Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee
915 F.3d 1312
11th Cir.2019Background
- Florida requires vote-by-mail (VBM) and provisional ballots to include the voter’s signature; county officials compare that signature to the signature on file and may reject ballots for mismatch.
- Florida added a statutory "cure" procedure after a 2016 district-court ruling, but the cure deadline (5 p.m. the day before the election) precedes the statutory deadline for receipt of VBM ballots and precedes when canvassing boards may begin reviewing ballots (up to noon the day after the election).
- Because canvassing/verification often occurs after the cure deadline, some voters learn of a signature mismatch too late to cure and thus lose their votes.
- Plaintiffs (DECF and the Nelson Campaign) sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought an injunction to prevent rejection of ballots for signature mismatch; the district court issued a narrower preliminary injunction giving belatedly-notified voters 48 hours to cure.
- The NRSC (with state defendants) sought an emergency stay of the district court’s injunction; the Eleventh Circuit majority denied the stay, applying the Nken factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida's signature-match scheme (as applied) unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under Anderson–Burdick | Signature comparisons are standardless and produce arbitrary disenfranchisement; affected voters need relief | Signature matching is a legitimate fraud-prevention measure; state procedures suffice and differences across counties are permissible | Court found the scheme imposes at least a serious burden on voters and that the state's justifications do not outweigh that burden for belatedly-notified voters |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to the broad relief requested (count all mismatched ballots) | All ballots rejected for mismatched signatures should be counted because the process is arbitrary | Granting such relief would change rules mid-election and be unfair/untethered to statute | District court declined broad relief as impracticable; instead crafted a targeted cure opportunity for belatedly-notified voters; Eleventh Circuit upheld denial of stay of that narrow injunction |
| Whether NRSC showed a strong likelihood of success on appeal (Nken factor 1) | N/A (NRSC is applicant) | NRSC argued likely success on merits and laches; district court abused discretion | Eleventh Circuit: NRSC did not make a strong showing of likely success on the merits or on laches; first Nken factor disfavors a stay |
| Balance of equities, irreparable injury, and public interest (remaining Nken factors) | A stay is needed to avoid administrative chaos, resource expenditure, and potential fraud | Injunction protects voters from unconstitutional disenfranchisement; harms to election legitimacy from disenfranchising legitimate votes | Court held irreparable injury to NRSC speculative; public interest and harm to voters weigh against a stay; therefore stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (classic statement that voting is a fundamental political right)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing test for burdens on voting)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applying Anderson balancing to election regulations)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay standards overlap with preliminary injunction factors)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (uniform standards and equal treatment in recount/remedies)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (public confidence in elections as an interest in ballot regulation)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (franchise and equal weight of votes)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (suit against state official in official capacity to enjoin unconstitutional state action)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (public interest favors protecting constitutional rights)