1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AUGUSTA SANDINO CHRISTIAN 

NAMPHY, DREAM DEFENDERS, 

NEW FLORIDA MAJORITY, 

ORGANIZE FLORIDA, and 

FLORIDA IMMIGRANT 

COALITION, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official

capacity as Florida Governor, and 

LAUREL M. LEE, in her official 

capacity as Florida Secretary of State,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-00485-MW

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

reasons set forth in the complaint and memorandum submitted herewith, Plaintiffs 

respectfully move the Court for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a 

preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants DeSantis and Lee to extend the 

online voter registration (“OVR”) to midnight on the second day after the date of 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 26
2

an TRO issued by the court, in order to ensure access to voter registration in 

compliance with the U.S. Constitution. 

At 12:18 p.m. today, the Secretary of State issue a press release and 

directive extending the voter registration deadline to 7:00 p.m. today, October 6, 

2020, because the OVR system had “encountered unprecedented volume and 

traffic the evening of October 5, 2020.” That is woefully insufficient time for the 

state or civic engagement groups such as the organizational plaintiffs to educate 

voters and allow them to use the OVR system, assuming it is now running without 

problems, to register to vote in time for the general election.

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

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and the 

accompanying Declarations of individual and organizational plaintiffs, filed 

herewith, Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of 

their claims; that they will and other Florida voters will suffer irreparable harm if the 

Court does not issue an injunction extending online voter registration; that the harm

to Plaintiffs and voters outweighs any harm Defendant would suffer if the Court 

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

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in this case advances the

clear public interest. Accordingly, a Temporary Restraining Order should issue 

forthwith.

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 26
3

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this matter be set for telephonic oral 

argument on an expedited basis.

Dated: October 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft

JEFFREY A. MILLER

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

3000 El Camino Real

Five Palo Alto Square | Suite 500

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112

(650) 319-4538

jeffrey.miller@arnoldporter.com

JEREMY KARPATKIN

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

(202) 942-5000

jeremy.karpatkin@arnoldporter.com

CHIRAAG BAINS*

Dēmos

740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 864-2746

cbains@demos.org

STUART NAIFEH*

ADAM LIOZ*

Dēmos

80 Broad St, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 485-6055

snaifeh@demos.org

alioz@demos.org

KIRA ROMERO-CRAFT

(FL SBN 49927)

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

523 West Colonial Drive

Orlando, FL 32804

(321) 418-6354

kromero@latinojustice.org

GILDA DANIELS*

JORGE VASQUEZ*

JENNIFER LAI-PETERSON*

SHARION SCOTT*

JESS UNGER*

Advancement Project National Office

1220 L Street N.W., Suite 850

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 728-9557

gdaniels@advancementproject.org

jvasquez@advancementproject.org

jlaipeterson@advancementproject.org

sscott@advancementproject.org

junger@advancementproject.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice 

forthcoming

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 3 of 26
4

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 4 of 26
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AUGUSTA SANDINO CHRISTIAN 

NAMPHY, DREAM DEFENDERS, 

NEW FLORIDA MAJORITY, 

ORGANIZE FLORIDA, and 

FLORIDA IMMIGRANT 

COALITION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official

capacity as Florida Governor, and 

LAUREL M. LEE, in her official 

capacity as Florida Secretary of State,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-00485-MW

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The United States is in the midst of an unprecedented public health emergency

that threatens not just our individual health and well-being, but also the health of the 

most vulnerable members of our families and communities. This emergency is 

coming at a time of a national election, when hundreds of millions of Americans are 

seeking to vote in what may be one of the most consequential elections in modern 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 5 of 26
2

history. It is critical that every voter be able to exercise their right to participate in 

this democracy. Recognizing the historic importance of this election, unprecedented 

numbers of people are registering to vote in Florida. Due in part to the public health 

emergency, the vast preponderance of this wave of registrations is online, making 

use of Florida’s online voter registration system.

Yesterday, on the deadline for voter registration and with early voting to begin 

in two weeks, the online registration system failed, leaving untold numbers of 

registrants unable to register to vote and thus unable to exercise their constitutional 

right to vote. No American should be denied the ability to cast a ballot because 

government officials who had notice of the registration system’s history of crashing 

failed to ensure its continued operation—especially given the increased need to 

register online due to the deadly pandemic.

