VOTER PROTECTION: LITIGATION

Florida | Georgia | Louisiana | Ohio | Virginia

Ohio

Advancement Project Intervenes in DNC v. RNC on Behalf of Ohio Voter

Click on the documents below to read the pleadings (* indicates a document that is unedited):

SUMMARY: Registering Persons Previously Convicted of a Felony
This document clarifies that a person previously convicted of a felony cannot be denied the right to register to vote. Ohio law provides that so long as a person with the felony conviction is not incarcerated at the time he or she registers to vote he or she is an eligible elector.

Florida

FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT RULING THAT FLORIDA’S “NO MATCH, NO VOTE” STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL STATUTES

Advancement Project, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and Project Vote are disappointed with a ruling in a Florida voting case issued on April 3, 2008 from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but made clear their determination to press forward with the lawsuit. The ruling, in part, reversed a Florida federal trial court’s decision that blocked a Florida state law prohibiting applicants from registering to vote if the state cannot match or otherwise validate the driver’s license or Social Security number on a registration form.

Click here to read the court’s ruling.

THIRD-PARTY VOTER REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS TEMPORARILY HALTED IN FLORIDA

On November 30, 2007, Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning agreed that he will not enforce the amended version of the third-party voter registration restrictions, scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2008, while a temporary standstill agreement with plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the law is in effect. As long as the temporary agreement remains in effect, the amended third-party voter registration law will not be enforced against any voter registration drive.

Click here to read the stipulation

Voting Rights Advocates Reach Agreement with Florida Supervisors of Elections
In Federal Lawsuit Challenging Voter Registration Law

A Federal District Court approved a settlement agreement between voting rights advocates and Supervisors of Elections from Broward, Duval, Orange, and Palm Beach counties (the “Supervisors”) on a law that currently bars Florida citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote from correcting certain mistakes or omissions in their voter registration applications after the “close of books” deadline, which is twenty-nine days before each election. The Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections also participated in settlement negotiations, and Miami-Dade County is expected to approve the Settlement when their Board of County Commissions meets later this month. In their lawsuit, voting rights advocates challenged this law and sought a “grace period” between the close of books and Election Day during which eligible citizens can correct their applications so that they may vote in upcoming elections. In the settlement agreement, the Supervisors agreed to implement a grace period should the law be changed to permit such a policy. Supervisors also agreed to pay certain fees and executed a joint declaration concerning the grace period sought by the voting rights advocates.

Voting Rights Advocates Challenge Florida Registration Law in Federal Court

On September 17, 2007 voting rights advocates filed suit in a US District Court to strike down a statewide election law that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections. The law bars any Florida citizen from registering to vote if the state cannot match or otherwise validate the driver’s license or Social Security number on a registration form, an error-laden practice already struck down by a federal judge in Washington State. Plaintiffs bringing today’s suit, including the Florida branch of the NAACP, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition, contend that the matching law unduly delayed or denied registrations for at least 20,000 Florida voters in 2006. Click here to read the press release

ADVANCEMENT PROJECT DISAPPOINTED WITH COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE NVRA

On April 7, 2006, Advancement Project, along with the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, filed an amended complaint in its ongoing litigation on behalf of individual Florida voters and labor organizations, challenging the denial of thousands of valid voter registration applications and the failure to provide applicants whose applications were unlawfully deemed incomplete with timely notice or an opportunity to cure their application.

Advancement Project Appeals FL Third Party Registration Case

On December 4, 2006, Advancement Project, along with co-counsel, filed a brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting that the court uphold the lower court's ruling in League of Women Voters v. Cobb.* In August, the lower court barred enforcement of Florida's restrictive third party registration statute, following a hearing that included compelling testimony from plaintiffs and witnesses about the impact of this law on groups doing on-the-ground voter registration work. The state's appeal of this injunction included many of the arguments that did not prevail in the District Court. In the responsive brief, we relied heavily on the District Court's findings, which strongly supported the arguments we made and extensively quoted from our plaintiffs and witnesses.

The state will have the opportunity to file another brief, which is due on December 28, 2006. As this case continues, the injunction remains in place and groups can conduct registration without fear of incurring the staggering fines imposed by the statute.

*For background information on this case, read "Testimony Highlights Burdens of Florida Law on Historically Disenfranchised Citizens," Democracy in Action, Vol. 1 Issue 2, August 2006 and "Florida Third-Party Voter Registration Case Ends in Victory," Democracy in Action, Vol 1 Issue 3, September 2006.

