NIELSEN et al v. DESANTIS et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against MARK ANDERSEN, CHRIS ANDERSON, SHIRLEY ANDERSON, PETER ANTONACCI, MARY JANE ARRINGTON, KIM A BARTON, BOBBY BEASLEY, MICHAEL BENNETT, MARTY BISHOP, STARLET CANNON, VICKI P. CANNON, CHRIS H CHAMBLESS, SHARON CHASON, DEBORAH CLARK, BRIAN E. CORLEY, BILL COWLES, NITA CRAWFORD, VICKI DAVIS, RON DESANTIS, TOMMY DOYLE, MARK EARLEY, JENNIFER J EDWARDS, LORI EDWARDS, ALETRIS FARNAM, SUSAN A. GILL, JOYCE GRIFFIN, DIANE HAGEN, JOHN HANLON, THOMAS R. HARDEE, TRAVIS HART, ALAN HAYS, MIKE HOGAN, BRENDA HOOTS, ELIZABETH P HORNE, LAURA HUTTO, TAMMY JONES, WILLIAM KEEN, SHIRLEY G. KNIGHT, CRAIG LATIMER, LAUREL M LEE, KAITI LENHART, LISA LEWIS, WENDY SARTORY LINK, PAUL A. LUX, GINA MCDOWELL, THERISA MEADOWS, ASHLEY MOODY, MARK F NEGLEY, VICKY OAKES, PENNY OGG, DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, CHARLES OVERTURF, HEATHER RILEY, CAROL F. RUDD, CONNIE SANCHEZ, LORI SCOTT, DIANE SMITH, DANA SOUTHERLAND, DAVID H STAFFORD, PAUL STAMOULIS, SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, LESLIE ROSSWAY SWAN, THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION, RON TURNER, TERRY VAUGHAN, TAPPIE A. VILLANE, GERTRUDE WALKER, HENRY WELLS, CHRISTINA WHITE, WESLEY WILCOX, GLENDA B. WILLIAMS ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number AFLNDC-5172996.), filed by DONESA JACKSON, PRIORITIES USA, MORGAN OUTLAW, KIRK NIELSEN, RAY DAVIS, REVEL LUBIN, FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC., FELICIA BRUCE, BARBARA DEVANE. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons M. Andersen, #3 Summons S. Anderson, #4 Summons C. Anderson, #5 Summons Antonacci, #6 Summons Arrington, #7 Summons Barton, #8 Summons Beasley, #9 Summons Bennett, #10 Summons Bishop, #11 Summons S. Cannon, #12 Summons Chambless, #13 Summons Chason, #14 Summons Clark, #15 Summons Corley, #16 Summons Cowles, #17 Summons Crawford, #18 Summons Davis, #19 Summons DeSantis, #20 Summons Doyle, #21 Summons Earley, #22 Summons J. Edwards, #23 Summons Elections Canvassing Commission, #24 Summons Farnam, #25 Summons Gill, #26 Summons Griffin, #27 Summons Hagan, #28 Summons Hanlon, #29 Summons Hardee, #30 Summons Hart, #31 Summons Hays, #32 Summons Hogan, #33 Summons Hoots, #34 Summons Horne, #35 Summons Hutto, #36 Summons Jones, #37 Summons Keen, #38 Summons Knight, #39 Summons Latimer, #40 Summons Lee, #41 Summons Lenhart, #42 Summons Lewis, #43 Summons Link, #44 Summons Lux, #45 Summons McDowell, #46 Summons Meadows, #47 Summons Moody, #48 Summons Negley, #49 Summons Oakes, #50 Summons Ogg, #51 Summons Osborne, #52 Summons Overturf, #53 Summons Riley, #54 Summons Rudd, #55 Summons Sanchez, #56 Summons Scott, #57 Summons Smith, #58 Summons Southerland, #59 Summons Stafford, #60 Summons Stamoulis, #61 Summons Stephens, #62 Summons Swan, #63 Summons Turner, #64 Summons Vaughan, #65 Summons Villane, #66 Summons Walker, #67 Summons Wells, #68 Summons White, #69 Summons Wilcox, #70 Summons Williams, #71 Summons V. Cannon, #72 Summons L. Edwards) (WERMUTH, FREDERICK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISON

KIRK NIELSEN, MORGAN
OUTLAW, REVEL LUBIN, FELICIA
BRUCE, BARBARA DEVANE, RAY
DAVIS, DONESA JACKSON,
ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC.,
FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR
RETIRED AMERICANS, and
PRIORITIES USA,

Case No. _______________

COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs,
v.

RON DESANTIS, in his official
capacity as Florida Governor,
LAUREL M. LEE, in her official
capacity as Florida Secretary of State,
ASHLEY MOODY, in her official
capacity as Florida Attorney General,
THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS
CANVASSING COMMISSION, KIM
A. BARTON, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for ALACHUA
County, NITA CRAWFORD, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for BAKER County, MARK
ANDERSEN, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for BAY
County, TERRY L. VAUGHAN, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for BRADFORD County,
LORI SCOTT, in her official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for
BREVARD County, PETER
ANTONACCI, in his official capacity
1 

as Supervisor of Elections for
BROWARD County, SHARON
CHASON, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for CALHOUN
County, PAUL A. STAMOULIS, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for CHARLOTTE County,
SUSAN A. GILL, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
CITRUS County, CHRIS H.
CHAMBLESS, in his official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for CLAY
County, JENNIFER J. EDWARDS, in
her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for COLLIER County,
ELIZABETH P. HORNE, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for COLUMBIA County,
MARK F. NEGLEY, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
DESOTO County, STARLET
CANNON, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for DIXIE
County, MIKE HOGAN, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
DUVAL County, DAVID H.
STAFFORD, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for
ESCAMBIA County, KAITI
LENHART, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for FLAGLER
County, HEATHER RILEY, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for FRANKLIN County,
SHIRLEY G. KNIGHT, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
GADSDEN County, CONNIE
SANCHEZ, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for
GILCHRIST County, ALETRIS
2 

FARNAM, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for GLADES
County, JOHN HANLON, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for GULF County, LAURA
HUTTO, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for
HAMILTON County, DIANE SMITH,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for HARDEE County,
BRENDA HOOTS, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
HENDRY County, SHIRLEY
ANDERSON, in her official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for
HERNANDO County, PENNY OGG,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for HIGHLANDS County,
CRAIG LATIMER, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
HILLSBOROUGH County, THERISA
MEADOWS, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for HOLMES
County, LESLIE ROSSWAY SWAN,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for INDIAN RIVER County,
SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for JACKSON County,
MARTY BISHOP, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
JEFFERSON County, TRAVIS HART,
in his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for LAFAYETTE County,
ALAN HAYS, in his official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for LAKE
County, TOMMY DOYLE, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for LEE County, MARK
EARLEY, in his official capacity as
3 

Supervisor of Elections for LEON
County, TAMMY JONES, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for LEVY County, GINA
MCDOWELL, in her official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for
LIBERTY County, THOMAS
“TOMMY” R. HARDEE, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for MADISON County,
MICHAEL BENNETT, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
MANATEE County, WESLEY
WILCOX, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for MARION
County, VICKI DAVIS, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
MARTIN County, CHRISTINA
WHITE, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for MIAMIDADE County, JOYCE GRIFFIN, in
her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for MONROE County,
VICKI P. CANNON, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
NASSAU County, PAUL A. LUX, in
his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for OKALOOSA County,
DIANE HAGAN, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
OKEECHOBEE County, BILL
COWLES, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for ORANGE
County, MARY JANE ARRINGTON,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for OSCEOLA County,
WENDY SARTORY LINK, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for PALM BEACH County,
BRIAN E. CORLEY, in his official
4 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
PASCO County, DEBORAH CLARK,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for PINELLAS County,
LORI EDWARDS, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
POLK County, CHARLES
OVERTURF, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for PUTNAM
County, TAPPIE A. VILLANE, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for SANTA ROSA County,
RON TURNER, in his official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for
SARASOTA County, CHRIS
ANDERSON, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for
SEMINOLE County, VICKY OAKES,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for ST. JOHNS County,
GERTRUDE WALKER, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
ST. LUCIE County, WILLIAM KEEN,
in his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for SUMTER County,
GLENDA B. WILLIAMS, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for SUWANNEE County,
DANA SOUTHERLAND, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for TAYLOR County,
DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for UNION County, LISA
LEWIS, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for VOLUSIA
County, HENRY WELLS, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for WAKULLA County,
BOBBY BEASLEY, in his official
5 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
WALTON County, CAROL F. RUDD,
in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for WASHINGTON County,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs KIRK NIELSEN, MORGAN OUTLAW, REVEL LUBIN,
FELICIA BRUCE, BARBARA DEVANE, RAY DAVIS, DONESA JACKSON,
ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC., FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED
AMERICANS, and PRIORITIES USA, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through
the undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
against Defendants RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Florida Governor,
LAUREL LEE, in her official capacity as Florida Secretary of State (the
“Secretary”), ASHLEY MOODY, in her official capacity as Florida Attorney
General, THE FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION, KIM A.
BARTON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for ALACHUA
County, NITA CRAWFORD, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
BAKER County, MARK ANDERSEN, in his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for BAY County, TERRY L. VAUGHAN, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for BRADFORD County, LORI SCOTT, in her official
capacity

as

Supervisor

of

Elections

for

BREVARD

County,

PETER

ANTONACCI, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for BROWARD
6 

County, SHARON CHASON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections
for CALHOUN County, PAUL A. STAMOULIS, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for CHARLOTTE County, SUSAN A. GILL, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for CITRUS County, CHRIS H.
CHAMBLESS, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for CLAY
County, JENNIFER J. EDWARDS, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for COLLIER County, ELIZABETH P. HORNE, in her official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for COLUMBIA County, MARK F. NEGLEY, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for DESOTO County, STARLET
CANNON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for DIXIE County,
MIKE HOGAN, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for DUVAL
County, DAVID H. STAFFORD, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections
for ESCAMBIA County, KAITI LENHART, in her official capacity as Supervisor
of Elections for FLAGLER County, HEATHER RILEY, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for FRANKLIN County, SHIRLEY G. KNIGHT, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for GADSDEN County, CONNIE
SANCHEZ, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for GILCHRIST
County, ALETRIS FARNAM, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections
for GLADES County, JOHN HANLON, in his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for GULF County, LAURA HUTTO, in her official capacity as
7 