At 12:18 p.m. today, the Secretary of State issue a press release and 

directive extending the voter registration deadline to 7:00 p.m. today, October 6, 

2020, because the OVR system had “encountered unprecedented volume and 

traffic the evening of October 5, 2020.” SOS Directive 2020-20, at 1. This despite 

the Secretary’s assurance to voters that its OVR system is “safe” and “secure.” 

See Frequently Asked Questions, https://dos.myflorida.com/media/703532/ovrfaq-english-202000920.pdf, at 2. The Secretary acknowledges that “Floridians 

planning to register to vote through the website before the book closing deadline 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 6 of 26
3

under section 97.055(1)(a) may have experienced difficulties.” SOS Directive 

2020-02, at 1.

The Secretary’s extension to 7:00 p.m. today is woefully insufficient time 

to educate voters and allow them to use the OVR system, assuming it is now 

running without problems, to register to vote in time for the general election.

Organizational Plaintiffs need time to restart their voter engagement and 

assistance operations, brief their canvassers and volunteers, and reach out to 

voters. Voters who are busy with work and caregiving responsibilities need 

additional time to make the opportunity to register to vote at all meaningful.

The State of Florida, in this time of emergency, has failed to meet its 

obligation to allow Floridians to register to vote. As a result, without emergency 

relief ordered by this Court, numerous Floridians, including individual Plaintiff and 

organizational Plaintiffs’ members and constituents, will be entirely deprived of the 

opportunity to vote in the November general election, in violation of their rights 

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The Parties

A. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs Namphy is a Florida resident and first-time voter who has been 

prevented from registering to vote by the breakdown of the online voter registration 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 7 of 26
4

(“OVR”) system. Mr. Namphy is a resident of Broward County, Florida who 

understood that he should register online rather than in person because of COVID. 

Namphy Decl. at ¶ 6. He attempted to register to vote October 5 starting about 8:30

p.m. but was unable to register due to system errors. Namphy Decl. at ¶ 7-8. He 

tried for nearly four hours to register via the OVR system, but was not able to register 

to vote before the midnight deadline due to OVR system failures. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10, 13-

14. Mr. Namphy will therefore be unable to vote in the November General Election 

on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 if the relief sought in this motion is not granted.

Organizational plaintiffs are non-profit organizations whose missions and/or 

members were interfered with or affected by Defendants’ failure to properly 

maintain the OVR and failure to extend the voter registration deadline to a 

reasonable date and time. The actions and omissions hinder the organizations’ efforts 

to secure voter participation and harm their members who need to register to vote or 

update their voter registrations.

Plaintiff New Florida Majority, Inc. (“NewFM”) is a Florida nonprofit 

corporation and membership organization that works with individual members and 

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

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

the vote efforts. NewFM suspended all of its in-person voter registration operations 

immediately following the March 17, 2020, Presidential Preference Primary

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 8 of 26
5

(“PPP”), as Florida went into lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Florida’s 

OVR site became the organization’s only option for its voter registration work. 

Mercado Decl. ¶ 7. 

Plaintiff Dream Defenders is a Florida nonprofit corporation. Dream 

Defenders conducts voter registration and voter engagement work throughout the 

State of Florida, and particularly in 10 counties, including Alachua, Broward, 

Escambia, Hillsborough, Leon, Miami-Dade, Orange and Pinella Counties. 

Summers Decl. ¶ 2. Due to the safety risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, 

Dream Defenders modified its voter registration program to urge people to register 

on the State’s OVR system, rather than conduct an in-person voter registration 

campaign. Dream Defenders diverted approximately $200,000 from its in-person

program to a phone bank urging Floridians to register to vote using the OVR portal. 

The membership of Dream Defenders includes college students who have been 

displaced from their schools due to the coronavirus pandemic. 

Plaintiff Organize Florida is a community-based, nonprofit member 

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

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

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

included supporting children and families and increasing Latinx voter turnout. Due 

to the COVID-19 pandemic, Organize Florida had to shift its planned in-person voter 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 9 of 26
6

registration campaign to focus instead on urging Floridians to register to vote using 

the OVR system. 

