Breaking: Federal District Court Strikes Down Restrictive Florida Voting Rules, Imposes Requirement
Source: Election law Blog
Quite a blockbuster ruling from the federal district court. The court found that in enacting certain election laws limiting registration outreach and the use of drop boxes, Florida violated the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that Florida acted intentionally discriminating against the states black voters. And although the parties hardly briefed it, the Court imposed a very strong remedy of requiring that certain changes in voting rules in Florida be precleared before the court for a period of 10 years under section 3c of the Voting Rights Act.
This is a huge deal, and the district courts analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Indeed, the district court seems to signal that very early in the case that the appellate courts have stopped meaningfully protecting minority voting rights:
In so ruling, this Court recognizes that the right to vote, and the VRA particularly, are under siege. See, e.g., Ark. State Conf. NAACP v. Ark. Bd. of Apportionment, No. 4:21-cv-01239-LPR, 2022 WL 496908, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 17, 2022) (dismissing a strong merits case that Arkansas had, to the detriment of Black voters, racially gerrymandered seats in the Arkansas House of Representatives under the theory that no private right of action is available under section 2 of the VRA); Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022) (staying, without explanation, order enjoining racially gerrymandered congressional maps); Brnovich v. Democratic Natl Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2351 (2021) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (Today, the Court undermines Section 2 [of the VRA] and the right it provides.); Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (gutting the VRAs preclearance regime).
Federal courts must not lose sight of the spirit that spurred the VRAs passage. In June 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to the New York Amsterdam News urging Congress to pass the VRA. In it, he wrote that to deny a person the right to exercise his political freedom at the polls is no less a dastardly act as to deny a Christian the right to petition God in prayer. Martin Luther King Jr., Let My People Vote, The Atlantic, https://tinyurl.com/2sfx63u4 (last visited Mar. 22, 2022). Federal courts would not countenance a law denying Christians their sacred right to prayer, and they should not countenance a law denying Floridians their sacred right to vote.
Read more: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=128540
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,634 posts)old as dirt
(1,972 posts)Sung to the tune iof that childhood taunt, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah..."
We Are the Champions
Cha
(304,152 posts)groundloop
(12,131 posts)gab13by13
(24,514 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,984 posts)SunSeeker
(53,405 posts)bluestarone
(17,994 posts)TEXAS!!!
And then Georgia, especially that ridiculous law that forbids providing food or water to people waiting in line for hours to vote, which makes me crazy to think about!
gab13by13
(24,514 posts)h2ebits
(758 posts)To the law firm of Marc Elias; the League of Women Voters; Black Voters Matter; and Active Florida Retirees!
I am a member of the League of Women Voters and so proud to see our nationwide actions and the ongoing fight to strike down these assaults against our democracy!
Bev54
(11,789 posts)mountain grammy
(27,144 posts)Bravo 👏
pecosbob
(7,893 posts)onetexan
(13,755 posts)SergeStorms
(19,273 posts)that the GQP has work-arounds in place for every possible outcome.
Right-wingers are nothing if not prepared for every eventual outcome of every situation. Even losing an election by 8 million votes isn't a certainty (at least for their rabid faithful, and from what I've seen they're around 95% rabid faithful).
As much as I loathe them, you have to admire their perseverance and preparedness.
When all else fails they revert to violence. That's their fall-back position.
Harker
(14,693 posts)I find their perseverance exasperating and their "preparedness" a sign of pathological derangement.
SergeStorms
(19,273 posts)doesn't it.
I wish our side had everything worked out ahead of time for once.
You can bet if a Democrat had done what Donald Trump did that person would be in prison by now, or executed, or whatever.
Harker
(14,693 posts)I'm routinely caught flat-footed by their audacity, which exceeds my worsening expectations.
33taw
(2,700 posts)GB_RN
(3,079 posts)If Florida loses its appeal but it probably wont. And even then, the plaintiffs will probably appeal, but given the bent of the court today, I seriously wish them GLWT.
getagrip_already
(17,035 posts)33taw
(2,700 posts)RussBLib
(9,606 posts)lark
(23,969 posts)i was just saying to my husband that this feels wonderful but traitorous SCOTUS always sides with repugs on voting rights so our joy is likely to be short lived. I'm enjoying it for today, but know we probably won't have many days of sanity before the traitors pounce again.