Supervisor of Elections for HAMILTON County, DIANE SMITH, in her official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for HARDEE County, BRENDA HOOTS, in
her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for HENDRY County, SHIRLEY
ANDERSON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for HERNANDO
County, PENNY OGG, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
HIGHLANDS County, CRAIG LATIMER, in his official capacity as Supervisor
of Elections for HILLSBOROUGH County, THERISA MEADOWS, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for HOLMES County, LESLIE
ROSSWAY SWAN, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
INDIAN RIVER County, SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for JACKSON County, MARTY BISHOP, in his official
capacity as Supervisor of Elections for JEFFERSON County, TRAVIS HART, in
his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for LAFAYETTE County, ALAN
HAYS, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for LAKE County,
TOMMY DOYLE, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for LEE
County, MARK EARLEY, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
LEON County, TAMMY JONES, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for LEVY County, GINA MCDOWELL, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for LIBERTY County, THOMAS “TOMMY” R.
HARDEE, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for MADISON
8 

County, MICHAEL BENNETT, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections
for MANATEE County, WESLEY WILCOX, in his official capacity as Supervisor
of Elections for MARION County, VICKI DAVIS, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for MARTIN County, CHRISTINA WHITE, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for MIAMI-DADE County, JOYCE
GRIFFIN, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for MONROE
County, VICKI P. CANNON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections
for NASSAU County, PAUL A. LUX, in his official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for OKALOOSA County, DIANE HAGAN, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for OKEECHOBEE County, BILL COWLES, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for ORANGE County, MARY JANE
ARRINGTON, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for OSCEOLA
County, WENDY SARTORY LINK, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for PALM BEACH County, BRIAN E. CORLEY, in his official capacity
as Supervisor of Elections for PASCO County, DEBORAH CLARK, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for PINELLAS County, LORI
EDWARDS, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for POLK County,
CHARLES OVERTURF, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for
PUTNAM County, TAPPIE A VILLANE, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for SANTA ROSA County, RON TURNER, in his official capacity as
9 

Supervisor of Elections for SARASOTA County, CHRIS ANDERSON, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for SEMINOLE County, VICKY
OAKES, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for ST. JOHNS
County, GERTRUDE WALKER, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for ST. LUCIE County, WILLIAM KEEN, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for SUMTER County, GLENDA B. WILLIAMS, in her
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for SUWANNEE County, DANA
SOUTHERLAND, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for TAYLOR
County, DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, in her official capacity as Supervisor of
Elections for UNION County, LISA LEWIS, in her official capacity as Supervisor
of Elections for VOLUSIA County, HENRY WELLS, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for WAKULLA County, BOBBY BEASLEY, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for WALTON County, and CAROL F.
RUDD, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections for WASHINGTON
County, all in their official capacities as County Election Supervisors for their
respective counties (collectively, “Supervisors”). Based upon information and
belief, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

Plaintiffs bring this case to ensure that all eligible Florida voters have

a fair and safe opportunity to exercise their right to vote in the August 18, 2020

10 

primary (“August Primary”) and November 3, 2020 general election (“November
General”), as required by the U.S. Constitution. A novel coronavirus pandemic is
sweeping through the country, with known infections exceeding a million and
fatalities approaching 70,000. No states have been spared. In Florida, as of May 4,
2020, there are 36,078 confirmed cases, and 1,379 people have died; tragically,
there is no end in sight to this crisis. Indeed, the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recently cautioned that the country may
encounter a second, more deadly wave of COVID-19, which will “be even more
difficult than the one we just went through.”1
2.

The pandemic’s impact is not limited to Floridians’ health; it also

endangers their right to vote. The threat to Floridians’ right to vote is so imminent
that just weeks ago⸺still reeling from the challenges of administering the March
17, 2020 presidential preference primary election (“PPP”) during the
pandemic⸺all 67 of Florida’s Supervisors of Elections laudably sent Governor
DeSantis a letter outlining the challenges they will face in the upcoming August
Primary and November General, as social distancing measures continue and
unprecedented vote-by-mail turnout occurs. While Florida commendably allows
widespread voting by mail, multiple laws and practices governing mail voting

Budryk, CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus might be ‘more
difficult’, THE HILL (Apr. 21, 2020), https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/493973cdc-director-warns-second-wave-of-coronavirus-might-be-more-difficult. 

1

  Zack

11 

already burden and disenfranchise thousands of voters in the State and are certain
to burden and disenfranchise thousands more in the current crisis without
injunctive relief from this Court.
3.

On March 17, 2020, in the early stages of the pandemic, Florida held

its PPP. While voters clad in gloves and masks waited to vote, county Supervisors
witnessed significant challenges: polling places were unavailable, hand sanitizer
and other materials were in short supply, and a substantial numbers of poll
workers⸺most of whom were over 65 and at high risk for experiencing severe
cases of COVID-19⸺decided not to work, many at the last minute. In Palm Beach
County alone, over 800 poll workers backed out just shortly before the election due
to coronavirus concerns. And shortly after the election, at least two poll workers in
Broward County tested positive for COVID-19, at least one of whom was on duty
for all nine days of early voting. The Supervisors anticipate that these challenges
will persist in the August Primary and November General and, much like recent
historic absentee turnout in Wisconsin, that Florida will see significant increases in
voting by mail⸺much of it by first-time or new mail voters, given that most
Florida voters have typically voted in person in past elections.
4.

But Florida’s vote-by-mail regime is ill-equipped to handle this influx

of new mail voters, which is certain to exacerbate the disenfranchising effects of
Florida’s

failure

to

provide

prepaid
12 

postage

(“Vote-by-Mail

Postage

Requirement”), its requirement that vote-by-mail ballots be received by 7 p.m. on
Election Day (“Election Day Receipt Deadline”), Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 101.67(2),
101.6103(2), 101.64, and its prohibition on the use of paid organizers to assist
voters with collecting ballots (“Voter Assistance Ban”), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 104.0616
(collectively, “Challenged Provisions”). The burdens of the Challenged Provisions
fall particularly heavily on Florida’s elderly citizens, low-income citizens, and
student voters, many of whom require assistance with delivering their ballots and
do not have easy access to postage.
5.

Even under normal circumstances, Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage

Requirement, which dictates that voters pay for the postage necessary to mail their
vote-by-mail ballot unless individual counties choose to take on that burden for
them, significantly increases the monetary and transaction costs associated with
voting. Not only must a mail voter pay for postage to vote, but they also must
acquire the postage, which, in this digital age when many people do not keep
stamps at home, often requires a trip to the post office or other essential business.
For those with stamps, many voters must still determine the correct amount of
postage, which varies by ballot size and weight. As a result, these voters are also
forced to travel to local post offices to inquire about postage, which adds
significant cost to the voting process, especially for those with limited access to
transportation, including elderly citizens and students. These trips to the post office
13 

also create risks of exposure to COVID-19, which is a concern for all voters and
particularly for elderly voters in Florida who are especially vulnerable to the
coronavirus. Moreover, as the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) continues to
face massive budget shortfalls and its workers themselves succumb to illness due
to their exposure to coronavirus, there is no guarantee that voters’ local post offices
will be open and available to answer questions; it is all but certain that for many
voters, the time used to acquire postage or determine the correct postage amount
will delay the voting process and place voters at greater risk of disenfranchisement
due to the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
6.

Similarly, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline disenfranchises

thousands of voters who complete and mail their ballot prior to Election Day, but
whose ballots⸺through no fault of the voter⸺do not arrive in the mail at their
county Supervisor of Elections’ Office by 7 p.m. on Election Day. See Fla. Stat.
Ann. §§ 101.67(2), 101.6103(2), 101.64. In 2018 alone, Florida discarded over
17,000 ballots⸺nearly 56% of all vote-by-mail ballots that were rejected⸺simply
because they arrived after the Election Day Receipt Deadline. More alarmingly, it
did so notwithstanding that over 20,000 Florida voters did not even receive their
mail ballot until just days before Election Day, leaving them with insufficient time
to return it by mail through no fault of their own. While the Election Day Receipt
Deadline is constitutionally problematic in its own right, under the current
14 

circumstances⸺where a global pandemic will lead to a significant increase in mail
voting while at the same time severely burdening an already compromised USPS
and thinly stretched local elections staff⸺it cannot survive judicial scrutiny. If left
in place, the Election Day Receipt Deadline is certain to disenfranchise countless
more voters this fall and, as a result, necessitates the precise change that the U.S.
Supreme Court accepted in Wisconsin for its recent primary election⸺a postmark
deadline that requires counting all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day
and received within a reasonable time after Election Day. See Republican Nat’l
Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 19A1016, 2020 WL 1672702, at *2 (Apr.
6, 2020).
7.

Finally, Florida’s Voter Assistance Ban, codified at Fla. Stat. Ann. §

104.0616, also significantly raises the risk that large swaths of lawful, eligible
voters⸺many of whom are likely to have limited mobility and limited access to
mail⸺will be disenfranchised. The Voter Assistance Ban makes it a misdemeanor
for any individual paid by any organization to assist with returning more than two
vote-by-mail ballots each election, unless the individual is an immediate family
member of the voter. The Voter Assistance Ban hamstrings the ability of
organizations like Priorities USA and Alianza to assist voters and their constituents
in making the transition to vote by mail and to ensure that voters’ ballots arrive on
time to be counted. This is particularly problematic for the upcoming elections, not
15 

only because there will be a substantial increase in the number of individuals
needing assistance with turning in their ballot, but also because it will be
exceptionally difficult to find individuals unaffiliated with political organizations
who are willing to volunteer to assist voters given COVID-19 and the public health
risks of exposing themselves to other individuals.
8.

For decades, Florida has been ground zero for election mishaps. In

2000, the fate of the U.S. Presidency remained in limbo for over a month due to
voting machine failures in Florida. In 2012, Florida made national headlines by
having some of the longest voting lines in the country. And in 2018, Florida faced
three statewide recounts⸺at least one of which could have been decided by the
number of mail votes that were not counted because they arrived after the Election
Day Receipt Deadline. While 2020 is certainly an unprecedented year, it does not
have to be the next year on the long list of Florida’s election debacles. This Court
can help prevent that outcome by ensuring that Florida’s vote-by-mail regime
complies with the Constitution and provides a mechanism for all voters to vote in
the upcoming elections.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to

redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United
States Constitution and by an Act of Congress.
16 

10.

This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy
arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
11.

