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

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Trump Calls for Voter Fraud Probe: A Look at Past Inquiries

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Voice of America about President Donald Trump’s plans to launch a “major investigation” into voter fraud. Trump claims he lost the popular vote because as many as 5 million non-U.S. citizens may have voted illegally.

“As I understand the latest allegations, somewhere between 3 to 5 million improper ballots were cast this past November nationwide, which Trump claims accounts for why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote,” Foley said. “Even if there were 3 to 5 million invalid votes nationwide, we can’t jump to the conclusion that the election result was tainted, because we don’t know who they voted for.”

The odds of a non-U.S. citizen successfully casting a ballot are “extremely low, extraordinarily low,” according to Foley. Instances in which invalid ballots are cast or when voters’ names appear on multiple state voter rolls also don’t necessarily indicate voter fraud either, he added.

“Just because a ballot was cast that was invalid, which is a problem, doesn’t necessarily mean there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud,” Foley said. “Fraud is a pejorative term that implies intentional deception and manipulation, as opposed to there being mistakes in voter registration lists.”
 


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules that Ohio Voter Services Website Violates ADA

A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion finding that the Ohio Secretary of State\'s voter services website violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to visually impaired Ohio voters. Judge George C. Smith ordered Secretary of State John Husted to make the site more accessible by September 29, 2017. As discussed in the opinion, the information on the voter services site does not meet established standards of accessibility for visually impaired voters who use screen reading software. The case is Hindel v. Husted.

more info & analysis...