Plaintiff, Florida Immigrant Coalition (“FLIC”) is a Florida nonprofit 

corporation, representing over 66 diverse dues-paying member organizations in over 

twenty Florida counties, including community-based organizations committed to 

empowering their members and communities around civil engagement. FLIC’s 

mission is to amplify the power of immigrant communities, to address the root 

causes of inequality, and to defend and protect basic human rights, including the 

ability to labor, live and love without fear. To achieve its goal, FLIC supports civic

participation by encouraging naturalization, providing voter registration assistance,

and leading civic engagement efforts throughout the state. FLIC had to revise its 

voter registration initiatives from in person voter registration to use of the OVR 

system due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

B. Defendants

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

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

Plaintiffs rights. Defendant Ron DeSantis is sued in his official capacity as Governor 

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

chief executive officer and is responsible for the administration of all state laws, 

including those pertaining to elections and voter registration.

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 10 of 26
7

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

of State, for her failure to maintain the proper functioning of the OVR and her failure 

to extend the deadline for registering to vote past 7:00 p.m. on October 6, thus 

unconstitutionally depriving Plaintiffs of their right to vote. Pursuant to Florida 

Statute § 97.012, the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the State and 

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

overseeing and administering the state’s system of voter registration. F.S. §§ 

97.012(7), (9) & (11).

II. Florida’s Online Voter Registration System

In the time of COVID-19, registering to vote online is not just one option 

among many but has become the safest way to register to vote in Florida, and the 

only way to register to vote that does not force Floridians to choose between 

exercising their constitutional right to vote and putting their health at risk. In 2018 

and 2019, OVR accounted for approximately 17% and 8.5%, respectively, of all new 

voter registrations submitted in the state. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has 

significantly curtailed other methods of registration, leading Floridians to rely much 

more heavily on OVR. As of August 31, 2020, 32% of new registrations the state 

had received came from the OVR system. See Florida Division of Elections, “Voter 

Registration – Method and Location,” https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/dataCase 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 11 of 26
8

statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-reportsxlsx/voterregistration-method-and-location/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2020).

The Secretary of State’s office states that OVR is “secure and convenient”, 

“available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” and “can be used with Internet access, 

from anywhere in the world.”1 The deadline for voter registration is 29 days before 

an election, F.S. 97.055(1)(a). For the November 3 General Election, the deadline 

was October 5, 2020. Registrants were entitled to use the OVR system until 

midnight October 5 to register for the November General Election.2 

The OVR has been prone to system failures and shutdowns since its inception 

in 2018, including in the lead up to the November 2018 general election, prior to the 

registration deadline for the PPP in March 2020, and before the August 2020 

primary. Mercado Decl. at ¶¶ 9-12; Porta Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Users found that the OVR 

system was also unavailable for periods of time on October 3, 2020. Porta Decl. ¶ 

12. 

In the afternoon of October 5, the last day for voters to register to vote in the 

November 3, 2020 Presidential Election, and a day with typically very high voter 

registration volume, the OVR system experienced outages of several hours, leaving 

eligible voters unable to register to vote on the evening of the voter registration 

1 RegistertoVoteFlorida.gov, Frequently Asked Questions (available at

https://dos.myflorida.com/media/703532/ovr-faq-english-202000920.pdf at page 1. 

2 Id. at 3. 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 12 of 26
9

deadline. Individuals seeking to register, including individual Plaintiff and 

organizational Plaintiffs’ members and the Floridians they serve, were unable to do 

so and received an error message when they tried. Lioz Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5-6. FLIC’s 

experience and understanding is that the outage occurred for the period at least from 

3:30 pm to 6:00pm, and again from 8:15pm to 9:37pm, lasting a total of at least 3 

1/2 hours. Rodriguez Decl. at ¶ 6. Dream Defenders’ clients found the system was 

nonfunction at 7:00 p.m., and Dream Defenders staff found the system down at 7:17 

p.m. 8:14 p.m., and 9:59 p.m. Summers Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. The outage may have lasted 

as long as five hours or even longer. Porta Decl. at ¶ 17. 