This Court has personal jurisdiction because each of the Defendants

resides in Florida, has continuous and systematic contact with Florida, and is
subject to service of process in Florida in their official capacities. Among the
Defendants, Governor Ron DeSantis, Secretary of State Laurel Lee, Attorney
General Ashley Moody, and the Florida Election Canvassing Commission all
reside and carry out a substantial amount of their official duties in within this
judicial district, as do 23 of the Defendant Supervisors of Elections within their
respective counties in this judicial district. The remaining 44 Defendant
Supervisors reside and carry out substantially all of their official duties within their
respective counties elsewhere in Florida.  
12.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because (1)

all Defendants are residents of Florida, in which this judicial district is located, and
numerous Defendants reside in this judicial district; and (2) a substantial part of the
events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in this judicial district. 
13.

This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to

provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
17 

14.

All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this case and

Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred, been performed, or otherwise been waived. 
PARTIES
15.

Plaintiff KIRK NIELSEN is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in

Miami-Dade County, Florida. Nielsen is an investigative journalist and an adjunct
professor at the University of Miami. Nielsen has been a registered voter in Florida
for twenty-five years and regularly participates in elections. In the 2018 general
election, Nielsen cast his vote-by-mail ballot via first class mail on October 29,
2018—eight days before Election Day—from a post office at the University of
Miami’s Coral Gables campus. Through public record requests that Nielsen
submitted himself, Nielsen later learned that his ballot was not received by the
Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections until November 14, 2018—sixteen
days after sending in his ballot and eight days after Election Day. As a result,
Miami-Dade County did not count Nielsen’s ballot. Nielsen intends to participate
in upcoming elections in Florida, and he wants his ballot to count. While Nielsen
would prefer to vote in person given his prior experience with vote-by-mail ballots,
Nielsen no longer feels comfortable voting in person during the coronavirus
pandemic. Nielsen intends to cast a mail ballot in upcoming elections. As Nielsen’s
experience from the 2018 general election demonstrates, under Florida’s current
standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that his ballot will not be
18 

counted because it will not be received by his county by the Election Day Receipt
Deadline. This risk exists even if Nielsen sends in his ballot well in advance of
Election Day and in compliance with the guidance provided by both the USPS and
the Miami-Dade Supervisors’ office with respect to when ballots should be mailed.
16.

Plaintiff MORGAN OUTLAW is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter

in Okaloosa County, Florida, the state where she was raised and where her family
still resides today. For both the 2016 and 2018 general elections, while Outlaw was
a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, she requested a mail ballot to
vote. Outlaw sent back both ballots to Okaloosa County, Florida in advance of
Election Day, but neither ballot was counted because those ballots did not reach
the Supervisor’s office until shortly after Election Day. The county did not notify
her after either election to inform her that her ballot did not arrive on time. Today,
Outlaw is obtaining her Masters in Disability Studies through the City University
of New York. While she lives out of state, she still considers Florida to be her
permanent home. Because Outlaw is immunocompromised and has limited
mobility, she cannot easily travel home to vote, especially in light of the current
COVID-19 pandemic. Outlaw intends to participate in upcoming elections in
Florida, and she wants her ballot to count this time. Because Outlaw will be away
from her home this upcoming Fall, she will need to cast a mail ballot again.
Because Okaloosa County does not provide pre-paid postage for its vote-by-mail
19 

ballots, Outlaw will be required to acquire and pay for postage in order to cast her
ballot. And as Outlaw’s experience from the prior two general elections shows,
under Florida’s current standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that
Outlaw’s ballot will not be counted because it will not be received by her county
by 7 p.m. on Election Day even if she sends in her ballot in advance of Election
Day.
17.

Plaintiff REVEL LUBIN is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in

Florida, the state where he was raised and where his family still resides today.
Since voting for the first time by mail in the 2018 general election, Lubin started a
graduate program at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut, where he will be
attending school during the 2020 Primary and General Elections. Although he will
be attending school out of state, he still considers Florida to be his permanent
home. Lubin is avoiding air travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and
has neither the financial resources nor the time to travel home to vote. Lubin
intends to participate in upcoming elections in Florida and is concerned about
whether his mail ballot will be counted, particularly with the time it takes under
normal circumstances for mail deliveries between his home in Orlando, Florida
and his temporary apartment in Connecticut; and the prospect of greater delay
during the pandemic gives him further concern. Because Lubin will be away from
home this upcoming Fall, he will need to cast a mail ballot again. Lubin does not
20 

have a car at school, and the nearest post office, where he could verify collection of
his mail ballot, is a 32-minute walk from his temporary apartment. With his
demanding schedule, it is likely to take several days from when he receives his
mail ballot until he can take his mail ballot to the post office. Under Florida’s
current standard for counting ballots, there is a substantial risk that Lubin’s ballot
will not be counted because it will not be received by his county by 7 p.m. on
Election Day even if he sends in his ballot in advance of Election Day.
18.

Plaintiff FELICIA BRUCE is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in

St. Lucie County, Florida. Bruce is 70 years old, a retired school teacher, and a
member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Since moving to Florida,
Bruce has usually voted by mail so that she can volunteer during the election,
which she has done during every election since she moved to Florida. On Election
Day, Bruce typically serves as a volunteer poll watcher or poll worker or provides
free transportation to the polls to other Florida voters. Before the pandemic, Bruce
had signed up to be a poll worker again this year, but she no longer believes she
will be able to serve as a poll worker because of concerns about exposing herself to
coronavirus. Bruce has a pre-existing condition that places her at heightened risk
for COVID-19. For that reason, Bruce does not feel it is safe to vote in person this
year and will cast a mail ballot. Because St. Lucie County does not provide prepaid postage for its vote-by-mail ballots, Bruce will be required to acquire and pay
21 

for postage in order to cast her ballot. Bruce is also particularly concerned that the
anticipated surge in mail voting will overwhelm the election Supervisor’s staff and
the postal service, leading to delays in delivery of mail ballots. She fears that her
mail ballot will arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline as a result; she
would be less at risk if Florida were required to count every mail ballot that is
completed and mailed on or before Election Day.
19.

Plaintiff BARBARA DEVANE is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter

in Leon County, Florida. She is 77 years old, a retired social studies teacher, and a
member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Participating in elections is
important to DeVane, and she usually tries to be the first person in line at her
polling location in Tallahassee. DeVane strongly prefers to vote in person to ensure
that her ballot is counted, but is concerned about voting in person this year due to
the coronavirus pandemic. DeVane has a weakened immune system and worries
that voting in person will expose her to the coronavirus. DeVane intends to vote by
mail to protect her health. Because Leon County does not provide pre-paid postage
for its vote-by-mail ballots, DeVane will be required to acquire and pay for postage
in order to cast her ballot. And because DeVane has experienced mail delays in the
past, she is concerned that she will experience similar delays this year, and that her
mail ballot will arrive late and not be counted. She fears both that her ballot may
not arrive at her home with enough time for her to mail it back and that there will
22 

be delay when she sends it to the local election office. DeVane strongly believes
her ballot should count as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. Because
DeVane does not like to gamble with her ballot, DeVane would also utilize a ballot
collection service to have a trusted person personally deliver her ballot for her, if
such a service were available to her.
20.

Plaintiff RAY DAVIS is a U.S. citizen and registered voter in Pinellas

County, Florida. Davis is 76 years old, a retired auto worker, and a member of the
Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Voting is important to Davis, who usually
casts his ballot by personally hand-delivering his mail ballot to his local elections
office or by driving his ballot to a drop-off location. Due to the coronavirus
pandemic, however, Davis does not want to take the unnecessary risk of venturing
out to cast his ballot, particularly because his wife has pre-existing conditions,
which make her vulnerable to the disease. As a result, Davis intends to rely on the
mail to cast is ballot this year. Because Pinellas County does not provide prepaid
postage, Davis must acquire and pay for postage before he can return his vote-bymail ballot. Davis is also particularly concerned that his ballot will not be counted
if it is not received by his Supervisors’ office by the Election Day Receipt
Deadline. Davis does not want to choose between his family’s health and ensuring
that his vote counts. He would be more confident that his ballot would be counted
if Florida were required to count ballots postmarked by Election Day. In addition,
23 

Davis is concerned about fellow members of the Alliance, many of whom are 7080 years old and at heightened risk for coronavirus. He has been encouraging them
to vote by mail as well and wants to make sure that all of them have a fair
opportunity for their ballots to be sent and counted. In particular, he knows that
many do not have stamps and will have to obtain them to vote, which is an
additional step that might put them at risk and potentially delay their ballot from
being sent and arriving on time.
21.

Plaintiff DONESA JACKSON is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter

in Seminole County, Florida. Jackson is 82 years old, a retired teacher, and a
member of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. Voting is extremely
important to Jackson; she believes that she has voted in every election since she
has been registered to vote. Jackson intends to vote by mail this year and would not
feel safe voting in person. Jackson believes she is particularly at risk for
developing severe complications should she contract coronavirus given her age,
her asthma, and the fact that she is immunocompromised. For that same reason,
while Jackson usually purchases stamps from the post office, she no longer feels
comfortable putting herself at risk to do so. And, because Seminole County does
not provide prepaid postage, Jackson must acquire and pay for postage before she
can return her vote-by-mail ballot. Jackson would utilize a ballot collection service
to have a trusted person personally deliver her ballot for her, if such a service were
24 

available to her. Jackson knows these services are essential to help voters cast their
ballots, as she herself used to assist her friends with returning their ballots when
they had no other means to do so. If such services are not available, Jackson will
mail her ballot, but she is worried her ballot will not be counted if it is not received
by her Supervisor’s Office until after the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
22.

Plaintiff ALIANZA FOR PROGRESS, INC. (“Alianza”) is a

nonpartisan political organization dedicated to uniting the Puerto Rican and
Hispanic population in the state of Florida and developing leaders from within the
community that will support progressive policies. To accomplish those goals,
Alianza is active in, and dedicated to, enabling and protecting the rights of voters,
especially with the Puerto Rican and Hispanic population, who are at elevated risk
of disenfranchisement because of the language barriers, recent migration,
economic disadvantage, and other structural barriers to effective political speech
and association.
23.

Alianza runs field, digital organizing, and communications campaigns

directed at Florida’s Puerto Rican and Latinx communities, who are the core
constituencies that Alianza exists and works to serve. In order to assist in
advancing progressive policies and issues to improve the lives of its members and
members of its voting constituencies, Alianza has engaged in efforts to educate its
members and members of its voting constituencies about the voting process and to
25 

assist them to effectively exercise their right to vote by properly registering to vote,
understanding the means available to vote, and assuring that they cast and have
their votes counted. But for the Voter Assistance Ban, Alianza would have its
professional field staff, who are and would be compensated for their work, also
work to collect and deliver mail ballots to the polls on behalf of its members and
members of its voting constituencies.
24.

