article: <b>NOTE: This case is being tracked in close to real time by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project. So for more current information, see <a href="https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/"> their tracker</a>.</b> COVID-19 summary: This case sought emergency voting measures related to COVID-19 for the Florida presidential primary on March 17, 2020. These were denied, but a motion for measures relating to future elections remains pending. <hr> The Florida presidential primary occurred on March 17, 2020. At that time, Florida had reported 149 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and the State of Florida had taken numerous restrictions in response to COVID-19. Universities sent students home, Supervisors of Elections closed or moved numerous polling stations, and numerous individuals were in quarantine. Concerned about the potential large-scale voter disenfranchisement due to COVID-19 restrictions, on March 16, 2020, Dream Defenders, the New Florida Majority Education Fund, Organize Florida, and several individuals prevented from voting due to COVID-19 restrictions, filed this lawsuit against the Governor of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive and declaratory relief that would order the state to implement additional voting measures and enjoin it from enforcing the existing voting deadlines. They alleged that the State of Florida “failed to take reasonable emergency measures” for voter participation, such as extending deadlines for absentee ballots and expanding vote-by-mail options. Represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, DEMOS, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit under § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of their opportunity to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment and failed to provide reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Immediately, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. They asked the court to order the state to expand access to vote-by-mail options, extend deadlines, permit curbside voting, and communicate these changes to Floridians. The defendants did not respond to the emergency motion; however, noting that the temporary restraining order had been filed at 11:16 pm on the eve of the primary, Judge Robert Hinkle denied the motion on March 17, 2020, stating that granting the order would be “adverse to the public interest.” The plaintiffs renewed their request later that day, discarding the request for curbside voting, but continuing to request extended access to vote-by-mail and absentee options. On March 18, 2020 Judge Hinkle denied this motion with respect to the March 17 primary. He noted it “would be adverse to the public interest to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction blocking the Secretary of State and Supervisors of Elections from processing the results of the March 17 presidential primary in accordance with the governing Florida statutes.” The motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to future elections remained pending. On March 18, 2020, the Court set the schedule for briefing on the remaining part of the preliminary-injunction motion: the defendants response is due on April 20, 2020, the discovery deadline is June 5, 2020, and a consolidated hearing on the preliminary injunction will occur during the two weeks after July 20, 2020. On April 20, plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, and by mid-May they requested leave to file a second amended complaint.
summary: Florida voting rights organizations tried unsuccessfully to institute emergency measures before the Florida Presidential Primary after emergency measures initiated in response to COVID-19 kept Floridians from requesting absentee ballots in time or travelling to the polls.