81 F.4th 1328
11th Cir.2023Background
- In 2021 Florida enacted S.B. 90 (broad legislative margins) changing mail-voting, drop-box rules, solicitation near polling places, and third‑party registration delivery requirements.
- District court held, after a two‑week bench trial, that three provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent against Black voters and enjoined enforcement (Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments and §2 of the VRA).
- The three contested provisions: (1) drop‑box monitoring and restricted hours (Fla. Stat. §101.69(2)(a)); (2) expanded solicitation ban within 150 feet of polling places/drop boxes including conduct intended or having the effect of influencing a voter (Fla. Stat. §102.031(4)); (3) third‑party registrars must deliver forms within 14 days and before deadline (Fla. Stat. §97.0575(3)(a)).
- A three‑judge Eleventh Circuit panel reversed most of the injunction, finding the district court’s intent findings clearly erroneous, criticizing reliance on distant historical evidence and flawed statistical analyses, and upholding legislators’ stated anti‑fraud motives as presumptively lawful.
- The court denied rehearing en banc; three judges dissented from that denial arguing the panel misapplied Arlington Heights, undervalued historical evidence and deference to the district court, and that the case raises issues of exceptional importance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. 90 provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent (Arlington Heights test) | S.B. 90 increased burdens on voting and, given historical background, legislative statements, sequence of events, and disparate impact, was motivated to target Black voters | Law is race‑neutral, enacted for election security; proffered reasons (preventing fraud, orderly voting) are legitimate and not pretextual | Panel reversed district court: no clear evidence of discriminatory intent as a matter of law; injunction largely vacated; rehearing en banc denied |
| Proper weight of historical background in intent inquiry | Historical and long‑running discrimination in Florida is probative and should inform whether facially neutral laws perpetuate racial effects | Historical «original sin» has limited probative value; courts must focus on contemporary legislative mindset and recent history | Panel gave limited weight to distant history; dissent argued this understates Arlington Heights and Allen v. Milligan guidance |
| Credibility of legislative justifications (pretext) | Inconsistent, shifting legislative explanations and lack of supporting evidence show fraud rationale was pretext for racial targeting | Preventing voter fraud and ensuring election integrity are legitimate, prophylactic state interests; some evidence of past mail‑ballot fraud existed in Florida | Panel held proffered anti‑fraud reasons presumptively credible and supported by record; district court erred finding pretext |
| Review of district court’s factual findings (statistical evidence) | District court credited experts showing disparate impact on Black voters; deference under clear‑error should control | Appellate review appropriate where statistical analyses are fatally flawed or samples unrepresentative; district court clearly erred | Panel concluded statistical analyses were unreliable and district court clearly erred in relying on them; dissent said panel overrode plausible trial findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (multi‑factor test for proving discriminatory intent)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (historical background is one evidentiary source and must not be overweighted)
- Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for Ala., 992 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021) (Arlington Heights factors applied in voting context; prophylactic anti‑fraud interests recognized)
- Brnovich v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) (assessing voter‑regulation challenges and standards for disparate impact/intent inquiry)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (states may enact prophylactic measures to prevent voter fraud)
- Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023) (use of historical discrimination evidence probative in §2 vote‑dilution context)
- City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (plurality) (limits on treating distant historical acts as dispositive proof of present intent)
- League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 66 F.4th 905 (11th Cir. 2023) (panel decision reversing key intent findings and vacating most of the district court injunction)