The age range of Alianza’s members and members of its voting

constituencies covers the entire range of voting-age population, from the elderly to
newly eligible voters, who often live in multi-generational households that rely on
mature adults working multiple jobs to support both aging parents and young
children. Many of these voters are economically disadvantaged recent migrants to
Florida who speak limited or no English and face particular challenges in
navigating the process to access and exercise their voting rights under the best of
circumstances.

The current COVID-19 Pandemic further exacerbates the

challenges faced by Alianza’s members and members of its voting constituencies,
in that many of them —especially the elderly, those in frequent contact with the
elderly, and those who cannot afford to become ill and incapable of supporting
their family—will find it unacceptably risky to vote in person in the August
Primary and November General due to concerns about being exposed to COVID19. As a consequence, they will have no safe option to vote other than by mail—
26 

requiring them to determine, acquire and pay for sufficient (anywhere up to three
stamps of) postage, which may further delay the process and require exposing
themselves by visiting the post office—and put them at substantial risk of being
disenfranchised due to the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement and Election Day
Receipt Deadline. Among Alianza’s members and members of its voting
constituencies are voters unaccustomed to using USPS on a regular basis, such as
newly eligible young voters, recent citizen migrants, and economically challenged
voters, who if faced with having to determine, acquire, or pay for required postage
may well be disenfranchised by delay or non-delivery of their vote-by-mail ballots.
25.

To carry out its mission and outreach efforts, Alianza relies on

membership dues, donations, and grants, which are limited resources. In light of
the Challenged Provisions and how their burdens imposed by those Provisions are
further exacerbated by the risks of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Alianza feels
compelled to take resources away from developing content and organizing efforts
directed at advancing particular progressive policies, and shift those resources to
increased education and outreach efforts in the hope of mitigating at least some of
the burdens of the Challenged Provisions that serve to burden and disenfranchise
Alianza’s members and members of its voting constituencies.

For example,

because of the significant paid-staff time and financial resources that Alianza will
spend on outreach efforts to mitigate the effect of the Challenged Provisions on its
27 

voting constituencies, Alianza will have less paid-staff time and financial resources
to support its advocacy campaigns on key issues affecting its members and
constituencies, including advocacy for greater language access, increased
affordable housing, food assistance, addressing discrimination, Covid-19
awareness, Medicaid expansion, a comprehensive redevelopment program for
Puerto Rico, and its petition drive to rename Stonewall Jackson Middle School to
Roberto Clemente Middle School.

As a result of the Challenged Provisions,

Alianza faces the burden of having fewer resources available to advance such key
progressive policies because of the effort and costs to help its members and
members of its voting constituencies simply to vote and have their votes counted
against the headwinds of the Challenged Provisions that serve to reduce their
participation and cause their votes to go uncounted.
26.

Plaintiff FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS (“the

Alliance”) is incorporated in Florida as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, social welfare
organization. The Alliance has almost 200,000 members, comprising of retirees
from public and private sector unions, community organizations, and individual
activists. It is a chartered state affiliate of the Alliance for Retired Americans. The
Alliance’s mission is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights that
retirees have earned after a lifetime of work. The Challenged Provisions frustrate
the Alliance’s mission because they deprive individual members of the right to
28 

vote and to have their votes counted, threaten the electoral prospects of Allianceendorsed candidates whose supporters will face greater obstacles casting a vote and
having their votes counted, and make it more difficult for the Alliance and its
members to associate to effectively further their shared political purposes. Because
of the burdens on mail-in voting created by the Challenged Provisions, the Alliance
will be required to devote time and resources to educating its members about these
requirements and assisting them in complying so that their mail-in ballots are
received by Election Day, accepted, and counted. These efforts will reduce the
time and resources the Alliance has to educate its members and legislators on
public policy issues critical to the Alliance’s members, including the pricing of
prescription drugs and the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid benefits. In light
of these injuries, the Alliance joins in the Equal Protection, Due Process, Poll Tax,
and Voting Rights Act claims to the Challenged Provisions. The Alliance does not
join in the First Amendment claim to the Voter Assistance Ban because the
Alliance does not currently intend to hire organizers to help collect voters’ ballots.
27.

The Alliance also brings this action on behalf of its members who face

burdens on their right to vote as a consequence of the Challenged Provisions.
Because all of the Alliance’s members are of an age that place them at a
heightened

risk

of

complications

from

coronavirus,

all

members

are

overwhelmingly likely to vote by mail this year and consequently face the burdens
29 

that the Challenged Provisions place on mail voters. The Alliance’s members, for
example, are voters who are likely to face difficultly acquiring postage or
delivering a mail ballot themselves should they be unable to return it through the
mail in sufficient time for their ballot to counted. Additionally, many of the
Alliance’s members are likely to be voting for mail for the first time, and thus will
be more susceptible to be disenfranchised by the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
28.

Plaintiff PRIORITIES USA (“Priorities”) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit,

voter-centric progressive advocacy and service organization. Priorities’ mission is
to build a sustainable infrastructure to engage Americans in the progressive
movement by running a permanent digital campaign to persuade and mobilize
citizens around issues and elections that affect their lives. In furtherance of this
mission, Priorities works to help educate, mobilize, and turn out voters across the
country, including in Florida. In 2020, Priorities expects to make millions of
dollars of contributions and expenditures to educate, mobilize, and turn out voters
in state and federal elections around the country, including thousands of dollars to
educate, mobilize, and turn out voters in Florida elections. Florida’s Vote-By-Mail
Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt Deadline, and Voter Assistance Ban
directly harm Priorities because they burden and disenfranchise the very voters
Priorities supports through its work and contributions in Florida. As a result,
Priorities has to expend and divert additional funds and resources in get-out-the30 

vote, voter education efforts, mobilization, and turn-out activities in Florida, at the
expense of its voter support initiatives in other states and other voter education and
turnout programs in Florida. Specifically, the resources Priorities must divert to
address the Challenged Provisions will directly affect the breadth of Priorities’
advertising campaigns in Florida and other states in support of candidates and to
educate voters about issues central to Priorities’ mission of advancing progressive
public policies. This diversion of resources also will reduce the funds available to
Priorities to engage in voter turnout initiatives in Florida and other states. In
addition, Priorities intends to engage in an organized effort, relying on paid
workers, to assist voters with delivering ballots to election offices in the August
Primary Election and the November General Election, which it cannot currently do
under the Voter Assistance Ban. Specifically, if the Ban is enjoined, Priorities will
engage persons working on its behalf and paid by Priorities to help voters who
need assistance in delivering their ballots to election offices.
29.

Defendant RON DESANTIS is sued in his official capacity as the

Governor of Florida. The Governor exerts control over the Supervisors, as he may
suspend them for failure to perform their duties. See Fla. Const. art. IV, § 7; see
also, e.g., Fla. Exec. Order No. 19-19 (executive order suspending the Supervisor
of Elections for Palm Beach County); Fla. Exec. Order No. 18-342 (executive
order suspending the Supervisor of Elections for Broward County).
31 

30.

Defendant LAUREL LEE is sued in her official capacity as Secretary

of State of the State of Florida. The Secretary is a person within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 97.012, the
Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the State and is therefore
responsible for the administration of state laws affecting voting, including with
respect to the August Primary and November General. The Secretary’s duties
consist, among other things, of “[o]btain[ing] and maintaining uniformity in the
interpretation and implementation of the election laws.” Id. at § 97.012(1). The
Secretary is also tasked with ensuring that county Supervisors perform their
statutory duties, see id. at § 97.012(14), is responsible for providing technical
assistance to county Supervisors on voter education, election personnel training
services, and voting systems, see id. at §§ 97.012(4)-(5), and is responsible for
“[p]roviding written direction and opinions to the Supervisors of Elections on the
performance of their official duties with respect to the Florida Election Code or
rules adopted by the Department of State.” Id. at § 97.012(16).
31.

Defendant ASHLEY MOODY is sued in her official capacity as the

Attorney General of Florida. The Attorney General is a person within the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. The Attorney General’s
authority includes overseeing the Office of the Florida Statewide Prosecutor, which
has the responsibility to “investigate and prosecute . . . any crime involving voter
32 

registration, voting, or candidate or issue petition activities.” Fla. Stat. Ann. §
16.56. This responsibility includes, based on information and belief, enforcing the
criminal misdemeanor provision of the Voter Assistance Ban. The Attorney
General also has oversight authority over Florida’s state attorneys, who may also
prosecute violations of the Voter Assistance Ban. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 16.08.
(“The Attorney General shall exercise a general superintendence and direction over
the several state attorneys of the several circuits as to the manner of discharging
their respective duties . . .”).
32.

Defendant FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION

is sued as a state-created entity. Its membership consists of the Governor and two
members of the Cabinet selected by the Governor, as set forth in Florida Statute §
102.111. The Commission has the authority to move back the deadline for counties
to submit their election returns “if the returns are not received . . . due to an
emergency.” See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. “Emergency” is defined as “any occurrence,
or threat thereof, whether accidental, natural, or caused by human beings, in war or
in peace, that results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or
substantial damage to or loss of property to the extent it will prohibit an election
officer’s ability to conduct a safe and orderly election.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.732.
The coronavirus pandemic meets this definition, giving the Commission the

33 

authority to push back the statutory deadline for counties to submit their election
returns.
33.

Defendants FLORIDA ELECTION SUPERVISORS, sued in their

official capacities only, are elected officials in each of Florida’s 67 counties who
are responsible for administering elections in their respective counties. Their
responsibilities include administering voting by mail, arranging polling locations,
determining when to start early voting, and, in some instances, providing drop off
locations for vote-by-mail ballots. Their responsibilities also include evaluating the
validity vote by mail ballots, supervising ballot counts, and certifying results. Most
of Florida’s 67 counties do not provide prepaid postage for mail in ballots in
statewide or national elections. However, Plaintiffs have identified at least five
counties that previously provided prepaid postage for statewide and national
elections and likely will again: Broward, Hillsborough, Lee, Miami-Dade, and
Orange Counties. Accordingly, Supervisor PETER ANTONACCI, Supervisor of
Elections for BROWARD County, Supervisor CRAIG LATIMER, Supervisor of
Elections for HILLSBOROUGH County; TOMMY DOYLE, Supervisor of
Elections for LEE County, CHRISTINA WHITE, Supervisor of Elections for
MIAMI-DADE County, and BILL COWLES, Supervisor of Elections for Orange
County are not included as Defendants in the Poll Tax or Equal Protection claims
for the Vote-by-Mail Postage Requirement.
34 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW
A.