ADVANCEMENT PROJECT CONSIDERS OPTIONS IN FLORIDA CHECKBOXES CASE

Advancement Project is disappointed with a recent action by the federal court in Miami, which for the second time has dismissed claims in a case challenging the rejection of voter registration forms in Florida because applicants accidentally failed to mark one of several small, redundant, and immaterial checkboxes on the FL registration form. After Advancement Project succeeded on appeal in overturning the district court's 2004 dismissal of this case, the case was returned to the same federal judge. On June 21, that judge issued an order dismissing claims about the checkboxes themselves, but allowed to go forward our claims that defendants failed to provide voter registration applicants with timely notice or an opportunity to cure purported deficiencies. Advancement Project believes that the dismissal of some of our claims is in error and we are currently weighing our options.

Click here for more information:

Click below to view related documents in Diaz v. Cobb in chronological order:

Virginia

ADVANCEMENT PROJECT WINS LAWSUIT AGAINST NORFOLK, VA REGISTRAR AND GAINS ACCESS TO LETTERS SENT TO REJECTED VOTER APPLICANTS

Advancement Project attorney Andrew A. Rivera sued the Norfolk general registrar Elisa J. Long for "unduly restrictive and unlawful registration procedures," in an effort to force the City of Norfolk to provide records that would allow us to investigate why large numbers of voters were rejected before the November 2005 statewide election. Last week, the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia ruled that Mr. Rivera is entitled to denial letters sent to voters, while rejecting Mr. Rivera's request to view the denied voter registration forms. Click to read the opinion.

Louisiana

Acorn v. Blanco Ruling

Advancement Project is extremely disappointed at the recent ruling of Judge Ivan Lemelle against providing satellite polling places to Katrina evacuees currently residing outside of the state of Louisiana. The suit was filed to force the state of Louisiana to provide satellite voting in places where large numbers of Katrina victims were temporarily residing. Current Louisiana election law fails to ensure that displaced residents will be able to exercise their voting rights if displaced. If this ruling stands, thousands of displaced victims of Katrina will have to travel great distances in order to cast their ballot. Click to learn more about the ruling or to listen to the Audio News Release.

Acorn v. Blanco

This document is the complaint filed in the lawsuit against Louisiana state officials for gross violations against the Voting Rights Act for failing to ensure that the voting rights of displaced residents are protected.

Moore vs. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis

Plaintiffs in this class action sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Missouri Constitution and Missouri election laws for the disproportionate disenfranchisement of African American voters in St. Louis. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that African Americans were disproportionately disenfranchised by the St. Louis Election Board's flawed inactive voter lists, inadequate and malfunctioning voting equipment and machines, deficient training of election judges, inadequate staffing of polling places, lack of sample balloting machines, insufficient assistance to voters needing help completing their ballot, implementing improper identification requirements, and general lack of resources and facilities.

Georgia

Georgia's Attempt to Stifle Third Party Voter Registration—DEFEATED!
Court Rules Law Violates First Amendment

Plaintiffs emerged victorious in a legal battle opposing a growing nationwide trend targeting third party voter registration groups' ability to continue engaging in highly successful voter registration and civic engagement efforts in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Teaming up with Project Vote and Bradley E. Heard of the Atlanta-based law firm of Molden Holley Fergusson Thompson & Heard LLC, Advancement Project pushed back on the State of Georgia's most recent attempt to hinder these drives. In ACORN, et al. v. Cathy Cox, plaintiffs challenged the legality of a regulation preventing anyone from photocopying completed voter registration applications and requiring that every completed voter registration application be sealed before it is handed over to a third person, party, or organization. (For background information on ACORN v. Cox, read "Advancement Project Sues Georgia State Election Board over Unconstitutional Voting Restrictions,"Democracy in Action, September 2006).

On September 27, 2006, United States District Court Judge Jack T. Camp ruled that the new regulation infringes upon voter registration groups' First Amendment rights, granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and prohibiting the state of Georgia from enforcing the regulation in question.

"This ruling highlights both the importance of the First Amendment in protecting the right to vote in this country, and the continued need for the watchful eyes of the federal judiciary system to ensure that the right to vote is adequately protected—particularly for those youth, minority, elderly, and other citizens who have traditionally been underrepresented in the nation's political process," said Bradley E. Heard, a founding member of the Atlanta law firm Molden Holley Fergusson Thompson & Heard, LLC, who is serving as lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

The State of Georgia has a long history of noncompliance with federal laws establishing voting rights. In other cases, the courts have declared Georgia's statutes to violate the National Voter Registration Act and upheld the federally protected rights of private groups to conduct organized voter registration activities. "This ruling is a victory for voter registration groups and historically disenfranchised low-income communities in Georgia,"said Elizabeth Westfall, senior attorney for the Advancement Project. "Voter registration organizations can now restart their operations in Georgia."