Decision applies to hundreds of thousands of Floridians who were denied the right to vote under a state law enacted in 2019 conditioning voting rights on repayment of costs and fees

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Today, a federal court blocked a Florida law that would have denied hundreds of thousands of voters the ability to participate in the 2020 election, striking it down as unconstitutional. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sued last year on behalf of three individual plaintiffs and a class of all affected Florida citizens. This win for CLC’s clients and the plaintiff class is historic. For the first time, a federal court ruled that conditioning rights restoration on the payment of costs and fees constitutes a poll tax.

CLC’s suit – the only one brought as a class action – ensured that today’s ruling applies broadly to all voters seeking voting rights restoration in Florida. Before class certification was granted in April of this year, the state of Florida refused to apply previous decisions by the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals beyond the individual plaintiffs in the case.

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for hundreds of thousands of voters who want their voices to be heard,” said Paul Smith, vice president of CLC. “This is a watershed moment in election law. States can no longer deny people access to the ballot box based on unpaid court costs and fees, nor can they condition rights restoration on restitution and fines that a person cannot afford to pay.”

Nearly 774,000 citizens were denied the right to vote despite having completed their sentences, because they owed legal financial obligations. Almost 80% of the people who have outstanding legal financial obligations in Florida owe at least $500 in legal fees, according to a study by University of Florida political science professor Dan Smith, who testified at trial. 

The court held an eight-day trial by videoconference in the case from April 27 to May 6 and featuring CLC attorneys Mark Gaber and Danielle Lang, who highlighted the challenges that Floridians face in attempting – often unsuccessfully – to determine whether they had outstanding legal financial obligations and if so, how much they owed, and how much they needed to pay in order to vote. Witnesses revealed the extent to which the state’s confusing administrative system discouraged voters from getting their rights restored, and how its recordkeeping system was riddled with inconsistencies and errors. Public defenders from several Florida counties also testified during trial that the vast majority of people convicted of felonies can’t afford to pay court-ordered costs and fees. The Florida Division of Elections has a backlog of at least 85,000 cases of people waiting to hear if they are eligible to vote, and the department can handle only 57 cases per day. At its current pace, it would take the state well over six years to make eligibility determinations for all of the voters currently in the backlog - resulting in untold missed elections for countless Florida voters. 

These issues and more were addressed today by Judge Robert Hinkle for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. First, the court ruled that the state may not require payment of costs and fees assessed as part of a criminal sentence as a condition for voting. Second, the court ruled that the state cannot deny people the right to vote because of unpaid fines or restitution if they are genuinely unable to pay them. The opinion directed the state to follow a process to ensure that individuals who cannot pay their legal financial obligations are not denied the right to vote, including by presuming that those who were appointed a public defender or previously found to be indigent can register and vote unless the State has evidence of current ability to pay. To determine the amount one owes, the Court ordered the State to allow potential voters to request an advisory opinion in hard copy or online and the state must respond within 21 days saying how much that person owes in fines and restitution to determine eligibility. At trial, Judge Hinkle scolded the state for its failure to develop its own process after two federal courts ordered it to do so.

Florida holds primary elections on August 18, and the deadline to register for the primary is July 20.

NEWARK, NJ —Today, Campaign Legal Center, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, and Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, and an individual New Jersey voter, asking for relief for voters from the state’s flawed ballot signature match requirements.  

As New Jersey continues to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Phil Murphy announced Friday that mail ballots will automatically be sent to the state’s active Republican and Democratic voters, with applications sent to unaffiliated and inactive registered voters. The resultant surge in mail ballots underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards to assure voters that they can cast their mail ballots with confidence.

With a ‘signature match’ system, mail-in ballots are only counted if election officials determine that the voter’s signature on a ballot “matches” the signature on an absentee ballot application or voter registration form. As a result, thousands of ballots are rejected each election because of issues related to signature or penmanship, including a signature changing over time and disabilities affecting one’s ability to write.

“All eligible voters should be able to have confidence that when they participate in an election, their vote will be counted,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “Signature comparison is not a science. Even if it was, election officials are not trained handwriting experts. The current system produces many incorrect mismatches which result in eligible voters having their ballot thrown away. These errors – which disproportionately affect those with disabilities, the elderly and non-native English speakers – must be fixed with urgency during this critical election year.”