RipVanWinkle
(260 posts)The article states: "This is a huge deal, and the district courts analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Indeed, the district court seems to signal that very early in the case that the appellate courts have stopped meaningfully protecting minority voting rights: [cases cited]."
Cha
(304,152 posts)pissed
💙💛
Hotler
(11,942 posts)keeps him awake for many nights. Suck it Ron.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,634 posts)This is a major ruling on imposing preclearance on Florida
Link to tweet
US district judge Mark Walker put the state back under preclearance on Thursday as part of a 288-page ruling striking down new voting restrictions in Florida limiting the availability of drop boxes, and making it more difficult for third-party groups to register voters. Florida has repeatedly, recently, and persistently acted to deny Black Floridians access to the franchise, he wrote in his opinion.
Placing a state under federal preclearance is an extraordinary, and rarely used, action. A provision of the Voting Rights Act allows judges to place jurisdictions under federal supervision if there is evidence of intentional discrimination. Until Thursday, courts have not placed any states back under supervision since the supreme courts 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder.
elleng
(135,372 posts)In a stinging ruling, Judge Mark Walker wrote that he agreed with the plaintiffs, who had argued the law "runs roughshod over the right to vote."
A federal judge barred Florida from enforcing the bulk of its new restrictive voting law on Thursday, siding with opponents who said the law was discriminatory and needlessly infringed on Floridians' voting rights.
The ruling, which will likely be appealed, is the first major invalidation of a spate of restrictive new election laws passed in Republican-controlled states last year, fueled by voter fraud anxieties and President Donald Trumps stolen election lie. . .
In a stinging 288-page ruling, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Walker declared the bulk of the states new voting rules unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction barring their enforcement. . .
The judge also ordered Florida to submit to a process known as preclearance," using Section 3(C) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a part of the law that allows courts to force jurisdictions to get pre-approval on election law changes. . .
The ruling is in many ways a hearty defense of the Voting Rights Act and a call for federal courts to firmly enforce it. Repeatedly quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., Walker's decision defends judicial branch power to police discrimination in elections, while acknowledging that other, higher courts including the U.S. Supreme Court have declined to do so.
This is an opinion that full throatedly reads the Voting Rights Act in the expansive way that Congress intended it to be read, and essentially dares the higher courts to overrule it, said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine.'>>>
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-overrules-florida-restrictive-voting-law-rcna22432
qazplm135
(7,465 posts)I mean great job, hard work and effort, but ultimately we are going to have to have backup workarounds to these things because voting rights dies in the Supreme Court with the current makeup.
darosky
(16 posts)I hope other states follow suit.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)elleng
(135,372 posts)Marcuse
(7,969 posts)U.S. District Chief Judge Mark E. Walker in the Northern District of Florida recused himself from a case that challenged part of an amendment giving voting rights to convicted felons.
He did it because one of the defense attorneys works at Holland & Knight, a Big Law firm where Walkers wife, Karen D. Walker, is executive partner in the Tallahassee office.https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2019/07/19/did-a-federal-judge-have-to-drop-a-case-because-his-wife-works-for-defense-firm-holland-knight/
BlueWavePsych
(3,056 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(153,634 posts)Link to tweet
In his ruling against Senate Bill 90, Judge Walker acknowledged that the legislation unduly burdening disabled voters, and intentionally targeting minority voters all to improve the electoral prospects of the party in power.
The decision has triggered Florida Republicans, with State Senate President Wilton Simpson calling it unbecoming of an officer of the court.
What is actually unbecoming of anything is opportunistic and cynical lawmakers attacking our right to vote and the democratic process because of the temper tantrums of Donald Trump, a disgraced reality TV star and insurrection enthusiast, who simply cant accept that a majority of Americans rejected his bid to be reelected as president.
ShazzieB
(18,372 posts)And may I just say, I never realized until now just how much Rick Scott resembles a reanimated corpse. Charming. 🙄