Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Soft settlement ends Florida mail-in voting lawsuit

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by several advocacy groups hoping to ease some restrictions on voting.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Hours before a trial was set to begin, Florida has settled a lawsuit pressing for loosened vote-by-mail rules in time for next month's primary.

But the deal, announced Sunday evening, does not mandate much of what the plaintiffs had pushed for in the third-most-populous state, which has recently become the undisputed national center of the coronavirus pandemic. In general, the settlement tells the state to work more closely with the 67 county election administrators to try to soften the rules.


The suit — brought by the progressive Priorities USA and Dream Defenders, along with the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and others — argued the highly contagious Covid-19 pandemic makes ready access to absentee voting critically important. It demanded that ballots postmarked by Election Day be counted if they arrive as long as 10 days late, that the state expand deployment of ballot drop boxes, that it provide free postage on returned ballots and that it ease restrictions on paid workers collecting mail-in ballots.

It also challenged Florida's limits on assistance for voters with disabilities, arguing it imposes unreasonable restrictions on speech and the right of association.

The settlement between the plaintiffs and Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration, filed just as a trial was set to begin Monday, does not insist on any of that.

It says canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots will begin 25 days ahead of the early voting window, up from the current 10 days; election supervisors will be encouraged, but not compelled, to maximize the use of drop boxes; and localities will be pushed by the state to do more to make absentee ballot applications and the ballots themselves available in Spanish.

It also instructs the secretary of state's office to hold at least one workshop with local elections officials before the general election to educate them on how federal funds can be used for pre-paid postage and voter accessibility issues, including how to use new voter accessibility technologies.

For counties that do not provide postage, the secretary of state will outline the process in a one-page document — directing local supervisors to inform voters who cannot afford postage to use a drop box or drop off their ballots at a local government office.

Finally, the settlement also outlines how GOP Secretary of State Laurel Lee will execute a social media campaign before the general election to inform voters of their options for voting by mail, as well as voting early or in person on Election Day.

"As a result of our lawsuit, Florida went from doing nothing to committing to educating and encouraging all 67 supervisors of elections to expand access to democracy " said Andrea Mercado, executive director of New Florida Majority, an independent voting rights organization, "This settlement is another step forward in the fight to secure free and safe elections for communities of color in Florida."

This settlement comes on the heels of a defeat for voting rights advocates in the largest purple state. A federal appeals court granted a request from Gov. Ron DeSantis to delay the trial for a suit that would expand voting rights for felons until August, and last week the Supreme Court declined to intervene — meaning several hundred thousand felons given the right to vote through a 2018 referendum will not be able to cast ballots in the nominating contests.

Matthew Dietz, a lawyer who represents blind voters, told the Tampa Bay Times he wasn't satisfied with the settlement and would push on with his effort to make supervisors use systems that will allow blind or print-impaired voters to be able to fill out ballots from home without assistance.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less