Vote by Mail in Florida

34.

Since 2001, Florida has permitted any registered voter to request a

vote-by-mail ballot without an excuse. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.62. Voters may
request a vote-by-mail ballot in person, in writing, or by telephone up to ten days
before an election. Id.
35.

As a result, mail balloting has steadily grown in Florida. In 2012, 27.8

percent of voters voted by mail; in 2016, 28.7 percent of voters voted by mail; and
in 2018, 31.6 percent of all ballots cast in the 2018 general election were cast by
mail⸺the highest share of votes cast by mail in any of the last six Florida
elections. Yet, the majority of Florida voters still cast their ballots in person, either
during early voting or at polling locations on Election Day. There is good reason
for that.
36.

Voting by mail requires additional steps that must be taken

deliberately and well in advance of Election Day to ensure that a voter’s ballot is
counted. First, a voter must request a mail ballot by the statutory deadline. Next,
the voter must receive it in the mail and complete the required signature fields.
Finally, a voter must mail it with sufficient time and postage for it to arrive to the
county Supervisor’s office by Election Day. These steps are not insubstantial, often
requiring significant time and effort from voters to complete. Moreover, a misstep
35 

at any point⸺including a misstep by the local election official, not the
voter⸺often results in complete disenfranchisement.
37.

Florida requires most voters who choose to return their ballots by mail

must also provide their own postage, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.65 (instructing
voters to “be sure there is sufficient postage if mailed”), and prominently displays
“Postage Required” on the front of each return envelope that is mailed out. This
requirement imposes both monetary and transaction costs that bear most heavily on
individuals who are least likely to be able to overcome them, including students,
the elderly, and low-income citizens.
38.

In this digital era, many voters do not regularly keep postage stamps

in their homes, and therefore must visit a post office or other essential business to
obtain the correct postage.  Purchasing a book of 20 stamps online, for example,
will cost voters $11—an unnecessary expense that could be cost-prohibitive for
students and individuals with lower incomes, posing a significant hurdle to
returning the ballot and voting.
39.

The amount of postage required for a mail ballot is also not readily

apparent to voters. Vote-by-mail ballots are generally a non-standard size, include
two envelopes, and have varying weight depending upon the number of elections
on the ballot. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.64. As a result, even where a person has stamps,

36 

mailing their ballot may still necessitate a trip to the post office to weigh the
envelope and determine the proper amount of postage to affix.
40.

For elderly voters, voters who have disabilities, who live far from a

post office, have limited access to transportation, are immunocompromised or have
other high-risk factors for COVID-19, this trip deters them from voting as it may
be nearly impossible for some voters to make and for others it poses grave health
and safety risks. The extra time spent acquiring postage or inquiring about the
amount of postage needed also increases the transaction cost of voting, slowing
down the voting process and making the voter more likely to mail the ballot later in
election cycle. In turn, this places these voters at heightened risk of their mail
ballot arriving after the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
41.
them

by

Indeed, even where a voter is able to overcome the hurdles placed on
Florida’s

Vote-By-Mail

Postage

Requirement,

their

risk

of

disenfranchisement remains high. Each year, Florida rejects a significant number
of ballots that arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline. See Fla. Stats. Ann.
§§ 101.67(2), 101.6103(2), and 101.64.
42.

In 2018, for example, Florida disenfranchised over 17,000 voters,

refusing to even count their ballots⸺the vast majority of which were completed
and mailed before Election Day⸺simply because they arrived after the Election
Day Receipt Deadline.
37 

43.

There is no question that these ballots’ late arrivals were due to no

fault of the voter. Despite requesting vote-by-mail ballots well before the deadline,
due either to delayed mail times or the inability of local Supervisors to respond to
requests by the statutory deadline (eight days before Election Day, see Fla. Stat.
Ann. § 101.62), over 20,700 vote-by-mail ballots were delivered to voters just days
before Election Day in 2018. As a result, many voters⸺a disproportionate number
of whom were young, college students⸺did not receive their vote-by-mail ballots
until just days before the 2018 general election, leaving them with insufficient time
to return their ballots so that they would arrive by the Election Day Receipt
Deadline. See Sarah Blaskey, South Florida’s absentee-ballot blues: ‘I am
infuriated that I was not able to vote’, Miami Herald, (Nov. 13, 2018),
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politicsgovernment/election/article221518235
.html.
44.

And year after year, voters are disenfranchised by the Election Day

Receipt Deadline in part because Defendants fail to adequately communicate when
ballots must be mailed to ensure they will be counted.
45.

According to USPS and multiple local election Supervisors, ballots

must be mailed at least a week before Election Day to ensure timely arrival. See,
e.g., United States Postal Service, State and Local Election Mail: User’s Guide
(Jan. 2020), https://about.usps.com/publications/pub632.pdf (“[T]he Postal Service
38 

recommends that voters mail their marked return ballots at least 1 week before the
due date”); Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Office, Frequently Asked
Questions- Voting by Mail, https://www.votepinellas.com/Mail-Ballots/FAQsVoting-By-Mail (“PLEASE NOTE: Postal delivery service has changed. Voters
are advised to allow at least ONE WEEK for their ballot to be returned by mail to
the Supervisor of Elections office.”). Ballots arriving less than a week before
Election Day, like those in 2018, simply will not arrive in time to be counted
unless the voter undertakes extraordinary efforts, and even then, such efforts may
not be enough.
46.

Indeed, in 2018, at least one young voter reported attempting to send

the mail ballot she received the day before Election Day at her temporary home in
Philadelphia via FedEx or UPS, but even those commercial services were not able
to deliver the ballot in time for it to be counted. Sarah Blaskey, South Florida’s
absentee-ballot blues: ‘I am infuriated that I was not able to vote’, Miami Herald,
(Nov. 13, 2018), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politicsgovernmentpoliticsgovernment/election /article221518235.html. When the voter called the MiamiDade Supervisor to inquire about her options, she was told effectively that there
were none.
47.

In addition to untimely receipt of ballots, cost cutting measures and a

shrinking USPS workforce have led to delivery delays in south Florida since at
39 

least 2014. And in 2018, the south Florida town of Opa-locka made headlines
when 266 ballots were discovered in the back of a USPS mail-sorting facility and
were not delivered to the local Supervisors’ office until four days after the Election
Day Receipt Deadline. None of these ballots were counted, and it was through no
fault of the voters.
48.

The number of ballots rejected due to the Election Day Receipt

Deadline is not inconsequential either. In 2018, former Governor Rick Scott
defeated incumbent Senator Bill Nelson by just 10,000 votes in the race for U.S.
Senate, well within the range of ballots discarded due to the Election Day Receipt
Deadline.
49.

Despite the substantial number of late ballots, the State places

significant limits on critical voter assistance that could help ensure that voters’
ballots arrive on time.
50.

Florida’s Voter Assistance Ban prohibits paid collectors from

assisting more than two nonfamily member voters with returning their ballots. If
they do, these collectors risk a misdemeanor charge punishable by a term of
imprisonment up to a year. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 104.0616, 775.082.
51.

As a result, organizations like Priorities USA and Alianza are

unconstitutionally prohibited from exercising their First Amendment rights to
assist voters. This leaves particularly vulnerable populations, such as disabled
40 

voters, elderly voters, and voters with limited access to the mail and transportation
with limited options for help turning in their ballots. It similarly reduces the
support available to voters who receive their mail ballots with insufficient time to
return them.
52.

While these inadequacies in Florida’s vote-by-mail system are

constitutionally problematic in their own right, they will only be exacerbated by
the current coronavirus crisis, burdening and disenfranchising significantly more
voters in the upcoming August Primary and November General elections.
B.

The Exacerbating Effect of the Coronavirus Crisis on Florida’s
Vote-By-Mail System

53.

COVID-19, the severe and sometimes deadly disease caused by the

novel coronavirus, has been spreading through Florida for several months. To date,
there are 35,463 confirmed cases in the state, and 1,364 Floridians have died from
the disease. Current models predict that approximately 2,000 people in Florida will
die from COVID-19 by August. To slow the curve and to protect their health as
well as the health of their friends, family, and community, Floridians across the
state are engaging in social distancing and remain under a statewide stay-at-home
order. These actions have helped protect Floridians health, but they have also had a
severe economic impact on the state, with almost 2 million Floridians filing for
unemployment benefits since the crisis began.

41 

54.

While the Governor has formed a task force to re-open the state, there

is no clear end in sight to the spread of COVID-19 or the economic devastation it
is causing and, by all accounts, the crisis is expected to last many months and
likely well into the 2020 general election cycle.
55.

The federal government has announced that it is preparing for the

COVID-19 crisis to last 18 months and has warned that the pandemic could come
in “multiple waves.” The White House’s coronavirus advisor and the Director of
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was
asked at a White House press conference whether the United States was “prepared
for [coronavirus] to strike again, say, in the fall?” Dr. Fauci responded that, “[i]n
fact I would anticipate that that would actually happen because of the degree of
transmissibility.” Joseph Guzman, Fauci predicts another coronavirus outbreak in
fall

with

‘very

different’

outcome,

THE

HILL

(Mar.

31,

2020),

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/490326-faucipredicts-another-coronavirus-outbreak-in.
56.

Similarly, the Director of the National Center for Immunization and

Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, Dr. Nancy Messionnier, said in March 2020 that
she expected the virus to continue spreading in the United States until next year.
These sentiments are also shared by scientists outside the United States
government. The COVID-19 Response Team at the Imperial College of London
42 

has estimated that social distancing and other preventative measures will be
required until a vaccine is developed and distributed widely, which they predict
could take “18 months or more.”
57.

Even if the community spread of COVID-19 in Florida has

significantly decreased by this upcoming election season, CDC guidelines
recommend that individuals take meaningful social distancing measures even if
there is a “minimal” threat of community transmission of COVID-19 in the area.
This guidance is necessitated by the reality that asymptomatic carriers appear to be
contributing significantly to community spread, and until there is a vaccine or
widespread “herd immunity” (i.e., at least 60% of the population has been infected
and recovered), Americans will remain at serious risk of contracting this
unpredictable and deadly virus.
58.

