CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 1

Correcting Imperfect Voter Registrations 

Diaz v. Hood 

(James Lawrence King, S.D. Fla. 1:04-cv-22572) 

Eight days after voter registration closed for the 2004 general election, three would-be voters and four unions filed a federal complaint alleging that five counties were improperly failing to process 

and approve voter registrations. At the end of the week, the district 

court heard a motion to expedite the case; at the end of the following week, the court heard a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Four days later, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing, 

because the plaintiffs either cured or refused to cure their registration defects. In 2005, the court of appeals reversed the dismissal. 

The district court ruled against the plaintiffs again in 2006, but 

without prejudice. After a five-day bench trial on a third amended 

complaint, the court again ruled against the plaintiffs, finding the 

firm deadline for voter registration to be constitutionally reasonable. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; National Voter Registration Act; intervention; recusal. 

On Tuesday afternoon, October 12, 2004, eight days after the close of voter 

registration, three would-be voters and four unions filed a federal complaint 

in the Southern District of Florida’s Miami courthouse against Florida’s secretary of state and the supervisors of elections for five counties—the three 

southern-most Atlantic counties in the Southern District (Palm Beach, 

Broward, and Miami-Dade), another Atlantic county in the Middle District 

(Duval), and an interior county in the Middle District (Orange)—alleging 

that the counties were improperly failing to process and approve voter registrations.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedition 

and consolidation of a motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the 

merits.2 On Wednesday, Judge James Lawrence King set a hearing on the expedition motion for Friday morning at the Miami courthouse named after 

him.3

 Also on Wednesday, the plaintiffs filed their preliminary-injunction 

1. Complaint, Diaz v. Hood, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2004), D.E. 1; Diaz v. 

Cobb, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Diaz v. Cobb, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1273 

(S.D. Fla. 2007); Diaz v. Cobb, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1208 (S.D. Fla. 2006); Diaz v. Hood, 342 

F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1112–14 (S.D. Fla. 2004); Transcript at 5–6, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. 

Fla. Oct. 15, 2004, filed Oct. 20, 2004), D.E. 47 (noting that the complaint was filed at 4:22 

p.m.); see Gary Fineout & Jay Weaver, Florida Sued Over Rejected Voters, Miami Herald, 

Oct. 14, 2004, at 1B. 

2. Expedition Motion, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2004), D.E. 2; Diaz, 342 

F. Supp. 2d at 1114. 

3. Order, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2004), D.E. 5; Diaz, 342 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1114. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge King for this report by telephone on October 1, 2012. 
Correcting Imperfect Voter Registrations 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 

motion.4

Judge King heard the expedition motion on Friday.5

 He always had hearings in a courtroom, never in chambers.6

 He would have heard the motion 

on Thursday, but he wanted to accommodate attorneys who had to travel for 

the hearing.7 His motto in a time-sensitive case was “jump right on it.”8 Filers 

should be ready to proceed at the moment of filing; respondents should be 

ready shortly thereafter.9

An attorney for one of the counties had been a law clerk for Judge King a 

few decades earlier, and he brought this to the attention of the other parties, 

but there was no suggestion of recusal.10

On Tuesday of the second week, Judge King granted expedition and set a 

preliminary-injunction hearing for the following Friday.11 Also on that Tuesday, the Republican Party moved to intervene as a defendant.12

Clearly the old adage, “justice delayed is justice denied,” was quickly 

discerned by all the attorneys and the Court to be particularly true when 

considering the issues raised by this important litigation. The absolute 

deadline for a resolution of these issues was literally “set in concrete” by the 

November 2, 2004 general election. It also became abundantly clear from 

the statements of the respective attorneys for the Defendants, that if a decision was not rendered within a sufficient number of days prior to the November 2nd election, that any Order regardless of the outcome, would be 

impossible to perform due to the passage of time.13

On the day of the preliminary-injunction hearing, the plaintiffs attempted to file an amended complaint, but the defendants objected.14 Judge King 

had not received the amended complaint from the clerk’s office in another 

building by the time of hearing, and the defendants had little opportunity to 

respond to it; the plaintiffs withdrew the amended complaint.15

Four days after the preliminary-injunction hearing, on October 26, Judge 

King dismissed the case for lack of standing.16 Two individual plaintiffs de4. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2004), 

D.E. 7; Diaz, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 1114. 