FLIC estimates that it was registering about 219 voters per hour at the time 

the system crashed. Rodriguez Decl. at ¶ 6. Many whose attempts were frustrated 

were returning citizens, individuals with prior convictions who had completed all 

terms of their sentence and were re-enfranchised by Amendment 4 but were then 

disenfranchised due to the broken OVR system. Mercado Decl. at ¶ 13. In light of 

the numerous organizations registering voters on this final day of registration, 

several thousand voters were likely impacted by the October 5 outage of the OVR. 

Numerous voters tried to register in person after it became apparent that the 

OVR system was inoperative. There were long lines after hours at the Palm Beach 

County Supervisor of Elections Office, and the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of 

Elections office had an “in-flux of in-person” voter registration after the OVR 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 13 of 26
10

system crashed. Mercado Decl. at ¶¶ 17-20. However, the OVR system crashed 

after normal business hours, resulting in registration applicants with nowhere to go 

to register in person. 

Even after the system went back online, voters struggled to use it in the time 

remaining before the midnight deadline. For example, Plaintiff Namphy continually 

received a 524 error message—the code for when a website fails to respond and the 

connection then times out—as he tried for several hours to access the OVR system. 

When he was finally able to get past that error, the system became unresponsive 

when he attempted to move past the “captcha”—the commonly encountered puzzle 

designed to verify that a person, and not a computer, is using the system—on the 

first page of the OVR system. He was unable to register to vote before the deadline. 

Namphy Decl. at ¶¶ 5-11.

On October 5, after the system failures had become apparent, Plaintiffs 

through counsel requested that the Secretary of State extend the OVR deadline. As 

of the filing of Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Secretary of State has not responded to this 

request. 

At 12:18 p.m. on October 6, 2020, the Secretary issued Directive 2020-02 

acknowledging that the “Department of State’s online voter registration website 

encountered unprecedented volume and traffic the evening of October 5, 2020. 

Consequently, some Floridians planning to register to vote through the website 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 14 of 26
11

before the book closing deadline under section 97.055(1)(a) may have experienced 

difficulties.” SOS Directive 2020-02. The Secretary extended the voter registration 

deadline to 7:00 p.m. on October 6—a mere hours after the directive become public, 

and a window that will not work for voters due to caregiving, employment, and other 

responsibilities.

LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

enjoin defendants to extend online voter registration to midnight on the second day 

after issuance of a TRO or PI, to ensure that Floridians who sought to register to vote 

November 3, 2020 will be able to do so. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 15 of 26
12

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

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

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

1986) (affirming grant of a preliminary injunction). 

ARGUMENT

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

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the shutdown 

of the OVR during several critical hours on the final day of voter registration places 

an undue burden on their right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution by severely burdening and potentially denying 

thousands of eligible Florida citizens the opportunity to cast a ballot in the 2020 

General Election.

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

Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1215 (N.D. Fla. 2018). The right to vote is a 

“precious” and “fundamental” right. Harper v. State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 

663, 670 (1966). Voting is “of the most fundamental significance under our 

constitutional structure.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (internal 

citations and quotes omitted). 

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

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

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 16 of 26
13

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

504 U.S. at 434. That test requires the court to weigh the character and magnitude 

of the asserted First and Fourteenth Amendment injury against the state’s proffered 

justifications for the burdens imposed by the rule, taking into consideration the 

extent to which those justifications require the burden to plaintiffs’ rights. See 

Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

governed by Anderson v. Celebrezze)).

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

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

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

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 17 of 26
14

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

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

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

This is precisely the situation here. The OVR shutdown has placed a severe 

burden on the right to vote by disenfranchising thousands of voters. Despite

Defendant Lee’s own assertion that the OVR is available “24 hours a day, seven 

days a week”, the State has not kept its commitment to maintain the OVR system to 

enable voters to register, and has not extended the OVR deadline to compensate for 

the loss of several critical hours during the most heavily trafficked, final day of voter 

registration. Defendant Lee is responsible for maintaining the OVR system and

holds it out to all Floridians as a way to safely and efficiently register to vote until 

midnight on October 5. For thousands of Floridians seeking to vote in this year’s 

general election, like Plaintiff Namphy, the failure of the OVR system has totally 

denied their ability to vote since it is too late to register to vote any other way. 

