The Florida Governor vetoed HB1207, a recently passed election law bill.
According to the bill analysis posted online, the bill would have reenacted and amended provisions related to electioneering communications and electioneering communication organizations (ECOs), revised provisions relating to use of local government funds for political advertising, and authorized the leader of each political party conference of the state House of Representatives and Senate to establish a separate, affiliated party committee to support the election of candidates of the leader’s political party. Here are links to coverage in the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, St. Pete Times, and Orlando Sentinel.
New Florida Supreme Court Election Law Case
A new Florida Supreme Court case has been published: Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc., Etc., Et Al. v. Kurt S. Browning, Etc., Et Al. Beyond the question of whether you can pass a charter amendment regarding voting machines, what I found very interesting was the holding that the field of elections law had not been preempted by the Florida Legislature through the Florida Election Code. In 2007, the 2nd District Court of Appeal had held that the Election Code impliedly preempts the SAFE amendment given the Election Code’s pervasive regulatory scheme and the public policy mandate for uniformity.” Uniformity in elections has been a heavily disputed topic before and after the 2000 election. If the Election Code is not a specific or implied preemption of authority, will this spark new interest in local elections regulations and other charter amendments?
New Supreme Court case
The much anticipated US Supreme Court case Citizens United v. F.E.C. has been released. 183 pages of opinion and dissent to analyze.
New Division opinion on electioneering communications
The Division of Elections has issued a new opinion dealing with the result of a recent Northern District federal case (Broward Coalition v. Browning) prohibiting enforcement of the electioneering communications provisions of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, which the State apparently decided not to appeal further.
In memory.
On a personal note, I am saddened to learn of the passing of a friend, Phyllis Busansky, Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections.
Latest on the Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act
A large number of interesting pieces on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Here’s a few interesting ones: Washington Post The Hill NYTimes Washington Times While the majority of the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5, it did open the door to more political entities having the ability to seek to opt out of the preclearance review. Right now, in Florida, all government entities in Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties are subject to having any election procedure changes precleared by the Justice Dept. or the courts, including such things as polling site changes. This also causes all statewide election procedure changes to need preclearance as well. The practical effect of this ruling, however, is probably small as the cost and political ramifications of filing such an action in federal court in D.C. to request an opt out is probably beyond most local governments. In his dissent, Justice Thomas argued that this preclearance requirement has succeeded and therefore now lacks a constitutional basis for its continued existence. The rest of the Court were not willing to go down that path yet, but it will interesting to see if any changes to the VRA are looked at in Congress over the next year to deal with the concerns the Court raised.
New Voting Rights Act opinion released
The U.S. Supreme Court has released its much awaited opinion regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, apparently side-stepping the question of whether Section 5 is constitutional. I’m still looking at it, but wanted to make the link available.
Election bill dead for this session?
Numerous reports, including this one in the Miami Herald, indicate that leader of the Florida House of Representatives does not think there is enough time left in this session for the proposed elections bills. With the legislative session looking at either an extension or a special session this year, we’ll see what happens.
More on SB956
The latest summary of the changes proposed in Senate Bill 956 is:
- Expressly providing that the Florida Election Code preempts any local provision regarding elections unless otherwise specifically provided by law.
- A substantial revision to third party voter registration organization requirements.
- The removal of retirement center identification and neighborhood association identification from the list of identifications that may be used at the polls or by certain first time voters.
- Prohibiting persons or groups from soliciting voters within 100 feet of the line in which voters are standing to enter a polling place or early voting site. Authorizing leadership funds.
- Requiring marksense ballots to be printed by precinct.
- Allowing an overseas voter to request, receive, or return an absentee ballot or ballot materials by electronic transmission, including e-mail or fax, if the Department of State can establish the security of the transmission.
- Revising the times when the Election Canvassing Commission must meet to certify an election to 9 a.m. on the 9th day after a primary election and 9 a.m. on the 14th day after a general election. Requiring supervisors of elections to be elected on a non-partisan basis.
- Provisions regulating paid petition circulators, including registration and the invalidation of petitions not in compliance with the act as well as offering a voter another opportunity to sign a petition to replace the one that is invalidated.
Whatever you think of the other proposed changes (and there are many articles regarding that, including a potential veto), the preemption of local authority to the state jumps out as an issue not mentioned in most articles. The past election cycle included several disputes between state and county officials regarding election law interpretation and this proposal appears to be an attempt to move away from local control. I’ve also not seen any discussion of whether the U.S. Dept. of Justice would preclear these kind of changes – although preclearance under the Voting Rights Act is itself presently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senate Bill 956: Relating to Elections
As reported in the NY Times and St. Pete Times, the former “shell” bill SB956 has become the placeholder for a series of proposed elections changes. So far, the potential changes are listed in the committee amendments section – it’s schedule for a committee hearing Thursday afternoon.