5. Transcript, supra note 1; Minutes, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2004), 

D.E. 25; see Transcript, supra note 1, at 6, 11 (noting that expedition was not opposed). 

6. Interview with Hon. James Lawrence King, Oct. 1, 2012. 

7. Transcript, supra note 1, at 16. 

8. Interview with Hon. James Lawrence King, Oct. 1, 2012. 

9. Id. 

10. Id.

11. Order, Diaz v. Hood, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2004), D.E. 44; Diaz v. 

Hood, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1115 (S.D. Fla. 2004). 

12. Intervention Motion, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2004), D.E. 34. 

13. Diaz, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 1115; see Jay Weaver, Judge Takes Up Voter Applications, Miami Herald, Oct. 16, 2004, at 6B (“King said he had never experienced such a fast hearing 

schedule in his more than three decades on the federal bench.”). 

14. Motion to Strike Amended Complaint, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 

2004), D.E. 56. 

15. Diaz, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 1115. 

16. Id. at 1120; Diaz v. Cobb, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Diaz v. Cobb, 
Correcting Imperfect Voter Registrations 

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 3

clined to cure registration defects upon notice of them, the other individual 

plaintiff did cure and was registered to vote, and the union plaintiffs had not 

identified specific members who had been harmed by the defendants.17

On September 28, 2005, the court of appeals reversed the dismissal, but 

the court noted that Florida law had changed in the interim.18 On May 2, 

2006, Judge King denied the Republican Party’s motion to intervene.19 Reviewing a second amended complaint,20 on June 20, Judge King ruled that 

Florida’s rejection of voter registrations for failure to check certain boxes 

when the correct boxes to check were implied by other information on the 

application did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the National Voter Registration Act, but the plaintiffs could attempt to replead constitutional 

claims.21

Reviewing a third amended complaint,22 on February 27, 2007, Judge 

King dismissed all claims except for a constitutional challenge to Florida’s 

denial of a grace period to amend incomplete voter-registration applications.23 After a five-day bench trial in 2008, Judge King denied the plaintiffs 

relief, finding the firm deadline for voter registration to be constitutionally 

reasonable.24

475 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Diaz v. Cobb, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1208 (S.D. 

Fla. 2006); see Jay Weaver, Voting Suit Voided, Miami Herald, Oct. 27, 2004, at 3B. 

17. Diaz, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 1117–20. 

18. Opinion, Diaz v. Secretary of State of Florida, No. 04-15539 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2005), 

2005 WL 2402748; Diaz, 541 F. Supp. 2d at 1322 & n.3; Diaz, 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1274; Diaz, 

435 F. Supp. 2d at 1208–09; see Panel Clears Way for Voter Forms Challenge, Miami Herald, 

Sept. 29, 2005, at B4. 

19. Order, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2006), D.E. 135. 

20. Second Amended Complaint, id. (May 17, 2006), D.E. 151; see Amended Complaint, 

id. (Apr. 7, 2006), D.E. 120. 

21. Diaz, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1206; Diaz, 541 F. Supp. 2d at 1323; Diaz, 475 F. Supp. 2d at 

1274; see Daniel P. Tokaji, HAVA in Court: A Summary and Analysis of Litigation, 12 Election L.J. 203, 211 (2013); Daniel P. Tokaji, Voter Registration and Election Reform, 17 Wm. & 

Mary Bill Rts. J. 453, 488–90 (2008). 

22. Third Amended Complaint, Diaz, No. 1:04-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2006), D.E. 

170. 

23. Diaz, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1270; Diaz, 541 F. Supp. 2d at 1323. 

24. Diaz, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1319; see Jay Weaver, Judge: Voter Deadline is OK, Miami Herald, Mar. 26, 2008, at B3.