Florida’s Supervisors, recognizing that this crisis will last months and

affect the August Primary and November General, have alerted the Governor to the
challenges they faced in the March 17 PPP, and asked for changes meant to ease
the burdens that local election officials will encounter due to a likely record
increase in voting by mail.
59.

The Supervisors are right to seek changes. The CDC, anticipating

difficulties in conducting elections during the COVID-19 crisis, has now
recommended that jurisdictions encourage voting by mail and reduce methods of
43 

voting that lead to direct contact with other voters or poll workers. Other federal,
state, and local officials have increasingly come to the same realization. Congress,
for example, has authorized $400 million to help states transition to voting-bymail.
60.

To date, at least fifteen states and Puerto Rico have been forced to

postpone their primary elections to avoid public health risks posed by the virus.
States that have not postponed their elections and attempted to conduct in-person
voting have seen utter chaos result. In Wisconsin, for example, Milwaukee was
forced to reduce its polling locations from 180 to just five locations because of a
severe shortage of poll workers, forcing voters to decide whether to risk their
health to cast their ballot and, ultimately, leading to thousands of Wisconsin
citizens being forced to stand in long lines for hours to cast their ballots, many
wearing masks, gloves, and other protective gear as they congregated together to
vote several hour-long lines at the polls. At least 50 individuals who participated in
the election have been diagnosed with COVID-19—a number that is anticipated to
grow.
61.

The inherent challenges to voting in-person during this pandemic led

voters in Wisconsin to request absentee ballots at unprecedented rates, with more
than a million voters requesting absentee ballots for the recent primary, four times
the number who did so in the 2016 general election. This increased interest in
44 

voting by mail, combined with decreases in available elections staff and other
social distancing efforts, placed a significant strain on local election boards, several
of which were not able to send voters a ballot in time for it to be returned—or even
delivered to them—by the normal Wisconsin Election Day Receipt Deadline. See
Democratic National Comm. v. Bostelmann, No. 20-cv-249-wmc, 2020 WL
1638374, at *38-39 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2020). This crisis ultimately necessitated
federal litigation that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in the
implementation of a postmark rule, whereby ballots postmarked by Election Day
could be counted as long as they are received within six days of Election Day. See
Republican Nat’l Comm., 2020 WL 1672702, at *2. Over 100,000 ballots in
Wisconsin were postmarked by, but arrived after, Election Day. Each of those
Wisconsin voters would have been disenfranchised without court intervention.
62.

Like Wisconsin, Florida did not postpone its March 17, 2020 PPP, and

counties’ election operations were acutely affected by the crisis, even though the
crisis was just beginning. Supervisors across the state reported significant poll
worker cancellations, including many at the last minute. Polling locations were
changed as many counties moved polling locations out of senior facilities. And on
Election Day, counties reported a significant lack of hand sanitizer. Shortly after
the PPP, at least two poll workers in Broward County tested positive for COVID19.
45 

63.

Across the state, the Supervisors anticipate that many of these

challenges will persist in the August Primary and November General, and that due
to a lack of desire to be in the same place as other individuals as well as continued
social distancing, there will be a significant increase in voting by mail.
64.

The Duval County Supervisor has reported that he will likely need to

replace more than half his poll workers, 60 percent of whom are older than 65, in
the upcoming elections. The Miami-Dade Supervisor is concerned that she will be
unable to secure the 600 polling locations necessary to conduct in-person voting,
while also preparing for an increase in mail voting. In Hillsborough County, the
Supervisor of Elections anticipates that mail balloting will double.
65.

Given that in 2018, with just 31 percent of voters voting by mail,

Supervisors across the state were unable to process mail ballot applications before
the statutory cutoff, leaving voters with insufficient time to mail them back before
the Election Day Receipt Deadline, it is all but certain (and understandable) that
they will be unable to process the influx of applications that they will receive for
the August Primary and November General in a timely fashion. This is precisely
what happened in Wisconsin in its April 7 primary election, resulting in over
100,000 ballots arriving after Election Day.
66.

An increase in voting by mail also means that a significant number of

voters who typically vote in person will be voting by mail, and many of those
46 

voters will be voting by mail the first time. These voters differ from current mail
voters in important respects that make them even more likely to be burdened by
having to pay for postage and by being required to have their ballots arrive by
Election Day instead of postmarked on or before Election Day. These first-time
mail voters, in particular, will require assistance in completing the mail voting
process.
67.

Compared to traditional mail voters, in-person voters tend to be of a

lower socio-economic status, meaning that as they transition to mail voting, they
are far more likely to face challenges in paying for or obtaining postage and, as
new mail voters, they are less likely to know how much postage is needed.
Moreover, given the devastating economic impacts of the coronavirus, many
voters’ sources of income have been eradicated due to the mounting crisis, further
increasing the number of individuals who likely will find the costs of stamps or the
costs of traveling to obtain stamps prohibitive in this increasingly desperate
economic situation.
68.

Given that many voters who switch to mail voting will be doing so

precisely because they are immunocompromised, have conditions placing them at
high risk for COVID-19, or are generally concerned about their health or the health
of their family and friends, they will be far less likely to venture out to purchase

47 

stamps if they do not already have them in their home or to leave home to go to the
post office to determine the proper amount.
69.

Those voters transitioning to mail voting from Election Day voting

also tend to be “late deciders;” that is, they decide who they will vote for later in
the process, typically at the end of the campaign. Because of that, they are more
likely to cast a mail ballot at the end of the voting process with only a few days to
go until Election Day.
70.

It is unremarkable that these voters would be more likely to cast their

vote-by-mail ballots later given that they are also likely to be less familiar with the
voting by mail, including the Election Day Receipt Deadline. Nor would it be
unreasonable for them to think that their ballots can be mailed later in the election
cycle as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, as many other deadlines in
Florida voters’ lives⸺including voter registration deadlines⸺are postmark
deadlines. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 97.053 (accepting voter registrations
postmarked by the deadline); id. § 101.6952 (accepting postmark deadlines for
overseas ballots); id. § 192.047 (applying a postmark deadline to tax returns or
applications); id. § 607.15092 (applying a postmark deadline to annual fees for
corporate registrations); id. § 197.582 (applying a postmark deadline for property
claim filings).

48 

71.

For the same reasons, these voters are much more likely to need

assistance with casting their ballots so that they can avoid the pitfalls that too often
lead to rejection. And absent the option for paid and trained organizers to help
collect their ballots, such assistance is likely to be hard to find as people continue
to social distance.
72.

Finally, at the same time that mail balloting increases, USPS is facing

a budget crisis that will likely lead to delays in mail delivery, raising particular
concerns for Florida, which already experiences slow and unreliable mail service
and, as a result, has had to ask voters to mail their ballots up to a week days before
Election Day even before COVID-19⸺and, even when that advice is followed, has
still had ballots arrive well after Election Day. Together, these circumstances
guarantee that as the COVID-19 crisis continues, Florida voters will find it
increasingly difficult to ensure that their ballots arrive before the Election Day
Receipt Deadline without assistance.
C.

The State Has No Adequate Interest in the Challenged Laws and
Policy Generally, and Even Less Interest During the Pandemic

73.

Even before the coronavirus crisis, the State’s interests in the

Challenged Provisions were thin. In the context of COVID-19, they are virtually
nonexistent.
74.

The State has no legitimate interest in imposing the Vote-By-Mail

Postage Requirement. Providing postage to allow citizens to complete voting as
49 

well as other important government-related functions is a common practice that has
been adopted by federal, state, and county governments. For instance, at least
sixteen states prepay postage on vote-by-mail ballots. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16542; Cal. Elec. Code § 3010; 15 Del. Code § 5504; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-102; Ind.
Code § 3-11-4-20; Iowa Code Ann. § 53.8; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 203B.07; Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 115.285; Mont. Code § 13-13-214; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.323; N. M. Stat.
Ann. § 1-6-8; Ore. Rev. Stat. § 254.473; R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-20-10; Wash. Rev.
Code § 29A.40.091; W. Va. Code Ann. § 3-3-5; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 6.87.  Likewise,
the United States Census Bureau sends census surveys with postage-prepaid return
envelopes. Florida provides, as the National Voter Registration Act requires, a
postage-prepaid return envelope when it asks voters to verify their address for the
purpose of voter registration. And, in its coronavirus stimulus package, Congress
allocated $400 million for elections, which can be used to cover the cost of
prepaying postage, among other expenses. 
75.

Moreover, studies have shown that sending absentee ballots in

postage-prepaid envelopes increases mail voting turnout. When King County,
Washington launched prepaid postage pilot programs during the 2017 and 2018
primary elections, the county found that voters returned their absentee ballots via
USPS at higher rates when they received return envelopes with postage prepaid. In
the 2016 general election, before pre-paid postage was implemented, 48% of the
50 

tested group of voters returned their absentee ballots via USPS. In 2017, after prepaid postage was implemented, 81% of those same voters did. Voters were not
only more likely to return their ballots by mail, they were also more likely to vote.
In the 2017 primary, turnout rose 10%. In the 2018 primary, it rose 6%. Following
these pilot programs, King County sent all absentee ballots with postage-prepaid
return envelopes. Shortly after that, the Governor and Secretary of State of
Washington funded prepaid postage for every county in the state. This experience
shows, not surprisingly, the enfranchising effects of prepaid postage and,
conversely, the impediments to voting that result from voters having to pay for
postage.
76.

The justifications for Election Day Receipt Deadline also fail to hold

water, and this is particularly true where the State has a history of mailing ballots
to voters after the statutory deadlines and known mail distribution challenges.
While Florida may set a reasonable deadline for receiving ballots to ensure the
finality of election results, the Election Day Receipt Deadline is not reasonable:
voters do not reasonably expect that they must submit their ballots so far in
advance of Election Day⸺particularly where they are not even receiving them
until mere days before. And where the vast majority of deadlines that voters
encounter in their daily lives, including the voter registration deadline and the
deadline for UOCAVA ballots, are postmark deadlines, it is all the more
51 

reasonable for voters, and especially new voters, to expect that their ballots will be
counted if they are postmarked by Election Day.
77.

The Election Day Receipt Deadline is also unnecessary to ensure that

all ballots are received and counted within a reasonable time. In fact, as noted,
ballots from overseas voters are not required to be received until ten days after
Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day.2 Fla. Stat. Ann. §
101.6952. Thus, vote tallies are not final on Election Day, and there is no reason
that regular vote-by-mail ballots could not be placed on the same timeline as
UOCAVA ballots. This is particularly true during the pandemic where mailing
delays are imminent and in-state voters now find themselves similarly positioned
to UOCAVA voters in that regard.
78.

