In a letter this week, posted online by the Tampa Tribune, Sen. Dick Durbin responded to Sen. Bill Nelson’s request that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights investigate HB1355 by agreeing with Nelson’s concerns and stating he will conduct a field hearing in Florida. No date for the hearing has been set yet, but the ACLU, according to the Orlando Sentinel, is requesting Durbin hold three hearings before the Florida Presidential Primary in January.
Florida election litigation update
Two updates this week related to past stories on this blog.
As explained in the Palm Beach Post, the ACLU and League of Woman Voters challenge to the implementation of HB1355 was dismissed as moot and for a lack of standing and ripeness. The District Court found that most of the law had been precleared and that the few remaining sections under review by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were not being enforced in the five Florida preclearance counties. The District Court held that “[t]he State is allowed to prepare for legislation that has been passed and implemented in non-covered counties.”
Meanwhile, I’ve enjoyed the headlines this week in the Orlando Sentinel’s Central Florida Political Pulse blog: “Florida to federal court: Hurry up already” & “Florida election fight becomes battle royale” – the litigation over the State’s request to preclear the remaining sections of HB1355 (or strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional) continues with the State requesting an expedited review and the District Court allowing 29 interveners to join the case.
Florida challenges the Voting Rights Act
A surprising development in the preclearance saga of HB1355, the State has filed a First Amended Complaint seeking to have the court declare the preclearance obligation in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. To recap my past posts on this topic: under the Federal Voting Rights Act, the State of Florida has to “preclear” changes to election laws. Preclearance can be done throught the U.S. Department of Justice or by filing suit in D.C. The State initially sought U.S. DOJ approval, but then withdrew several of the proposed election law changes and filed suit in D.C.
The State now alleges that preclearance itself is “not a rational, congruent, or proportional means of enforcing the Fourteeth and/or Fifteenth Amendments” to the U.S. Constitution. The Secretary of State has published a press release contesting the 1972 process that placed Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe counties under the preclearance requirement, claiming it does not reflect current conditions. The Secretary does not appear to address the fact that there is a process in the Voting Rights Act that would allow a county to end the preclearance obligation. That process is certainly not an easy one, as it also requires a local government to file suit in D.C.
The ACLU has responded with a press release. Here are some of the stories from around the state on this issue: Palm Beach Post, Miami Herald (AP Story), Tampa WFTS, & Florida Times Union.
Voting Rights Act/HB1355 litigation update
Interesting story out of the Florida Keys today related to local Supervisors of Elections getting involved in the Voting Rights Act litigation involving HB1355. The memorandum in support of the motion to intervene that includes the Supervisors, the ACLU, and Project Vote is also online.
HB1355 Precleared – in part
With the exception of the major pieces of the legislation that the Secretary of State asked a Federal court to review, the Department of State has announced that they have received Voting Rights Act preclearance by the U.S. Dept. of Justice of the remaining pieces of HB1355, making them effective within the entire state. The pieces of the law that remain in limbo relate to: Section 4 – Relating to 3rd Party Voter Registration Organizations, Section 23 – Relating to Petition Signature Verification, Section 26 – Relating to Out-of-County Address Changes at the Polling Place, and Section 39 – Relating to Early Voting Hours.
Preclearance surprise – State changes course and asks Federal District Court to approve HB1355
Here’s the quote from the Secretary of State’s news release: “The purpose of filing in the federal district court is to ensure that the changes to Florida’s election law are judged on their merits by eliminating the risk of a ruling impacted by outside influence,… [s]ince the passage of HB 1355, we have seen misinformation surrounding the bill increase. By asking a court to rule on certain aspects of the bill, we are assured of a neutral evaluation based on the facts.” Swift reaction from the bill’s detractors is being reported in an AP story on the Tampa Tribune site, and in a Sun-Sentinel story. It appears from the Secretary of State’s news release that the USDOJ had issues with the HB1355 provisions related to early voting, 3rd party voter registration, petition signature verification, and address changes at the polls.
Protests and poltical committee litigation
The St. Pete Times is reporting on a protest yesterday in Tampa related to HB1355. Meanwhile, the AP & Miami Herald are reporting on a hearing today related to a libertarian group challenging Florida’s political committee regulatory structure. The plaintiffs’ counsel has a summary of their suit on their website. It appears to be one of many First Amendment/election law cases inspired by recent Supreme Court decisions.
Impact of Supreme Court Arizona PAC case quickly felt in Florida
A 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC et al. V. Bennett, Secretary of State of Arizona, et al. holding that Arizona’s matching funds law substantially burdened political speech and was not sufficiently justified by a compelling interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny quickly impacted Florida law. As I wrote about back in August, then candidate Rick Scott had challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s matching funds law and a Federal judge had granted a temporary injunction as to provisions that capped Scott’s spending and gave his primary competition matching funds for any spending over that cap. As noted by the Supreme Court, portions of Florida’s law were similar to Arizona’s. The Orlando Sentinel is now reporting that, in light of the Supreme Court decision, the Judge has made his injunction permanent.
Preclearance objections filed & litigation update
Numerous groups have reportedly filed objections with the Dept. of Justice regarding Florida’s request to preclear HB1355. The Bradenton Herald has a report on three public interest groups’ objections. Also online are objections from the ACLU Voting Rights Project and a letter from the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the Florida Conference of Black State Legislators, and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP. Meanwhile, the Florida Independent has posted documents from the litigation filed by the ACLU against the State.
Updated summary on this year’s Election Law
I’ve updated my summary on HB1355, posted on the carltonfields.com website at: http://bit.ly/j1VJ0o.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- …
- 15
- Next Page »