Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=11443&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:17:34+00:00

Document:
On November 8, 2001, three Florida citizens who are each either manually or visually impaired and registered to vote in Duval County, along with the American Association of People With Disabilities, filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville division against the Secretary of State for the State of Florida, the Supervisor of Elections in Duval County and the Members of the Jacksonville, Florida City Council, asserting three claims: a Florida constitutional claim based on the right to a "direct and secret" vote under Art. VI, § 1, Fla. Const. (2001), an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and a Rehabilitation Act (RA) claim under 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, as well as the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, asked the court to invalidate Florida's third party assistance statue, § 101.051.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for relief, citing mainly the Sixth Circuit's holding in Nelson v. Miller. On October 16, 2002, the district court, (Judge Ralph W. Nimmons, Jr.) dismissed the plaintiffs' state constitutional claims, finding that the "direct and secret" language was satisfied by the Florida third party assistance statute. The district court also dismissed plaintiffs' ADA and RA claims, but permitted plaintiffs to replead, noting that the amended complaint must clearly allege the factual bases for plaintiffs' "reliance upon the more generic proscription [of the ADA] in contradistinction to the acts' more specific proscriptions. Additionally all claims against the members of the Jacksonville city council were dismissed with prejudice.
On November 5, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Secretary of State for Florida, the Director of the Division of Elections, and the Supervisor of Elections for Duval County. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, as another attack on Florida's third party assistance statute, already declared valid by the dismissal of the first complaint, or alternatively for summary judgment. Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment. On August 19, 2003, the district court (Judge Wayne E. Alley) allowed the amended complaint to proceed under two ADA regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151(b) & 35.160, and a claim of "generic discrimination," and denied both parties motions for summary judgment.
A bench trial was held from September 23, 2003 to October 1, 2003. On March 26, 2004, the District Court (Judge Wayne E. Alley) issued a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the County's Supervisor of Elections. The court bypassed the questions of whether the Florida election law, as amended, passed ADA and Rehabilitation Act muster but found that the Supervisor of Elections had failed to satisfy the requirements of a regulation promulgated under the ADA, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b). The court held that the purchase of optical scan voting equipment was an "alteration" to an existing "facility" that failed to make voting in Duval County "readily accessible to visually and manually impaired voters" to the "maximum extent feasible." Based on this violation, the court enjoined the Supervisor of Elections to provide, by April 12, 2004, at least one handicapped-accessible voting machine at twenty percent of the polling places in Duval County and to install, by May 14, 2004, an unspecified number of touch screen voting machines with audio capacity, as certified by the Department of State.
On March 31, 2004, the Supervisor of Elections appealed the Order and Judgment, asserting that the case was moot because HAVA Title III superseded the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant additionally moved for a stay of the injunctive relief. The stay was granted on April 16, 2004, and was in effect until August 15, 2007.
While the Supervisor of Elections' appeal was pending, the following events took place. The Director of the Division of Elections certified the touch screen system manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, Inc. for use in Florida. The Florida legislature appropriated $11,600,000 to the counties to comply with HAVA, Title III, and Florida law on voting accessibility. The appropriation triggered the deadline for at least one Title III-compliant voting machine to be available in each precinct by July 1, 2005. In April 2005, the City of Jacksonville enacted an ordinance appropriating a $1,187,543.79 grant from the state to purchase at least one accessible voting machine for each precinct. On July 29, 2005, the City and Diebold entered into a purchase agreement for Diebold's touch screen machines.
Given this information, on August 8, 2005, the Appellate Court for the Eleventh Circuit, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal, remanded the case to the district court to answer two questions of fact: (1) whether the City had a contract to provide Duval County with enough accessible voting machines to place one machine in each voting precinct, and (2) if such a contract existed, whether the voting machines would be in place and ready for use by the next election. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and answered both questions in the affirmative. Based on this, the Appellate Court for the Eleventh Circuit held that the case was moot and, on August 17, 2007, entered an order dismissing it.
On September 18, 2007, the district court, acting on its own initiative, entered a final judgment against the Supervisor of Elections in conformance with the its March 26, 2004 declaratory judgment and injunction. On October 4, 2007, the Supervisor of Elections moved the district court to vacate this judgment and to dismiss the case with prejudice. On December 3, 2007, the district court entered an order denying the motion. The next day, the Supervisor of Elections appealed the district court's judgment and order. On May 11, 2010 Judges Gerald B. Tjoflat, Edward E. Carnes, and Joseph M. Hood held in favor of the Supervisor of Elections and ordered the district court to vacate their judgment and dismiss the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff Description Citizens of Duval County, Florida, who are registered to vote in that county, and who have either visual or manual impairments that have prevented them from casting independently a secret ballot.

References: § 1
 § 12101
 § 701
 § 101
 v. 
 § 35