CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 1

Purging Noncitizen Voter Registrations 

United States v. Florida 

(Robert L. Hinkle, N.D. Fla. 4:12-cv-285) 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that 

a systematic purge of noncitizens’ voter registrations violated the 

National Voter Registration Act. During the 2012 election cycle, the 

Justice Department brought a federal action against Florida in the 

Northern District of Florida claiming that Florida was violating the 

Act. Fifteen days later, the district court ruled against preliminary 

injunctive relief, because Florida had ceased the purge that prompted the suit. In addition, the district judge ruled that the ninety-day 

proscription against systematic purges did not apply to noncitizens. 

In another case, a judge in the Southern District came to the same 

conclusion. Florida resumed its purge upon access to more reliable 

citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security. In 

2014, the court of appeals held a systematic purge even of noncitizens illegal shortly before an election, when there is little time to 

correct errors. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Citizenship; 

registration challenges; National Voter Registration Act; 

intervention; recusal; case assignment. 

The Justice Department brought a civil action in the Northern District of 

Florida against the State of Florida on June 12, 2012, charging the state with 

violating the National Voter Registration Act by undertaking a systematic 

purge of its voter registrations within ninety days of a federal election, Florida’s August 14 primary election.1

 The suit followed Florida’s refusal to comply with a May 31 letter request by the department that Florida halt the 

purge.2 Three days after it filed its complaint, the department moved for a 

temporary restraining order.3 The court originally assigned the case to Judge 

William Stafford, but he recused himself, so the court reassigned the case to 

Judge Robert L. Hinkle.4

1. Complaint, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. June 12, 2012), D.E. 2; 

United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347, 1349 (N.D. Fla. 2012); see 52 U.S.C. 

§ 20507(c)(2)(A); see also Robbie Brown, Florida’s Approach to Purging Voter Rolls of 

Noncitizens Prompts Federal Lawsuit, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2012, at A17; Marc Caputo, Move 

to Purge Rolls Started with a Chat, Miami Herald, June 13, 2012, at 1A. 

2. See Lizette Alvarez, Florida Defends Search for Ineligible Voters, N.Y. Times, June 7, 

2012, at A17; Lizette Alvarez, Search for Illegal Voters May Violate Federal Safeguards, U.S. 

Tells Florida, N.Y. Times, June 2, 2012, at A13; Marc Caputo, Florida Ordered to Halt Purge 

of Voters, Miami Herald, June 2, 2012, at 1A; Marc Caputo & Steve Bousquet, Scott: Feds Are 

Breaking Law on Voter Purge, Miami Herald, June 7, 2012, at 6B. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. 

Fla. June 15, 2012), D.E. 7; United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d at 1347. 

4. Recusal Order, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. June 13, 2012), D.E. 

6; Docket Sheet, id. (June 12, 2012). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Hinkle for this report by telephone on October 10, 2012. 
Purging Noncitizen Voter Registrations 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

On May 10, the Miami Herald reported that a study found nearly 2,700 

noncitizens in Florida who were registered to vote.5

 The method of identifying noncitizens included matching voter registrations to driver-license data, 

but driver-license data are not always updated to show naturalization.6

On June 8, two voters and Mi Familia Vota Education Fund filed a federal complaint in the Middle District of Florida claiming that the registration 

purge violated the Voting Rights Act because it had not received preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.7

On June 11, Florida filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia against the department of homeland security, seeking a 

court order that the Department provide Florida with citizenship records.8

On June 19, two voters and five organizations filed a civil action in the 

Southern District of Florida alleging that not only was the purge improperly 

close to an election but it violated both the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act as discriminatory against Black and Hispanic 

voters.9

In the Justice Department’s case, Judge Hinkle set a telephone conference 

for the afternoon of June 18.10 After the conference,11 Judge Hinkle ordered 

argument on the temporary-restraining-order motion for the morning of 

June 27.12

On June 20, four voters moved to intervene in defense of the purge.13

Neither party opposed the motion; Judge Hinkle allowed the voters to partic5. Marc Caputo & Steve Bousquet, State Finds Nearly 2,700 Noncitizens on Voting Rolls, 

Miami Herald, May 10, 2012, at 1A. 

6. United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d at 1347–48; see Amy Sherman, Democrats Rip 

Effort to Purge Voter Rolls, Miami Herald, May 30, 2012, at 1A. 

7. Complaint, Mi Familia Vota Educ. Fund v. Detzner, No. 8:12-cv-1294 (M.D. Fla. June 

8, 2012), D.E. 1; Mi Familia Vota Educ. Fund v. Detzner, 891 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1329 (M.D. 

Fla. 2012); see 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in 

jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard by a three-judge district court); Amended Complaint, Mi Familia Vota Educ. 

