OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

League of Women Voters of Florida v. Cobb

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: May 18, 2006 / February 19, 2008
State: Florida
Issue: Voter Registration
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case 06-21265-CIV-JORDAN); United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Case 06-14836-DD)

Issue:

Whether regulations imposing fines on nonpartisan voter registration groups, but not on the state's political parties, for mishandling of voter registration applications violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Status:

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction granted as to counts I, II, and III; Defendant's Motion to dismiss granted as to Count IV. Appellant Brief filed 10/26/06. Appellee Brief filed 12/4/06. Appellant's Reply Brief filed 12/29/06. Case submitted without argument (9/26/07). Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed 4/3/08 and granted 4/24/08 because the laws being challenged by the suit were changed.

Case Summary

In this case Plaintiffs, private groups and an individual member of the League of Women Voters who wish to register citizens to vote, are challenging Florida's new regulations regarding the registration of voters, Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(36) and 97.0575, as they claim these regulations impose overly burdensome fines and reporting requirements on all organizations, except the state's political parties, who wish to register people to vote. Any person or organization that violates these regulations is held strictly liable for the fines incurred; Plaintiffs allege that these fines are overly burdensome as they impose fines for even minor errors that may be beyond the organization's control and may force low income organizations into bankruptcy for such errors. Additionally, it is claimed that these regulations are discriminatory (they do not apply to the state's political parties and they disproportionately harm minority citizens that rely on nonpartisan organizations to register to vote) and are unjustified (there is no evidence that nonpartisan groups are more likely to mishandle voter registration applications; in fact, there is evidence to suggest that nonpartisan groups have more reliable procedures in place than the state political parties for handling voter registration applications).

As Plaintiffs claim these regulations impose overly burdensome fines and are discriminatory and unjustified, they are seeking a declaration that these regulations violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. They are also seeking an injunction preventing the enforcement of these voter registration laws.

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

  • Appellant Brief, by Allen C. Winsor PDF (filed 10/26/06)
  • Order [non-document] Over the Phone Extension to File Appellee's Brief Granted Until 12/4/2006 (entered 10/27/06)
  • Appellee Brief, by Craig Louis Siegel PDF (filed 12/5/06)
  • Appellant's Reply Brief PDF (filed 12/29/06)
  • Oral Argument Scheduled 5/23/07
  • Oral Argument Reset for week of 6/24/07 (entered 3/20/07)
  • Appellants Suggestion of Impending Mootness construed as Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot (entered 7/12/07)
  • Appellees' Response to Appellants' suggestion of impending mootness construed as a motion to dismiss appeal as moot (filed 7/26/07)
  • Appellants's Reply in support of suggestion of mootness construed as a motion to dismiss as moot (filed 8/6/07)
  • Case to be Submitted without Argument (entered 9/26/07)
  • Supplemental Authority for Appellant (filed 2/1/08)
  • Supplemental Authority of Appellee (filed 2/7/08)
  • APPEAL DISMISSED. . .Because the legislative amendments are now in effect, and the law preliminarily enjoined no longer exists in its challenged form, it is appropriate for us to dismiss this appeal as moot (entered 2/19/08)

Related Links

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President? Letís Find Out

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump has revived the question whether Senator Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President due to his birth in Canada. The issue cries out for judicial resolution, but there are constitutional and prudential obstacles to a federal court deciding it.  This comment argues that the most promising avenue  is a state court lawsuit challenging Senator Cruz’s eligibility and seeking his removal from the primary ballot. There’s at least one state – Pennsylvania – where the deadline for filing hasn’t yet expired, but if skeptics of Cruz’s eligibility want to sue there they must act quickly, no later than Tuesday. Litigating the case through state court would tee up the issue for Supreme Court review, which would be helpful in resolving the recurrent question of what it means to be a “natural born Citizen."

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

An Obscure Ohio State Law Could Shake Up the Republican Convention

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in an ABC News article about the Republican Convention:

“It’s entirely imaginable that these kind of controversies will emerge if Donald Trump goes into Cleveland without 1,237,” said Dan Tokaji, an expert in election law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, referring the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. “There’s going to be a furious jockeying for these delegates.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules for Plaintiffs in Ohio Early Voting Case

Today, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in an Ohio early voting case, determining that Ohio\'s reduction of in-person early voting days violated Equal Protection and the Voting Rights Act. Judge Watson dismissed additional claims brought by the plaintiffs. A bench trial was held in late 2015. The case is Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted.

more info & analysis...