Brown v. Detzner, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1236

Plaintiffs challenge 2011 HB 1355 amendments to Florida's early voting statute as unlawful under the VRA and the U.S. Constitution.
Old law (2005–2011) allowed 12–14 days of early voting with up to 96 total hours including weekends; counties could choose how to schedule weekend hours, including Sundays.
New law shortens to 8 days, requires early voting to end on the Saturday before Election Day, and gives counties discretion to provide 6–12 hours per day (total 48–96 hours).
New statute eliminates Sunday voting as a guaranteed option; however, counties may still offer Sundays within the eight-day window.
Five counties are subject to Section 5 preclearance; the parties obtained conditional preclearance for a 7 a.m.–7 p.m. schedule with up to 96 hours.
The court considered whether the changes would deny minority voters equal access to the ballot and denied the preliminary injunction for lack of substantial likelihood of success.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HB 1355 violates the VRA Section 2 by discriminatory results.	Gronke/Smith/Stewart show disproportionate impact on minority voters.	Changes do not deny equal access when viewed under totality of circumstances; potential ameliorative effects exist.	No substantial likelihood of VRA §2 violation on results theory.
Whether HB 1355 was enacted with discriminatory purpose in violation of the VRA and equal protection.	Evidence suggests discriminatory intent from legislative record and statements.	Record insufficient to prove purposeful discrimination; contemporaneous statements do not prove legislature's intent.	No substantial likelihood of discriminatory purpose; no §2 predicate for discrimination.
Whether constitutional claims (Equal Protection and Fifteenth/Fourteenth Amendments) lie based on race.	Discriminatory purpose and effect violate equal protection and voting rights.	No proven discriminatory purpose or effect; constitutional claims fail.	Constitutional claims fail for lack of proven discriminatory purpose or effect.

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (establishes 9-factor framework for discriminatory purpose review)
Gingles v. Edmington? (Gingles), 478 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (totality of circumstances test for minority vote impact; foundations for §2 analyses)
Johnson v. Governor of Fla., 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005) (vote denial vs. vote dilution; §2 standards)
Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994) (two theories of proving §2 violation; intent or totality of circumstances)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (fundamental importance of voting rights; standard of scrutiny)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964) (voting rights and equal representation considerations)