Voting Rights Groups Call on State Officials to Ensure Florida is Ready for Elections

Date
Body

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida officials must act now to ensure the state’s online voter registration system (OVR) is secure, stable and free from technical glitches that have previously deprived Florida voters from registering to vote. With the February 18 voter registration deadline approaching, that’s the urgent message in a letter delivered today to state officials [LINK] from eight voting rights groups, who are calling for greater transparency from the State of Florida’s Division of Elections so every voice is heard.

“After more than two years and six written requests for information, state election officials owe the citizens of Florida answers,” said Brad Ashwell, State Director for All Voting is Local-Florida and The Leadership Conference Education Fund. “Voters deserve a stable, secure voter registration system and that includes an online system that works, including when the volume is high as we expect it to be this election cycle. The system went down in 2018, we can't let that happen in 2020.”

Since September 2017, advocates have made repeated requests urging Florida’s Secretary of State’s office to make public its plan for preventing and resolving problems with the state’s online voter registration system. Those Florida Sunshine Law requests, though formally submitted and paid for, have been largely ignored.  

With Florida’s March 17 Presidential Preference Primary fast approaching and record turnout expected this election year, the groups expressed alarm that the state may be unable to handle an influx of registrants.

"Florida must act quickly to ensure that past mistakes with the state's online voter registration system are not repeated," said Jonathan Diaz, voting rights counsel at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). "Democracy works best when every voice is heard and all eligible voters participate. No voter should be silenced because requests to resolve technical problems have been ignored."

“No voter should be silenced because the state can’t do its job,” said Micah Kubic, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “If problems occur, we urge officials to have a plan in place to extend the voter registration deadline beyond February 18 so all voters can make their voices heard.” 


In the 2018 election, Florida’s online voter registration system broke down at precisely the moment it was needed most – the high-volume days just before the voter registration deadline. Issues arose in July 2018, just before the book closing for the statewide primary election, and on October 8, 2018 – the day before the October 9th general registration deadline as Hurricane Michael approached.

“The public deserves not only a secure functional and accessible registration system, but also the assurance that state leaders are committed to the core principles of our democracy, including transparent communication with the public and support for free, fair, and secure elections,” said Anjenys Gonzales-Eilert, Executive Director for Common Cause Florida. 

The letter submitted Thursday to state officials by voting rights organizations urges state officials not to wait for another problem to arise before they act. 


“The February 18 primary deadline is fast approaching. Officials can and must act now to avoid another debacle,” said Patti Brigham, President of the League of Women Voters of Florida. “The recent voting fiasco in Iowa’s Democratic presidential primary is a fresh reminder that Florida officials must be proactive in addressing these issues.”  


“This election year, voters are motivated to turn out. They deserve to have confidence in their registration system so they can be assured their voices will be heard,” said Ashwell “Florida’s Secretary of State must take steps now to avoid the problems voters in Florida as well as other states have confronted close to registration deadlines.”


The letter delivered today was signed by: Campaign Legal Center (CLC), The ACLU of Florida, All Voting is Local-Florida, American Oversight, Common Cause Florida, Fair Elections Center, Florida League of Women Voters, The Lawyers’ Committee, Leadership Conference Education Fund and New Florida Majority(?).
 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending an Anti-Corruption Law in Oklahoma (Institute for Justice v. Laster, et al.)

At a Glance

CLC represents the Oklahoma Ethics Commission in defending an ethics law that prevents lobbyists from corrupting Oklahoma public officials with gifts.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Ethics
About This Case/Action

Oklahoma is one of many states that restricts lobbyists from making excessive gifts to lawmakers and public officials. This law protects the legislative and electoral process from corruption by drawing a strong ethical line between public servants and the lobbyists who are paid to influence them.

The plaintiff in this case, Institute for Justice, sued the Ethics Commission in September 2019. They argue that Oklahoma’s gift ban infringes on lobbyists’ constitutional right to give lawmakers and public officials certain “informational” materials of a monetary value greater than the law allows.

But the lobbyist gift restrictions do not prevent lobbyists from sharing information with public officials; they only restrict valuable gifts. These laws give the public confidence that the government is working for them and is not corrupted by the possibility of receiving gifts. And they ensure that public servants actually serve the public’s interest.

This case is in its early stages.

Carney v. Adams

At a Glance

CLC filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case concerning the mandatory partisan balancing of Delaware’s state courts. The court’s decision could have ramifications for partisan-balance requirements in a wide variety of other federal and state government entities, including those responsible for overseeing electoral issues.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

Section 3 of the Delaware Constitution provides that no more than a “bare majority” of judges on certain state courts may be members of one party, and the remainder must be of the other major political party. James Adams, who is unaffiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party, argues that this violates his First Amendment rights by excluding individuals like him from serving as judges. He contends that partisan balancing is insufficient to serve as a compelling interest to preserve well-functioning judiciaries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Adams’s favor, holding that the partisan balancing requirements in Section 3 were unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state’s petition for certiorari, and CLC filed an amicus brief defending the general constitutionality of partisan-balance requirements, emphasizing the far-reaching ramifications the case could have for other agencies that benefit from political equilibria.

What’s at Stake:

Many federal and state entities are governed by, and function independently because of, carefully constructed political balances. A broad ruling in Adams’s favor could lead to the disassembly of these structures.

In particular, a broad ruling invalidating Section 3’s “bare majority” requirement could jeopardize the political equilibria of countless agencies, commissions, and panels outside of Delaware – equilibria that has been expressly authorized by voters through their representatives. Federal and state governments have relied on these intentionally politically balanced structures to govern across a range of issues, not limited to the judiciary. Partisan-balance is used to prevent single-party rule in many agencies that oversee politically consequential activities – notably, commissions that oversee elections and redistricting processes.

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending Section 3 of Delaware’s constitution. States should be empowered to set eligibility criteria for their judicial officers and the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that state governments may consider political affiliation in making employment decisions about policymakers. Indeed, two other appeals courts have already concluded that judges are policymakers under those U.S. Supreme Court decisions. CLC’s brief also argues that, to the extent the Supreme Court invalidates Section 3, its decision should be narrow and avoid casting doubt on the constitutionality of other partisan-balancing regimes. 

Subscribe to