College Campus Early Voting Battle Continues Despite Ruling
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker scheduled a June 19 hearing after the two sides have argued about whether the case is moot, or whether Walker should enter a permanent injunction to make sure the state doesn't block campus early voting in the future.
May 20, 2019 at 05:46 PM
4 minute read
Nearly a year after a federal judge's ruling allowed early voting sites on college and university campuses, state elections officials and plaintiffs in the case remain locked in a legal battle.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker last week scheduled a June 19 hearing after the two sides have argued about whether the case is moot, or whether Walker should enter a permanent injunction to make sure the state doesn't block campus early voting in the future.
The case is rooted in a 2014 directive to county elections supervisors by former Gov. Rick Scott's administration that prevented early voting sites on campuses. After a challenge by the League of Women Voters of Florida and other plaintiffs, Walker in July 2018 ruled that the directive was unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction that allowed campus voting locations.
In the November elections, that resulted in early voting on 11 campuses, with about 60,000 ballots cast, according to court records.
But that didn't end the fight.
In February, attorneys for Secretary of State Laurel Lee, who had recently been appointed to the top elections position by new Gov. Ron DeSantis, filed a brief arguing that the case is moot and should be dismissed. Lee's attorneys pointed to a directive that was issued to elections supervisors last year after Walker issued the preliminary injunction. They also cited a directive Lee issued this year after becoming secretary that, they wrote, “addresses the plaintiffs' concerns head-on and provides a further safeguard.”
“In it, the secretary specifically states that supervisors may place early voting sites on college or university campuses under the plain text of … the state's early voting statute,” Lee's attorneys wrote. “Thus, with or without this court's earlier published decision, the most recent directive makes clear that the secretary has no intention to revert to an improper position alleged to have placed an undue burden on the plaintiffs' right to vote.”
The plaintiffs' attorneys, however, fired back by saying the case is not moot and contending Walker should issue a permanent injunction to make sure the state doesn't reverse course on campus early voting. They argued, in part, that the directive issued by Lee had added further “ambiguity.”
“In sum, instead of a clear change in legal position, the 2019 directive is just more of the same from the secretary,” the attorneys wrote in a Feb. 22 brief. “And its timing strongly indicates that its true purpose is to attempt to moot this case to avoid entry of a permanent injunction that would both unambiguously protect Florida's young voters from the revival of this discriminatory policy in the future, and give clear comfort to SOEs [supervisors of elections] who would offer on-campus early voting that they are legally permitted to do so and will not have to parry future similar attempts to 'construct' the early voting statute so as to undermine or chill those efforts.”
Walker last month issued a ruling that rejected the state's arguments the case is moot, saying the directive issued by Lee has made her position unclear. Also, he pointed to a “continued denial of any wrongdoing” that raised the possibility that “challenged conduct will recur.”
But Walker found that the plaintiffs also had not proved their arguments, spurring the need for a hearing next month.
“It appears that plaintiffs have failed to factually support their assertion that [the directive issued by Lee] acts to prohibit or discourage supervisors of elections from designating college or university facilities as early-voting sites pursuant to the early voting statute,” Walker wrote. “Before deciding how to proceed, this court wants to hear from the parties.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Conference Declines Democratic Request to Refer Justice Thomas to DOJ
- 2People in the News—Jan. 2, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Klehr Harrison
- 3Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 4Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 5Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250