957 F.3d 1193
11th Cir.2020Background
- Florida law (enacted 1951) requires the party that won the last gubernatorial election to have its candidates listed first for every office on the general-election ballot; Republicans occupied the top position in the ten most recent general elections.
- In 2018 three Democratic voters and six Democratic organizations sued Florida’s Secretary of State, alleging the statute produces a “primacy effect” (a small but measurable vote bump for first-listed candidates) that advantages Republicans and thus violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- At a bench trial plaintiffs presented experts (Krosnick, Rodden, Herrnson) who testified to an average primacy advantage of roughly five percentage points; the Secretary and intervening Republican groups presented contrary expert testimony and evidence of administrative burdens.
- The district court found the statute unconstitutional under the Anderson/Burdick balancing approach, and entered declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against the Secretary and the 67 county Supervisors of Elections (none of the Supervisors were parties).
- The Eleventh Circuit held plaintiffs lacked Article III standing: (1) most individual plaintiffs failed to prove an individualized injury and the one who testified relied on statewide average metrics insufficient to show individualized vote dilution; (2) organizations failed to prove associational or organizational injury (diversion evidence was not specific); and (3) any injury was traceable to and redressable only by county Supervisors (who independently prepare ballots), not the Secretary. The court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury-in-fact (individual voters) | Primacy effect dilutes Democratic votes and may cause Democratic candidates to lose; average ~5% advantage shows real harm | A candidate loss alone is not a judicially cognizable injury to a voter; plaintiffs offered only statewide averages, not individualized proof of dilution | Plaintiffs failed to prove individualized injury; statewide average measures insufficient to show concrete, particularized vote-dilution injury |
| Organizational / associational standing | Orgs (e.g., DNC, Priorities USA) have associational standing (members harmed) and organizational standing by diverting resources to combat primacy effect | Orgs failed to identify injured members and did not show specific diversion of resources or impairment of core activities | Organizations failed both associational and organizational standing proofs (no identified harmed members; diversion evidence too vague) |
| Traceability & redressability (proper defendant) | Secretary is Florida’s chief election officer and issues ballot forms/rules, so her actions cause and can remedy plaintiffs’ injuries | Florida law assigns printing/ordering of names to independent county Supervisors of Elections; the Secretary lacks the enforcement/control necessary for causation or redress | Any injury would be traceable to Supervisors and not the Secretary; relief against Secretary could not bind or reliably change Supervisors’ conduct—no traceability/redressability |
| Merits under Anderson/Burdick (ballot-order constitutional challenge) | Ballot-order statute allocates the primacy advantage to one party and imposes a politically discriminatory burden on voting rights that fails balancing | State interests (preventing confusion, uniformity, administrative ease, legislative policy choice) justify the statute; evidence disputed | Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because plaintiffs lacked standing; district court’s holding (statute unconstitutional under Anderson/Burdick) was vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing framework for assessing burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refined balancing test for ballot regulation challenges)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, traceability, redressability and plaintiffs must prove standing with evidence at trial)
- Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) (statewide average measures of partisan effect insufficient to prove individualized standing for vote-dilution claims)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (political-question analysis for partisan-gerrymander-like claims; discussed in concurrence)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing via concrete diversion-of-resources injury)
- Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2019) (tracing/redressability requires defendant play an enforcement role; injuries traceable only to officials who actually cause them)