Fund, No. 8:12-cv-1294 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012), D.E. 20; see also Robbie Brown, Florida 

Halts Its Search for Violations of Voter Law, N.Y. Times, June 9, 2012, at A13; Brown, supra

note 1; Marc Caputo, ACLU Sues Florida Over Purge of Noncitizen Voters, Miami Herald, 

June 9, 2012, at 1B. 

“Five Florida counties—Hillsborough, Monroe, Collier, Hendry, and Hardee—are covered jurisdictions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” Mi Familia Vota Educ. Fund, 

891 F. Supp. 2d at 1331. 

8. Complaint, Fla. Dep’t of State v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:12-cv-960 (D.D.C. 

June 11, 2012), D.E. 1; see Brown, supra note 1; Marc Caputo, Florida, Feds in Brawl Over 

Purge, Miami Herald, June 12, 2012, at 1A. 

9. Complaint, Arcia v. Detzner, No. 1:12-cv-22282 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2012), D.E. 1; Arcia 

v. Detzner, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1277–78 (S.D. Fla. 2012); see Amended Complaint, Arcia, 

No. 1:12-cv-22282 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2012), D.E. 57. 

10. Order, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. June 18, 2012), D.E. 8. 

11. Minutes, id. (June 18, 2012), D.E. 17. 

12. Order, id. (June 18, 2012), D.E. 13. 

13. Intervention Motion, id. (June 20, 2012), D.E. 18. 
Purging Noncitizen Voter Registrations 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 3

ipate in oral argument during time yielded by Florida.14 On June 26, Judicial 

Watch and True the Vote also moved to intervene in defense of Florida.15 On 

November 6, Judge Hinkle denied the intervention motions because the 

would-be intervenors’ interests related to the litigation were the same as all 

registered voters and therefore adequately represented by the state defendants.16

At the June 27 hearing,17 Judge Hinkle denied the Justice Department 

immediate relief on a finding that Florida had abandoned the purge.18 He 

issued a written opinion on the following day.19 So that the parties had a 

prompt outcome, including allowance for a prompt appeal, Judge Hinkle often ruled from the bench with written orders to follow.20

The federal government agreed to provide Florida with access to federal 

citizenship records,21 so Florida dismissed its action in the District of Columbia on August 31, 2012.22 Using federal citizenship information, Florida 

resumed its noncitizen voter-registration purge on September 26, identifying 

198 potentially ineligible voters, of which thirty-six may have voted illegally.23

On October 4, 2012, Judge William J. Zloch determined in the Southern 

District action, as Judge Hinkle did in the Northern District,24 that the nine14. Order, id. (June 21, 2012), D.E. 22; Order, id. (Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 49 [hereinafter 

Nov. 6, 2012, United States v. Florida Order]. 

15. Intervention Motion, id. (June 26, 2012), D.E. 28. 

16. Nov. 6, 2012, United States v. Florida Order. 

17. Minutes, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. June 27, 2012), D.E. 35. 

18. United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347, 1350–51 (N.D. Fla. 2012); Transcript at 54–66, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. June 27, 2012, filed June 

27, 2012), D.E. 33 [hereinafter United States v. Florida Transcript]; see Lizette Alvarez, Judge 

Sides with Florida on Purging Voter Rolls, N.Y. Times, June 28, 2012, at A14; Steve Bousquet, 

Judge Halts Federal Attempt to Block Purge, Miami Herald, June 28, 2012, at 1A; see also Arcia v. Florida Sec’y of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1339 (11th Cir. 2014). But see Arcia, 772 F.3d at 

1339 (“Records indicate, however, that suspected non-citizens continued to be removed 

from the voter rolls during May and June, which was less than 90 days before the Florida 

primary election.”). 

19. United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (also ruling that the ninety-day proscription on registration purges did not apply to purges of noncitizens).

20. Interview with Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, Oct. 10, 2012. 

21. See United States v. Florida Transcript, supra note 18, at 14–28 (discussion of the Department of Homeland Security’s citizenship data at the Northern District of Florida hearing); see also Steve Bousquet, A GOP Win in Voter-List Fight, Miami Herald, July 15, 2012, at 

1B. 

22. Voluntary Dismissal, Fla. Dep’t of State v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:12-cv960 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2012), D.E. 12. 

23. Arcia, 772 F.3d at 1339–40; see Marc Caputo, Patricia Mazzi & Anna Edgerton, Voter 

Purge Begins Anew, Miami Herald, Sept. 27, 2012, at 1A. 

In 2014, the Miami Herald reported that because of changes to the federal database that 

would not be complete until 2015, Florida would suspend the 2014 effort to purge noncitizens from voter registrations. Steve Bousquet & Amy Sherman, Fla. Postpones Voter Purge of 

Noncitizens, Miami Herald, Mar. 28, 2014, at 1A. 