Indeed, some prospective registrants made herculean efforts to register by the 

deadline, traveling to the County Boards of Elections after hours to try to register. 

Mercado Decl. at ¶¶ 14-17 While some County offices remained open late to accept 

registrations, most County offices were not open after normal business hours, 

leaving would be registrants with no recourse. Like the voters displaced in Hurricane 

Matthew, “because those aspiring eligible voters could not register, they could not 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 18 of 26
15

vote in the upcoming election.” Scott, 215 F. 3d at 1257. As in Scott, the state’s 

failure to extend the voter registration deadline past 7:00 p.m. today “completely 

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

vote.” Id. 

Other courts considering restrictions in voter registration deadlines have 

similarly found that limiting voter registration at the time of the COVID pandemic 

constitutes a severe burden on the right to vote. See, e.g., Democratic Nat’l Comm. 

V. Bostelmann, No. 20-CV-249-WMC, 2020 WL 5627186 at *17 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 

21, 2020) (extending Wisconsin’s statutory voter registration from October 14 to 

October 21); Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, No. CV-20-01903-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Oct. 

5, 2020) (extending voter registration deadline from October 5 to October 23). The 

logic of these decisions, and of the decision in Scott, applies with even greater force 

here, since the state’s failure here is not merely its general failure to extend the 

registration deadline due to account for the COVID pandemic, but specifically to the 

state’s failure to extend the deadline to a reasonable date and time in an OVR system 

heavily relied upon due to COVID that crashed at the critical time when thousands 

of voters were relying on it to vindicate their right to vote. 

The burden the state’s failure to extend OVR places on thousands of 

Floridians’ right to vote greatly outweighs any proffered justifications the State 

could put forward, whether under a more stringent Anderson-Burdick analysis akin 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 19 of 26
16

to strict scrutiny or under a lower standard. And as this court explained in Florida 

Democratic Party v. Scott, even assuming the State of Florida could point to a valid 

compelling interest, “it is nonsensical to argue that it is narrowly tailored to that 

interest” in a circumstance where the state’s failure totally denies eligible voters the 

opportunity to cast a ballot. Id. 

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

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

voters in these circumstances. Even under a lower standard of review, it “is wholly 

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

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

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

101.733, Fla. Stat.). 

Plaintiffs’ claim is even stronger in this case because the State had ample 

notice of the vulnerabilities of its OVR system, given its prior crashes. And the State 

had every reason to strengthen the system and prepare for increased traffic before 

the 2020 general election in particular, given the intense public interest in the 

election and the increased reliance on OVR due to self-quarantining taking place 

across the state as a result of the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 20 of 26
17

Under these circumstances, the State’s failure to extend the OVR deadline for 

two days constitutes an undue burden on the right to vote. As a result, Plaintiffs are 

likely to succeed on the merits. 

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

Irreparable Harm by Being Permanently Denied the Right to Vote in 

the November General Election.

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order is not 

granted. The State has not extended the OVR deadline to compensate for the lost 

time, essentially denying the right to vote to thousands of Floridians, including the 

Individual Plaintiff and Organizational Plaintiffs’ members and constituents. 

Because the OVR breakdown will render otherwise eligible voters wholly 

unable to vote, this is not a case where denial of relief would be “a mere 

inconvenience” to Plaintiffs, declarants, and organizational plaintiffs’ members. 

Scott, 215 F. Supp.3d at 1258. Once the election passes, “there can be no do-over 

and no redress.” League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 

247 (4th Cir. 2014). Denial of relief would leave people who had sought to register 

to vote in the time and manner prescribed by the state unable to vote, due solely to 

the mismanagement by the state of the OVR system and the state’s unwillingness to 

extend the voter registration deadline. 

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

Accommodating the Breakdown in the OVR System.

