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

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption

A new Brennan Center survey finds that large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents share deep-seated concerns about government corruption, which most voters define broadly and blame for many of the country’s biggest problems going unaddressed. The survey, fielded to 2,000 registered voters across the country between April 28 and May 6, also finds widespread support for key anticorruption reforms, such as new limits on money in elections and stronger protections against self-dealing by high-ranking government officials.

The key findings include:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less