Voter 

Registration System for that voter.” Id. 

Accordingly, this Court should enter summary judgment in favor of the MiamiDade Defendants on these corresponding claims. 

C. Other Claims Relating to Mail Ballot Delivery (Items 12 and 14) 

For Item 12, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that all supervisors of elections fail “to 

notify voters by forwardable mail when their mail ballots have been returned as 

undeliverable.” D.E. 68 at 4. However, the Miami-Dade Elections Department 

sends notices to those voters. However, the timing of those notices occurs in 

accordance with Fla. Stat. § 98.065(5) to “protect[] voters from having their voter 

information or status altered too close to a federal election by voter registration list 

maintenance activities.” See Supplemental Declaration at ¶¶ 17-19. 

For Item 14, the State of Florida has not yet certified “a feasible, reliable, secure 

method by which blind individuals can cast a remote secret ballot.” D.E. 369 at 2. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 10 of 21
11 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

See also Deposition of Christina White at 150:9-13. However, Miami-Dade County 

does wish to emphasize that it is the preference of Miami-Dade County when dealing 

with changes “to all voting equipment, all software, all hardware” to “launch it in a 

smaller election where [the Department] can try it out, refine [their] procedures, 

understand what [it’s] dealing with, see if there are any concerns that need to be 

addressed within the software ... so that when [the Department does] have to launch 

it on a larger scale in a big election, [it is] ready for it.” Id. at 150:15-151:1. 

D. Claims Relating to Mail Ballot Return (Items 15, 16, and 19)

For Item 15, this Court has already determined that the Williams Plaintiffs are not 

likely to succeed on the merits of this claim. See D.E. 332 at 3. The Miami-Dade 

Defendants merely wish to emphasize the election administration concerns raised by 

Supervisor White in her original declaration, D.E. 290-3. Supervisor White also 

provided additional testimony in support of this point at her deposition. See

Deposition of Christina White at 56:9-57:1; 57:21-58:14; 60:8-11; 60:18-61:3; 83:22-

84:7; 113:16-114:19; 117:2-6. 

For Item 16, the Williams Plaintiffs have already suggested through discovery that 

they “ha[ve] not asserted any cause of action against the [ ] Supervisors Defendants 

challenging the prohibition set forth in section 104.0616 Florida Statutes.” Because 

Item 16 deals exclusively with Fla. Stat. § 104.0616, the Miami-Dade Defendants 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 11 of 21
12 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

request that this Court dismiss this claim. See also Supplemental Declaration at ¶¶ 

19-20. 

For Item 19, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that all supervisors of elections fail “to 

provide drop-boxes for vote-by-mail ballots at polling place locations during the early 

voting period and on election day.” D.E. 68 at 5. However, Miami-Dade County has 

already agreed to provide drop-boxes for vote-by-mail ballots during the 2020 

Primary and General Elections. See D.E. 290-3 at ¶ 30. Those drop-boxes will be 

outdoor drive-through locations placed at (1) all early voting sites during the same 

days and hours of operation as the early voting sites and (2) four sites geographically 

dispersed across Miami-Dade County on Election Day during the same hours that 

polls are open. Id. See also Deposition of Christina White at 100:9-103:1. This issue 

is, therefore, moot as to Miami-Dade County. 

E. Claims Relating to Counting or Curing Mail Ballots (Items 20-24)

For Item 20, the Williams Plaintiffs take issue with the fact that state law provides 

a deadline of 5 p.m. on the second day after the election for any voter to submit a 

cure affidavit in order to cure a signature deficiency with their vote-by-mail ballot. 

D.E. 68 at 5. To avoid redundancy, Miami-Dade County relies upon the argument 

in its previously filed Motion to Dismiss as to the state interests in providing such a 

deadline. D.E. 256 at 12-13. In addition, the original declaration from Supervisor 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 12 of 21
13 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

White and her deposition testimony provide additional support. See D.E. 290-3 at ¶ 

13 (recognizing that the state law “provides narrow time frames for Supervisors of 

Election to complete essential election responsibilities” including the return of first 

unofficial results by noon on the fourth day after the General Election or noon on the 

third day after the Primary Election); Deposition of Christina White at 57:21-58:14; 

60:8-11; 83:22-84:7. 