Finally, the State’s justifications for the Voter Assistance Ban are also

weak. Indeed, voter fraud is extremely rare in Florida. Moreover, Florida has other
protections in place that would better protect directly against such actions such as
prohibiting: fraud in connection with casting a vote, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 104.041, the
designation of a choice on a ballot for another person, id. § 104.047, voting a

2

The term “postmark” refers to any type of imprint applied by the postal service to
indicate the location and date the postal service accepts custody of a piece of mail,
including bar codes, circular stamps, or other tracking marks. Where a ballot does
not bear a postmark date, it should be presumed to have been mailed on or before
Election Day unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates it was mailed
after Election Day.
52 

fraudulent ballot, id. § 104.16, as well as “vote-buying” and “vote-selling,” id. §§
104.061(2), 104.045. This kind of voter assistance is particularly needed in the
current crisis where existing methods of turning in ballots through volunteers are
increasingly less likely to occur as people attempt to socially distance and paid,
trained, and organized campaign staff may be the only functional way to assist
people with turning in their ballots in the August Primary and November General
elections.
79.

Absent relief from this Court the individual and cumulative impacts of

the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt Deadline, and Voter
Assistance Ban will impose a severe burden on Florida voters, deterring them from
participating in the August Primary and November General and disenfranchising
them. If these laws stand, many Florida voters will find themselves faced with the
same unconscionable choice that Wisconsin voters faced on April 7⸺their health
and safety versus their right to vote. This Court has the ability to ensure that both
are protected, and it should do so.

53 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Equal Protection
U.S. Const. Amend. I & XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Undue Burden on the Right to Vote
(Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter Assistance Ban, & Vote-by-Mail Postage
Requirement)
80.

Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-79 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth therein.
81. Under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, a court considering a
challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and
magnitude of injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff
seeks to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State for the burdens
imposed by the rule. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson
v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983).
82. This balancing test utilizes a flexible sliding scale, where the
rigorousness of scrutiny depends upon the extent to which the challenged law
burdens voting rights. See Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312,
1318–19 (11th Cir. 2019). 
83. Courts need not accept a state’s justifications at face value, particularly
where those justifications are “speculative,” otherwise it “would convert AndersonBurdick’s means-end fit framework into ordinary rational-basis review wherever

54 

the burden a challenged regulation imposes is less than severe.” Soltysik v. Padilla,
910 F.3d 438, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Pub. Integrity All., 836 F.3d at 1024–
25); see also Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008)
(Stevens, J., controlling op.) (“However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it must
be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify
the limitation.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added);
Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla., 915 F.3d at 1318-19 (“And even when a law
imposes only a slight burden on the right to vote, relevant and legitimate interests
of sufficient weight still must justify that burden. The more a challenged law
burdens the right to vote, the stricter the scrutiny to which we subject that law.”).
84.

Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement, Election Day Receipt

Deadline, and Voter Assistance Ban impose a severe burden on all Florida voters
who vote by mail.
85.

Florida’s Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement imposes monetary costs

on the only safe alternative to voting for individuals who would otherwise have to
subject themselves to the health risks of waiting to vote at the few consolidated and
potentially crowded polling locations available. These costs bear most heavily on
low-income voters and those who are affected by the devastating economic impact
of the ongoing public health emergency. Even for voters able to withstand the
economic costs, the postage requirement imposes practical burdens—i.e., traveling
55 

to a post office to purchase stamps—that will deter voters with disabilities, limited
access to transportation, and voters concerned about the attendant health risks.
There is little justification for failing to provide such postage given the benefits for
voter turnout as well as the ready source of funding provided by the federal
government. Thus, Florida’s failure to provide an opportunity for eligible citizens
to vote by mail, without cost, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
86.

The Election Day Receipt Deadline also poses a severe burden on

voters’ right to vote. Voters must first learn about the Election Day Receipt
Deadline and accurately guess when their ballot must be mailed for it to be
counted, if they have even received their ballot in time to mail it. For those voters
who, through no fault of their own, misjudge how long it will take for their ballot
to arrive back in the county, or for those whose ballots are simply left unopened in
a mail processing center, or do not reach the voter until a day or two before
Election Day, the punishment is swift and severe: total disenfranchisement. But
Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline also severely burdens all voters who vote
by mail even if those voters’ ballots are successfully counted. By requiring voters
to cast their vote-by- vote-by-mail ballots a week before the election for those
ballots to be counted, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline forces Florida
voters to cast their ballots before they can account for any critical information
about the election or the candidates that arise in the final week leading up to
56 

Election Day. Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline thus deprives voters of the
ability in to engage in this robust period of civic engagement, because it effectively
requires them to have already cast their vote. Moreover, the magnitude of
individuals burdened by the Election Day Receipt Deadline is certain to rise in the
August Primary and November General in light of the current public-health
emergency due to increased mail delays and processing times needed for
Supervisors to vote-by-mail ballots out.
87.

Similarly, the Voter Assistance Ban imposes a severe burden on the

right to vote because it will effectively disenfranchise voters who require
assistance turning in their vote-by-mail ballots, but lack access to a family member
or friend who is able to provide such assistance. The State’s interest in enforcing
the Voter Assistance Ban cannot justify disenfranchising voters who require
assistance but lack individuals to provide it. Other Florida laws already criminalize
any exercise of undue influence or voting fraud that might be captured by the
Voter Assistance Ban.
88.

In short, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter Assistance

Ban, and Vote-by-Mail Postage Requirement are not supported by a state interest
that is sufficient to justify the resulting burden on the right to vote, and thus unduly
burden the right to vote of all Florida voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
57 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment: 
A. Declaring that Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline, Voter
Assistance Ban, and Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement violate the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
B.

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, Defendants, their respective
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in
concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are
postmarked by Election Day and arrive at their respective Supervisor’s
office within ten days;

C.

Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective agents,
officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert
with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance Ban,
allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid or not⸺to
assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail ballots;

D. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective agents,
officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert
with each or any of them, from requiring that voters provide postage on
their vote-by-mail ballots and further require that Florida provide
prepaid postage on all vote-by-mail ballots;
E.

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws;
and

F.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

58 

COUNT II
Due Process
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Procedural Due Process
(Election Day Receipt Deadline)
89.

Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-79 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
90.

The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits

the states from depriving “any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Which protections are due in a given case
requires a careful analysis of the importance of the rights and the other interests at
stake. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976); Nozzi v. Hous. Auth.
of City of L.A., 806 F.3d 1178, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015). Courts must first consider
“the nature of the interest that will be affected” by the government’s action as well
as the “degree of potential deprivation that may be created” by existing procedures.
Id. at 1192–93. Second, “courts must consider the ‘fairness and reliability’ of the
existing procedures and the ‘probable value, if any, of additional procedural
safeguards.’” Id. at 1193 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343). Finally, courts must
consider “the public interest, which ‘includes the administrative burden and other
societal costs that would be associated with’ additional or substitute procedures. Id.
(quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347). Overall, “due process is flexible and calls for
59 

such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews, 424
U.S. at 334, (quotation and citation omitted).
91.

Florida’s vote-by-mail procedures must comport with due process.

See Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1358 (D.
Ariz. 1990). “Such due process is not provided when the election procedures [for
voting by mail]” do not adequately protect the right to vote or ensure that an
“individual is not continually and repeatedly denied so fundamental a right.” Id.;
see also Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 217 (D.N.H. 2018) (“Having
induced voters to vote by absentee ballot, the State must provide adequate process
to ensure that voters’ ballots are fairly considered and, if eligible, counted.”).
92.

“When an election process reache[s] the point of patent and

fundamental unfairness,’ there is a due process violation.” Fla. State Conference of
N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1183 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Roe v.
Alabama, 43 F.3d 574, 580 (11th Cir. 1995)). A state’s elections system, “the
specifics of which are not explicitly made known to potential voters, that leaves
potential voters in the dark as to its effect on a voter’s [ability to vote] and that fails
to give voters a fair opportunity to [participate], is fundamentally unfair and
violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 1185.

60 

93.

The nature of the interest at stake in this case⸺the right to vote and to

have that vote count⸺is the most precious liberty interest of all because it is
preservative of all other basic civil and political rights.
94.

But Florida’s existing procedures for counting vote-by-mail ballots

too often deprive voters of having their ballot counted because (1) many voters do
not learn of the Election Day Receipt Deadline before Election Day, and (2) even
voters who do learn of the Election Day Receipt Deadline may not have their
ballots counted if those ballots do not arrive in the mail at the county Supervisor’s
office, through no fault of their own, by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Florida’s Election
Day Receipt Deadline further deprives all Florida voters who vote by mail of the
ability to cast a meaningful and informed vote by requiring voters to cast their
ballots a full week before Election Day if they wish to ensure that their ballots will
actually be counted.
95.

Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline is neither a reliable nor fair

way to administer voting by mail. The Election Day Receipt Deadline and the
corresponding cutoff for casting ballots is, in fact, devoid of reliability because
many voters are not even sent their vote-by-mail ballots until after the mailing
cutoff, leaving them with no options for placing their ballots in the mail to be
counted. Nor is the Election Day Receipt Deadline fair because it forces those

61 

voters to cast their ballots with incomplete information and before candidates have
delivered their final pitches to the voters.
96.

The value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards to ensure

that the votes of Florida’s mail voters are both meaningfully cast and actually
counted is readily apparent. A substitute procedure⸺requiring vote-by-mail ballots
to be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the county within, at a
minimum, ten days after Election Day to be counted⸺solves the inequities
inherent in Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline. A postmark date not only
offers a reliable date to Florida voters by which they must cast their ballots, but it
also ensures that voters who receive their ballots late through no fault of their own,
are still able to engage in the franchise. A postmark date additionally ensures that
all of Florida’s voters can consider any information that may arise and influence
voters’ choices in the last week of the election.
97.

Because Florida counties are not required to finalize its election

results for twelve days after the election, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.112, and already
allows UOCAVA voters to mail their ballots in for up to ten days after Election
Day, see Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 101.6952(5), requiring Florida to accept ballots that are
postmarked on or before Election Day and which arrive within ten days of Election
Day would put no administrative burden on the state. And, as the Supreme Court

62 

has explained, “administrative convenience” cannot justify the deprivation of a
constitutional right. See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 535 (1975).
98.

