League of Women Voters of Florida Inc. v. Florida Secretary of State
32f4th1363
11th Cir.2022Background
- Florida enacted SB 90 on May 6, 2021; plaintiffs challenged four provisions, principally: (1) restrictions on ballot drop boxes; (2) requirements for third-party voter-registration organizations to deliver applications and provide disclaimers; and (3) a ban on solicitation within 150 feet of drop boxes/polling places.
- The district court held those three provisions (drop-box, registration-delivery/disclaimer, solicitation) intentionally discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the VRA; it also found the solicitation provision vague/overbroad and the registration-disclaimer compelled speech.
- The district court permanently enjoined those provisions and, sua sponte, imposed a 10-year Section 3 preclearance regime requiring Florida to obtain advance approval from the district court before enacting or amending specified election laws.
- Florida moved to stay the injunction and preclearance order pending appeal; the Eleventh Circuit considered the motion under the Purcell principle because an election was imminent and election-administration disruption risked voter confusion.
- Applying an elevated Purcell analysis, the Eleventh Circuit granted the stay, concluding the district court’s intentional-discrimination finding had at least two serious flaws (overbroad historical-background inquiry and failure to account for the presumption of legislative good faith) and that the solicitation vagueness/overbreadth ruling was sufficiently vulnerable to warrant a stay.
- The panel declined to decide the registration-disclaimer merits because that provision has been repealed and thus is moot once the preclearance regime is lifted by this stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay of the district court’s injunction and preclearance order should issue pending appeal (Purcell timing) | The injunction is necessary to prevent ongoing discriminatory burdens on minority voters and protect voting rights before the election | Purcell requires caution close to an election; state interests in stable election administration and avoiding voter confusion justify a stay | Stay granted under Purcell: election proximity and risk of disruption lower plaintiffs’ entitlement to late injunctive relief; state need only show plaintiffs’ case is not entirely clearcut |
| Whether SB 90 was enacted with intentional racial discrimination (Arlington Heights test) | SB 90 disproportionately burdens minority voters and legislative history and sequence show discriminatory intent | Legislature acted in good faith; district court overstated historical background and failed to apply presumption of legislative good faith | Court found district court’s intentional-discrimination finding vulnerable (flaws in historical-background analysis and failure to account for presumption of good faith), supporting a stay |
| Whether the Solicitation Provision is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad | Provision’s phrase “engaging in any activity with the intent to influence” fails to give fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement; it chills protected speech | Words are clarified by surrounding examples; many plainly legitimate applications exist; overbreadth claim not substantial relative to legitimate sweep | The vagueness/overbreadth ruling is not "entirely clearcut"; vulnerability of the district court’s analysis warrants a stay |
| Whether the court could impose Section 3-style preclearance as equitable relief | Plaintiffs: preclearance is necessary because legislature acted with discriminatory intent and future laws risk similar effects | State: preclearance is extraordinary and disruptive to election administration; plaintiffs’ showing is insufficient | Preclearance order stayed along with the injunction; appellate panel did not reach merits of registration-disclaimer because it is now repealed and moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (traditional stay factors)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (stay factors framework)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should avoid late changes to election rules to prevent voter confusion)
- Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022) (application of Purcell in election-timing contexts)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for assessing discriminatory intent)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (presumption of legislative good faith in intent inquiries)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (contextualizing statutory text by neighboring words)
- Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (discriminatory purpose requires action taken because of, not merely in spite of, disparate effects)
- Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for Ala., 992 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021) (Eleventh Circuit application of Arlington Heights factors)
- Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC v. City of Atlanta, 15 F.4th 1362 (11th Cir. 2021) (substantial-overbreadth standard)
- New Ga. Project v. Raffensperger, 976 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting stay opinions are interlocutory and limited in scope)