Moreover, New Jersey voters who cast their ballot by mail and whose signatures are deemed not to “match” are not given any pre-rejection notice or opportunity to fix any errors. League of Women Voters of New Jersey, et al. v. Way demands that the state establish a clear and fair notice process for voters whose ballots are marked for rejection, as well as a safe and easy way for them to remedy any technical defects in time for their vote to be counted.

Joining the lawsuit is William M. Riggs, a 78-year-old Middlesex County resident whose hand tremors brought on by Parkinson’s disease make it virtually impossible for him to sign his name consistently. Mr. Riggs intends to vote by mail in this year’s upcoming elections in order to protect his health from the threat of COVID-19. Because he cannot produce a consistent signature – even at times finding his own writing illegible – Mr. Riggs fears his ballot could very likely be rejected. Without a safe way for him to fix his ballot, Mr. Riggs is at high risk of disenfranchisement. 

Even before the global pandemic, voters across the country have increasingly relied upon vote-by-mail as their preferred method of casting their ballot. 36 states use some form of signature match to confirm mail-in or absentee ballots. These states must ensure voter confidence by establishing clear, accessible ways for voters to cure their ballots and ensure their votes are counted.  

 “The COVID-19 crisis has exposed deep cracks in our society’s foundation, which are causing earthquakes in Black and Brown communities,” said Ryan P. Haygood, President & CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “We filed this lawsuit today to protect our democracy from those earthquakes, as substantially more voters will cast their ballots by mail during this pandemic. Our lawsuit urges New Jersey to provide notice to thousands of voters when their ballots are rejected, which is particularly important for Black and Brown voters whose ballots are disproportionately rejected—and to provide an opportunity to fix any signature-related issues in time for their votes to be counted in the July 7 election. Democracy, particularly as we confront one of the most consequential elections in a generation, requires nothing less.” 

“It is unacceptable to deprive people of their franchise to vote, particularly using the unproven method of signature matching,” said Richard T. Smith, president of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference. “In the current landscape of the world regarding COVID-19 we must ensure now more than ever that we encourage people to go out and vote for those who have their best interest in mind. Having ballots rejected without an opportunity to cure – which is occurring at the highest rates in our most diverse counties – deprives people their right to vote and we cannot allow it to continue.” 

“Because of our efforts to keep our democracy both safe and robust during the coronavirus pandemic, millions of voters will receive vote-by-mail ballots ahead of the July primary,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “Now the state needs to safeguard voters’ constitutional rights and ensure every vote counts. We need a process in place immediately that allows voters to cure their ballots if they make minor errors, or voters will be disenfranchised.”   

Expanding voter access during a global pandemic is not a partisan issue

SAN ANTONIO, TX – The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is serving as legal counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and its Texas chapter in a new lawsuit challenging the restrictive eligibility criteria Texas uses to make it exceedingly difficult to request and cast an absentee ballot.

“Expanding voter access during a global pandemic should not be a partisan issue,” said Trevor Potter, president at CLC, and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Potter served as Campaign General Counsel for John McCain. “The courts should not allow Texas to force voters to choose between their health and exercising their fundamental right to vote. Texas should redirect its energy and make it easier to vote safely instead of threatening its citizens with prosecution simply for wanting to vote from the security of their own homes.”

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released in April found that 72% of all U.S. adults, including 79% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans, supported a requirement for mail-in ballots as a way to protect voters in case of a continued spread of coronavirus later this year.

Most Texans are denied the ability to vote by mail due to the narrow list of excuses allowed, which puts all voters at greater risk of contracting coronavirus at in-person polling locations in its upcoming elections this summer and for the General Election on November 3. The disease has ravaged Texas’s Latino community, making up 42.6% of COVID-19 related deaths statewide.

“Once again, Texas officials are looking for ways to effectively disenfranchise Latinos and people of color by suppressing their right to vote. People should never be forced to make a choice between showing up to the polls and risking their health,” said LULAC President Domingo Garcia. “LULAC will not stand for this blatant oppression of our community’s constitutional right to vote in the middle of a pandemic that has killed more than 1,000 Texans and infected over 40,000. Texas is stronger when more people can participate in our democracy and determine who is fit to govern. I asked our Governor and state officials to support a bipartisan interim law to allow all Texans to be able to vote by mail in the 2020 election.”

Texas officials have threatened criminal prosecution of voters who attempt to cast mail ballots who do not meet specific criteria, including those who would prefer to vote by mail out of fear of contracting or spreading COVID-19 by voting in person.

CLC and LULAC moved to intervene in the federal lawsuit, Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott on May 11.