Having induced its voters to vote by mail, Florida must establish

adequate procedures to ensure that voters have a reliable, fair, and effective
method to cast their ballots. Because Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline is
markedly inadequate in all those respects, and Florida is readily capable of
instituting a substitute procedure which would protect those voters’ rights with
minimal burden to the state, Florida’s Election Day Receipt Deadline violates
Florida voters’ procedural due process rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment: 
A.

Declaring that the Election Day Receipt Deadline violates the Due
Process Clause;

B.

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, Defendants, their respective
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in
concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are
postmarked by Election Day and arrive at their respective
Supervisor’s office within ten days;

C.

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable
laws;

D.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

63 

COUNT III
Poll Tax
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and XXIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Imposition of a Poll Tax
(Vote-by-Mail-Postage Requirement)
99.

Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference paragraphs 1-79 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
100. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice
President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax
or other tax.” U.S. Const. amend XXIV, § 1.
101. But Florida requires individuals who cast a mail ballot to pay for
postage to return their ballots by mail. Requiring voters to spend money to submit
a mail ballot imposes an unconstitutional poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth
Amendment. Indeed, Florida voters⸺and particularly voters who are low-income,
disabled, or homebound due to COVID-19⸺are being forced to pay “a price for
the privilege of exercising the franchise.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528,
539 (1965).
102. Based on the foregoing, the Secretary has deprived and will continue
to deprive Plaintiffs and their members and constituents of their right to vote in
64 

federal elections, secured to them by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment:
A.

Declaring that the Vote-By-Mail Postage Requirement violates the
Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments as an unconstitutional
poll tax;

B.

Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in
concert with each or any of them, from requiring that voters provide
postage on their vote-by-mail ballots and further require that Florida
provide prepaid postage on all vote-by-mail ballots;

C.

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable
laws; and

D.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT IV
Free Speech and Association
U.S. Const. Amend. I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of Free Speech and Associational Rights
(Voter Assistance Ban)

103. Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza reallege and reincorporate by
reference paragraphs 1-79 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

65 

104. The First Amendment protects against the promulgation of laws
“prohibiting the free exercise [of] or abridg[ment] of freedom of speech.” U.S.
Const. amend. I.
105.

The Supreme Court has applied “exacting scrutiny” to review laws

governing election-related speech. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514
U.S. 334, 345 (1995); see also League of Women Voters v. Hargett, 400 F. Supp.
3d 706, 722 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (“[L]aws that govern the political process
surrounding

elections—and,

in

particular,

election-related

speech

and

association—go beyond merely the intersection between voting rights and election
administration, veering instead into the area where ‘the First Amendment has its
fullest and most urgent application.’”) (quoting Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent.
Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989)). Restrictions on such speech are
unconstitutional when they “significantly inhibit” election-related speech and
association and are “not warranted by the state interests . . . alleged to justify [the]
restrictions.” Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 192 (1999).
106.

Voter turnout efforts, including assisting voters with the submission

of vote-by-mail ballots, are a means by which Plaintiffs Priorities USA and
Alianza communicate their belief in the power and importance of participating in
democratic elections. Such activity is “the type of interactive communication
concerning political change that is appropriately described as ‘core political
66 

speech.’” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23 (1988); see League of Women
Voters, 400 F. Supp. 3d at 720 (“Encouraging others to register to vote is pure
speech, and, because that speech is political in nature, it is a core First Amendment
activity.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). And it does not
matter if the individuals performing those acts are paid, trained organizers or
volunteers. The act of assisting voters to submit ballots by any individuals is
inherently expressive and an individual or organization that conducts such
activities engages in speech by encouraging voting. See Bernbeck v. Moore, 126
F.3d 1114, 1115 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejecting the argument that regulating an election
“process” raises no First Amendment concerns).
107. Furthermore, under the United States Constitution, First Amendment
rights “include the right to band together for the advancement of political beliefs.”
Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 364 (1969). “An organization’s attempt to broaden
the base of public participation in and support for its activities is conduct
‘undeniably central to the exercise of the right of association.’” Am. Ass’n of
People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1202 (D.N.M. 2010)
(citing Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 214-15 (1986)).
108. The conversations and interactions between Plaintiffs Priorities and
Alianza and their respective organizers and voters surrounding the submission of
ballots are forms of protected political speech and association. See Williams v.
67 

Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968) (describing the “overlapping” rights “of
individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs” and “of qualified
voters . . . to cast their votes effectively”); Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F. Supp.
2d 694, 700-01 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (explaining that “participation in voter
registration implicates a number of both expressive and associational rights which .
. . belong to—and may be invoked by—not just the voters seeking to register, but
by third parties who encourage participation in the political process”). Florida’s
Voter Assistance Ban violates that speech by “limit[ing] the number of voices who
will convey [Priorities USA and Alianza’s] message,” and “the size of the audience
they can reach.” Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422-23. Indeed, given the current public-health
crisis, the form of speech that Priorities USA and Alianza seek to engage in is “the
most effective, fundamental, and [likely] economical avenue of political
discourse,” yet it is directly foreclosed by the Voter Assistance Ban. Id. at 424.
109. Moreover, the threat of criminal penalties for violating the Voter
Assistance Ban deters individuals from participating in Plaintiff Priorities USA and
Alianza’s get-out-the-vote efforts and thus has a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ getout-the-vote efforts—the means by which Plaintiffs associate with each other and
voters, and communicate with voters about the importance of voting. See League
of Women Voters, 400 F. Supp. 3d at 720 (noting that even the threat of civil

68 

penalties “is likely to have a chilling effect on the entirety of [a voter registration]
drive, including its communicative aspects.”).
110. These burdens are severe, and the Voter Assistance Ban are not
narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. The Voter Assistance Ban
thus represent an overbroad restriction on political speech and political organizing
that infringes the constitutional rights of Priorities USA, Alianza, and other
Floridians.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment:
A.

Declaring that the Voter Assistance Ban violates the First Amendment
as an unreasonable restriction on speech and association;

B.

Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in
concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance
Ban, thus allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid
or not⸺to assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail
ballots;

C.

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable
laws; and

D.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

69 

COUNT V
Violation of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
52 U.S.C. § 10508
Preemption
(Voter Assistance Ban)
111. Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Alianza reallege and reincorporate by
reference paragraphs 1-79 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
112. The Voter Assistance Ban conflicts with and violates Section 208 of
the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10508, and is thus preempted and invalid.
Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 (2008) (“[S]tate laws that conflict with
federal law are without effect.”) (citations omitted); Gade v Nat’l Solid Wastes
Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) (conflict preemption occurs when (a) where
state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress, or (b) “where state law stands as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
Congress”) (quotation marks omitted).
113. Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act provides that “[a]ny voter who
requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or
write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice.” Within the
context of the Voting Rights Act, the act of voting includes “all action necessary to
make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.” 52 U.S.C. §
10310(c)(1). This includes casting an absentee ballot. OCA-Greater Hous. v.
70 

Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 615 (5th Cir. 2017) (“‘To vote,’ therefore, plainly
contemplates more than the mechanical act of filling out the ballot sheet. It
includes steps in the voting process before entering the ballot box, ‘registration,’
and it includes steps in the voting process after leaving the ballot box, ‘having such
ballot counted properly.’ Indeed, the definition lists ‘casting a ballot’ as only one
example in a non-exhaustive list of actions that qualify as voting.”). Section 208’s
only limitation on this right is that the person providing assistance may not be
connected to the voter’s employer or union.
114. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to correct entrenched “racial
discrimination in voting” that was “an insidious and pervasive evil.” South
Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309 (1966). In recommending that Section
208 be added to the Voting Rights Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized
that voters with disabilities “run the risk that they will be discriminated against at
the polls and that their right to vote in State and Federal elections will not be
protected.” S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 62 (1982). To limit that risk, those voters “must
be permitted to have the assistance of a person of their own choice.” Id.
115. Section 208 preempts the Voter Assistance Ban because state law
criminalizes conduct expressly allowed by Section 208. The Voter Assistance Ban
unlawfully limits the rights afforded to voters by Section 208 by prohibiting voters
who need help returning their vote by mail ballots from receiving assistance from
71 

the person of their choice. Under Florida law, a voter is not free to choose anyone
they like to help return an absentee ballot. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 104.0616. Section
208 cannot be interpreted to permit the Voter Assistance Ban to stand. See OCAGreater Hous., 867 F.3d 604 (Section 208 preempted a Texas law restricting who
may provide interpretation assistance to English-limited voters); United States v.
Berks Cty., Pa., 277 F. Supp. 2d 570, 580 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (county election law
restricting who may provide language assistance to Spanish-speaking voters
violated Section 208).
116. In fact, in its report recommending that this protection be added to the
Voting Rights Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee noted that state restrictions that
“deny the assistance at some stages of the voting process during which assistance
was needed” would violate Section 208. S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 63 (1982). By
prohibiting a voter who needs assistance completing their absentee ballot
application from being helped by anyone who offers to help them, the Voter
Assistance Ban also violates Section 208.
117. The Voter Assistance Ban affects Florida citizens with disabilities
disproportionately. According to the CDC, approximately 28.1% of adults in
Florida suffer from some disability. CDC, Disability & Health U.S. State Profile
Data

for

Florida

(Adults

18+

years

of

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/impacts/florida.html.
72 

age),
In

2012,

“close to one-tenth of people with disabilities who voted by mail reported having
difficulties in doing so, saying they needed assistance filling out or sending the
ballot.” Lisa Schur et al., Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for
People with Disabilities, 14 Election Law J. 60, 63 (2015).
118. Defendants’ enforcement of the Voter Assistance Ban prevents
Florida voters with disabilities from receiving the voting assistance that Section
208 of the Voting Rights Act guarantees them.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment:
A.

Declaring that the Voter Assistance Ban is preempted by Section 208
of the Voting Rights Act;

B.

Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their respective
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in
concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance
Ban, thus allowing voters to designate any third party⸺whether paid
or not⸺to assist in the collection and submission of their vote-by-mail
ballots;

C.

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable
laws; and

D.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

73 

Dated: May 4, 2020

By: /s/ Frederick S. Wermuth
Frederick S. Wermuth
Florida Bar No.: 0184111
KING, BLACKWELL, ZEHNDER
& WERMUTH, P.A.
P.O. Box 1631
Orlando, FL 32802-1631
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Marc E. Elias
John Devaney*
Amanda R. Callais*
Christina A. Ford*
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Lilian Timmermann*
PERKINS COIE LLP
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
* Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming

74