24. United States v. Florida, 870 F. Supp. 2d at 1348–50; see Patricia Mazzei, Timing at 
Purging Noncitizen Voter Registrations 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

ty-day proscription on registration purges did not apply to purges of noncitizens.25 At the plaintiffs’ request, and after a hearing, Judge Zloch entered a 

final judgment on October 29 in favor of the secretary of state from which 

the plaintiffs could appeal.26

The parties stipulated dismissal of the action before Judge Hinkle on January 10, 2013.27

On September 17, 2012, a three-judge district court denied Florida’s motion to dismiss the Mia Familia Vota section 5 action.28 On June 25, 2013, the 

Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the Court 

did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 

5 preclearance.29 The three-judge court therefore dismissed the action before 

it on July 24.30

On April 1, 2014, a divided panel of the court of appeals reversed Judge 

Zloch’s ruling, concluding “that Florida’s program was an attempt to systematically remove names from the voter rolls in violation of the 90 Day Provision.”31

First, the purpose of Secretary Detzner’s program was clearly to remove the 

names of “ineligible voters” from the Florida voter rolls. . . . 

Second, . . . Secretary Detzner’s program was a “systematic” program under 

any meaning of the word. . . . 

. . . 

. . . At most times during the election cycle, the benefits of systematic programs 

outweigh the costs because eligible voters who are incorrectly removed have 

Center of Voter-Purge Lawsuit, Miami Herald, Oct. 2, 2012, at 3B.

25. Opinion, Arcia v. Detzner, No. 1:12-cv-22282 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2012), D.E. 111; Arcia 

v. Detzner, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2012), rev’d, 772 F.3d 1335; see Patricia 

Mazzei, Judge Rules Voter Purge Can Proceed, Miami Herald, Oct. 5, 2012, at 1B. 

An appeal of the October 4 ruling was dismissed voluntarily. Order, Arcia v. Detzner, 

No. 12-15220 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2012). 

26. Arcia, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1276, rev’d, 772 F.3d 1335; see Notice of Appeal, Arcia, No. 

1:12-cv-22282 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2012), D.E. 126; Transcript at 3–4, id. (Oct. 22, 2012, filed 

Oct. 29, 2012), D.E. 123. 

27. Stipulation, United States v. Florida, No. 4:12-cv-285 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2013), D.E. 

54. 

28. Mi Familia Vota Educ. Fund v. Detzner, 891 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (opinion by Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson and District Judges James D. Whittemore and James 

S. Moody). 

29. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013); see Robert Barnes, Court Blocks Key 

Part of Voting Rights Act, Wash. Post, June 26, 2013, at A1; Steve Bousquet, Court Deals Voting Rights Act a Blow, Miami Herald, June 26, 2013, at 1A; Adam Liptak, Justices Void Oversight of States, Issue at Heart of Voting Rights Act, N.Y. Times, June 26, 2013, at A1. 

30. Order, Mi Familia Vota Educ. Fund v. Detzner, No. 8:12-cv-1294 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 

2013), D.E. 60. 

31. Arcia, 772 F.3d at 1339 (opinion by Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin, joined by Circuit 

Judge Adalberto Jordan), superseding 746 F.3d 1273, 1276 (11th Cir. 2014) (withdrawing a 

concurring opinion by Judge Jordan); see id. at 1348–49 (dissenting opinion by Sixth Circuit 

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich, sitting by designation, for the reasons set out by Judges Zloch 

and Hinkle); see also Steve Bousquet, Appeals Court: Voter Purge Violated Federal Law, Miami Herald, Apr. 2, 2014, at 1A. 
Purging Noncitizen Voter Registrations 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 5

enough time to rectify any errors. In the final days before an election, however, the 

calculus changes. Eligible voters removed days or weeks before Election Day will 

likely not be able to correct the State’s errors in time to vote. 

. . . 

In closing, we emphasize that our interpretation of the 90 Day Provision does 

not in any way handcuff a state from using its resources to ensure that non-citizens 

are not listed in the voter rolls. The 90 Day Provision by its terms only applies to 

programs which “systematically” remove the names of ineligible voters. As a result, 

the 90 Day Provision would not bar a state from investigating potential noncitizens and removing them on the basis of individualized information, even within 

the 90-day window.32

Judge Zloch reluctantly followed the appellate mandate and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.33

32. Arcia, 772 F.3d at 1344, 1356, 1348. 

33. Opinion, Arcia v. Detzner, No. 1:12-cv-22282 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2015), D.E. 149; id.

at 3 (“In the meantime, non-citizens, who were never eligible to vote in the first instance, 

will remain on the voting rolls within 90 days of a Federal election, and there is nothing 

practical the State of Florida can do about it.”).