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 21 of 26
18

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

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

Because any burden on Defendants is certainly outweighed by the civic 

consequences of not taking prompt action, the balance of hardships strongly favors 

Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ request that this court order two additional days of OVR is modest 

and reasonable. At least one day is necessary to compensate for the many hours 

during which the OVR system was unavailable during the peak registration period 

on October 5. At least one additional day is necessary for Organizational Plaintiffs 

(and the State) to educate voters that they have additional time to register and should 

try again. In Plaintiffs’ experience, reengaging canvassers and volunteers to staff 

phone banks and briefing them about the extension, preparing and conducting 

outreach to voters about any extension, and motivating frustrated would-be 

registrants to revisit the broken OVR page will all take time. See Summers Decl. at 

¶ 15; Mercado Decl. at ¶ 18; Porta Decl. at 18-20.

Plaintiffs submit it is prudent to continue OVR through midnight on the 

second day after a court order to minimize confusion, as voters are familiar with 

OVR deadlines being midnight deadlines. Everyday responsibilities such as 

employment and caregiving, coupled with the added stress of navigating life during 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 22 of 26
19

a deadly pandemic, make the minor extension of the deadline to 7:00 p.m. today 

unreasonable and inadequate to protect the fundamental right to vote. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

emergency is rendering many thousands of Floridians dependent on the OVR system 

to register to vote. Under these conditions it is critical that the State remedy the 

shutdown of the OVR system by extending the voter registration deadline to provide 

sufficient time for voters to make meaningful use of it. 

Any burden the state might experience in having to extend the OVR deadline 

is limited. A federal district court’s recent order in Arizona is instructive. Arizona, 

like Florida, set October 5 as its deadline for voter registration. But the court in 

Arizona found the administrative burdens asserted by the state unpersuasive, since 

31 other states have later voter registration deadlines, and many of these states allow 

election-day registration. Mi Familia Vota, No. CV-20-01903-PHX-SPL at 8. While 

Florida may have some discretion to establish voter registration deadlines within 

certain limits, it cannot credibly assert that extending the deadline by a few days to 

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 23 of 26
20

address a system shutdown during a critical high-traffic period will pose a significant 

administrative burden. Indeed, under federal law, Florida must process all voter 

registration applications submitted by mail that are postmarked by the deadline, 

meaning that given current estimates of postal delivery times, registrations will 

continue to be processed for up to seven days after the deadline. 52 U.S.C. § 

20507(a)(1)(B). 

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

Eligible Florida Voters’ Fundamental Right to Vote.

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

of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in light of their own failure to properly manage the 

OVR, to extend the OVR deadline to compensate for the lost time. The requested 

relief safeguards eligible Florida voters’ fundamental right to vote, which by 

definition promotes the public interest. E.g., League of Women Voters of Fla. v. 

Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (“The vindication of 

constitutional rights and the enforcement of a federal statute serve the public interest 

almost by definition.”).

CONCLUSION

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

Order awarding the requested relief. 

Dated: October 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 24 of 26
21

J JEFFREY A. MILLER

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

3000 El Camino Real

Five Palo Alto Square | Suite 500

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112

(650) 319-4538

jeffrey.miller@arnoldporter.com

EREMY KARPATKIN

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

(202) 942-5000

jeremy.karpatkin@arnoldporter.com

CHIRAAG BAINS*

Dēmos

740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 864-2746

cbains@demos.org

STUART NAIFEH*

ADAM LIOZ*

Dēmos

80 Broad St, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 485-6055

snaifeh@demos.org

alioz@demos.org

KIRA ROMERO-CRAFT

(FL SBN 49927)

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

523 West Colonial Drive

Orlando, FL 32804

(321) 418-6354

kromero@latinojustice.org

GILDA DANIELS*

JORGE VASQUEZ*

JENNIFER LAI-PETERSON*

SHARION SCOTT*

JESS UNGER*

Advancement Project National Office

1220 L Street N.W., Suite 850

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 728-9557

gdaniels@advancementproject.org

jvasquez@advancementproject.org

jlaipeterson@advancementproject.org

sscott@advancementproject.org

junger@advancementproject.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice 

forthcoming

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 25 of 26
22

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

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

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

document, the foregoing memorandum contains 4,490 words. 

/s/ Kira Romero-Craft

Kira Romero-Craft

Case 4:20-cv-00485-MW-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/06/20 Page 26 of 26