For Item 21, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that supervisors of elections and 

canvassing boards “reject[] mail ballots without notifying the affected voters of 

ballot deficiencies.” D.E. 68 at 6. As a general matter, however, Florida law requires 

all voters with signature deficiencies to be notified via e-mail, text message, or phone, 

in addition to a mailed notice. See Fla. Stat. § 101.048(6)(a). More specifically, 

Miami-Dade County provides that notice to all voters. As described by Supervisor 

White, the Miami-Dade Elections Department send notices to voters as soon as their 

vote-by-mail ballot has been identified as even having a potential issue during a 

preliminary review by department staff. See Deposition of Christina White at 128:11-

15. The Miami-Dade Elections Department “[does not] wait until the point at which 

it goes to the canvassing board, because [the Department’s] goal it so give the voter 

the maximum amount of time possible to correct any type of deficiency. Id. at 128:16-

18. In most instances, that notice is sent out the same day that the ballot was received 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 13 of 21
14 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

by the Elections Department. Id. at 128:19-129:6. And the Miami-Dade Elections 

Department attempts to contact voters by every possible method of communication 

(text message, email, phone call, and mail) in all three languages (English, Spanish, 

and Creole) for each voter. Id. at 128:19-129:19. Lastly, these outreach efforts to 

contact voters occurs even for ballots received on Election Night, with the Election 

Department even attempting to contact voters “on election night so that they have 

the full two days up until the deadline to ... comply with the affidavit.” Id. at 130:3-

6. 

For Item 22, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that supervisors of elections and 

canvassing boards “reject[] cure affidavits that are not accompanied by identification 

when identification is not necessary to verify the voter’s identity.” D.E. 68 at 6. 

However, the procedures for accepting cure affidavits are provided in Fla. Stat. § 

101.68(2)(c)(1) and voters are also given express notice on the cure affidavit of the 

relevant identification requirements, see Fla. Stat. § 101.68(4)(c). See also

Supplemental Declaration at ¶ 23. 

For Item 23, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that supervisors of elections and 

canvassing boards “reject[] cure affidavits based on signature mismatch when 

affidavit is accompanied by valid identification establishing the voter’s identity.” 

D.E. 68 at 6. However, Florida law already allows cure affidavits to be accepted even 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 14 of 21
15 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

when there is a signature mismatch if the voter provides valid identification. See Fla. 

Stat. § 101.68(2)(c)(1). And, more specifically, Miami-Dade County “do[es] not 

reject a vote-by-mail ballot cure affidavit that contains a mismatched signature if the 

voter has submitted one of the valid forms of identification provided under state 

law.” Supplemental Declaration at ¶ 22. 

For Item 24, the Williams Plaintiffs allege that supervisors of elections “fail[] to 

inform voters of relevant identification requirements to remedy a signature 

mismatch where verification of identity is needed.” D.E. 68 at 6. However, “the 

notices that the Miami-Dade County Elections Department provides to voters who 

have potential signature deficiencies with their vote-by-mail ballot includes 

information of the relevant identification requirements to cure any signature 

deficiencies.” See Supplemental Declaration at ¶ 23. 

In light of the evidence provided, this Court should enter summary judgment in 

favor of the Miami-Dade Defendants on these corresponding claims. 

F. Claims Relating to In-Person Voting (Items 26-29)

For Item 26, the Williams Plaintiffs have alleged that supervisors of elections have 

“[c]los[ed] and consolidate[ed] polling places without providing equally accessible 

alternative polling locations.” D.E. 68 at 6. However, in Miami-Dade County, there 

were only 8 polling places (out of a total of more than 600) that were required to 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 15 of 21
16 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

close or consolidate during the March 2020 Presidential Preference Primary because 

they were either located at assisted living facilities or nursing homes or they were 

shut down to the public by the Department of Health. See Deposition of Christina 

White at 24:11-19. For each of those polling place closures, the Elections Department 

sent those voters to “the next closest voting location to the one that we already were 

sending them to,” and these new locations were mere “blocks away from each other 

in most cases.” Id. at 71:9-10. The Miami-Dade Elections Department will also 

employ this same strategy during the upcoming elections of sending voters to the 

next closest precinct. Id. at 71:11-14. Thus, even when a relatively few number of 

locations in Miami-Dade County need to be consolidated for public health reasons, 

it will not result “in any kind of drastic changes that [will be] causing people to have 

to go very far.” Id. at 71:14-17. 

For Item 27, the Williams Plaintiffs have alleged that supervisors of elections have 

“[f]ail[ed] to expand early voting days, hours, and locations.” D.E. 68 at 7. However, 

Miami-Dade County already plans to offer Early Voting for the maximum number of 

days during the 2020 Primary Election and the maximum number of days and hours 

during the 2020 General Election. Deposition of Christina White at 102:12-15. In 

Miami-Dade County, Early Voting will take place at 23 locations during the 2020 

Primary Election and 33 locations during the 2020 General Election. Id. at 105:6-

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 16 of 21
17 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

106:21. In addition, the differences between the amount of locations for the 2020 

Primary and General Election is due to differences in voter demand because primary 

elections have historically lower turnout than general elections. Id. at 107:1-2. Lastly, 

these locations are geographically dispersed so that “you have barely any voters [in 

Miami-Dade County] that are traveling more than two to three miles to get to one of 

our early voting sites.” Id. at 109:4-7. 

