League of Women Voters v. Browning
863 F. Supp. 2d 1155
N.D. Fla.2012Background
- Florida enacted 2011 amendments to § 97.0575 and promulgated Rule 1S-2.042 regulating voter-registration drives; plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement.
- Plaintiffs are the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, and Rock the Vote; they have conducted drives and wish to continue.
- They allege the 2011 provisions burden speech, association, and voting rights, and may conflict with the NVRA’s mandate to facilitate private drives and mail-in registrations.
- The state defendants (Secretary of State, Director of the Division of Elections, Attorney General) defend the statute/rule as legitimate regulation for timely processing of registrations.
- The court applies Anderson v. Celebrezze analysis to evaluate First Amendment and NVRA burdens, balancing rights against state interests.
- The court grants relief in part, finding several 2011 provisions unconstitutional or likely to violate NVRA, while other provisions remain intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the 2011 97.0575 and Rule 1S-2.042 burden NVRA/First Amendment rights? | Wishes to conduct drives and mail in forms; 48-hour deadline and mailing bans violate NVRA. | Regulations are legitimate nondiscriminatory controls to ensure timely processing. | Plaintiffs likely succeed on those provisions; injunction granted in part. |
| Does requiring identification of registration agents and sworn statements violate First Amendment or NVRA? | Includes volunteers who merely solicit; harsh duties chill participation and speech. | Identification aids enforcement and administration; necessary for accountability. | Plaintiffs likely prevail on these provisions. |
| Do reporting and accounting requirements for forms violate NVRA or incur an impermissible burden? | Counting distributed/recollected forms serves no NVRA purpose and imposes burdens. | Reporting assists administration and enforcement. | Plaintiffs likely prevail on these provisions. |
| Does the identification-on-forms requirement pass NVRA scrutiny, or is it invalid under federal law? | NVRA limits identifying information; counting forms provides no benefit. | Identification helps track problems and enforce compliance. | Plaintiffs not likely to prevail on this specific requirement. |
| Are the electronic filing and enforcement provisions constitutional under NVRA/Flutter? | No issue; provisions are acceptable and enforceable. | Enforcement and modernization aid compliance. | Provisions not likely to be overturned; not the focus of the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (framework for evaluating election-code burdens on rights)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (general justification for state election regulations)
- Charles H. Wesley Education Foundation, Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005) (NVRA requires states to accept mail-in forms and permits private drives)
- League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (district court on pre-2011 provisions; background for evaluating 2011 amendments)
- League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Cobb, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (earlier challenges to Florida election-law provisions)
- American Association of People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D.N.M. 2008) (NVRA-related discussion on mail-in forms and drives)