For Item 28, the Williams Plaintiffs have alleged that supervisors of elections have 

“[f]ail[ed] to provide curbside voting at polling places and during early voting.” D.E. 

68 at 7. However, as explained in response to Item 19, Miami-Dade County is 

providing outdoor, drive-thru locations for voters to return their vote-by-mail 

ballots. See also D.E. 290-3 at ¶ 30. 

For Item 29, the Williams Plaintiffs have alleged that supervisors of elections have 

“[f]ail[ed] to expand [the] availability of supervised voting” and “cancell[ed] 

supervised voting in facilities with large numbers of at-risk voters without providing 

safe and accessible alternatives.” D.E. 68 at 7. However, under state law, supervised 

voting may only be provided at assisted living facilities or nursing homes. See Fla. 

Stat. § 101.655. And, pursuant to an emergency order issued by the State of Florida’s 

Division of Emergency Management, entry by individuals not providing essential 

care to residents at all assisted living facilities or nursing homes during the current 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 17 of 21
18 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

state of emergency is generally prohibited. See Supplemental Declaration at ¶ 24. 

Therefore, supervised voting cannot be expanded at this point in time. In addition, 

“the Miami-Dade Elections Department has been in communication with all 

facilities in Miami-Dade County that had previously participated or expressed 

interest in supervised voting.” Id. at ¶ 26. And “depending on the facility’s 

preference, the Miami-Dade Elections Department either provided vote-by-mail 

request forms directly to the facility for all residents or gave the facility instruction 

on how to obtain and print forms on its own so that those residents could continue 

to participate in the upcoming elections through vote-by-mail.” Id. 

In light of the evidence provided, this Court should enter summary judgment in 

favor of the Miami-Dade Defendants on these corresponding claims. 

G. Count II (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) 

In their complaint, the Williams Plaintiffs have asserted a claim against all 

defendants under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act based upon alleged disparities 

in the vote-by-mail process. See D.E. 341-1 at pp. 62-64. Notably, none of the 34 

actions that were listed in the More Definite Statement concern or even reference 

racial disparities. See generally D.E. 68. Thus, the Miami-Dade Defendants will 

endeavor to respond to this claim generally because the Williams Plaintiffs have 

failed to indicate what specific actions correspond to this claim. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 18 of 21
19 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

Based upon the exhibits filed in support of their Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction, it appears that the Williams Plaintiffs are attempting to rest the vote-bymail elements of Count II exclusively upon the expert testimony of Dr. Daniel Smith. 

See D.E. 87-1 at 36-37. However, at deposition, Dr. Smith admitted that for MiamiDade County any racial disparity in the rejection of vote-by-mail ballots was almost 

entirely attributable to disparities in unsigned ballots and that the rate of signature 

rejections was virtually identical (and effectively zero) across all races. See

Deposition of Dr. Daniel Smith at 64:1-65:3 (agreeing that rate of “voter caused 

error”—or signature mismatches—in Miami-Dade County was effectively at 0 

percent for White, Black, and Hispanic voters); 65:4-9 (Q: So at least for MiamiDade County, any disparity in the rejection rates is almost entirely attributable to 

unsigned ballots and not to voter-caused error? A: Yes, for the ballots that are 

received on time, I would agree largely with that statement.”) (emphasis added). 

Because the failure of a voter to sign a ballot is not an action that is attributable to the 

Supervisor of Elections or the Canvassing Board, it cannot serve as the basis for a 

claim of disparate treatment under the Voting Rights Acts. 

In light of the evidence provided, this Court should enter summary judgment in 

favor of the Miami-Dade Defendants on these corresponding claims. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 19 of 21
20 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated in this Trial Brief and in the relevant filings of any other 

defendants, the Miami-Dade Defendants request that this Court enter summary 

judgment in their favor on the relevant claims asserted by any of the plaintiffs in this 

consolidated action. 

Date: July 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY

By: /s/ Michael B. Valdes 

Michael B. Valdes and Oren Rosenthal 

Assistant County Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 93129 

Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 

111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 

Miami, Florida 33128 

Phone: (305) 375-5151 

Fax: (305) 375-5634 

E-mail: mbv@miamidade.gov

Counsel for Christina White and the 

Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 20 of 21
21 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

(305) 375-5151 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to all counsel 

of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system on July 3, 2020. 

 /s/ Michael B. Valdes 

Michael B. Valdes 

 Assistant County Attorney 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing complies with the size, font, and 

formatting requirements of Local Rule 5.1(C) and the word limit requirements of 

Local Rule 7.1(F). 

 /s/ Michael B. Valdes 

Michael B. Valdes 

 Assistant County Attorney 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 390 Filed 07/03/20 Page 21 of 21