by Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit in part cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent discouraging judicial intervention in elections too close to election day, lest doing so confuse voters.
That 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez didn’t define what “too close” means, but the 11th Circuit panel comprising Kevin Newsom, Barbara Lagoa, and Andrew Brasher — each appointed by former President Donald Trump — concluded that because preparations for the elections were already underway the state is entitled to enforce its law (SB 90). Lagoa is from Florida.
Judge faulted
The unsigned opinion faults Chief Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee for failure to extend a presumption of good faith. President Barack Obama appointed him in 2012.
“The Supreme Court has instructed that when a court assesses whether duly enacted statute is tainted by discriminatory intent, the good faith of the state legislature must be presumed,” the panel wrote.
“For starters, in its 288-page opinion, the district court never once mentioned the presumption. And while we do not require courts to incant magic words, it does not appear to us that the district court here meaningfully accounted for the presumption at all.”
There was no immediate reaction from Gov. Ron DeSantis, who pushed the Legislature into enacting the restrictions and predicted the state would prevail on appeal.
In fact, in his March 31 ruling Walker sketched an extensive history of legislative bad faith toward Black voters since Reconstruction and found that lawmakers haven’t let up even recently.
“At some point, when the Florida Legislature passes law after law disproportionately burdening Black voters, this court can no longer accept that the effect is incidental. Based on the indisputable pattern set out above, this court finds that, in the past 20 years, Florida has repeatedly sought to make voting tougher for Black voters because of their propensity to favor Democratic candidates” Walker wrote.
Yet, the appellate panel concluded: “At least on our preliminary review, the district court’s inquiry does not seem appropriately focus[ed] limited.”
Burdens imposed
Specifically, Walker struck down language imposing burdens on organizations that conduct voter-registration drives in Black communities; restrictions on use of ballot drop boxes in locations and during hours most useful to Black voters; and a ban on “line warming,” or provision of food, water, and other assistance to people waiting in line to vote — which is more common in Black precincts.
He also ordered the state to submit any future revisions in those areas for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal courts for the next 10 years.
The state had agreed to suspend enforcement of the targeted provisions pending further developments. Now that the 11th Circuit panel has blocked enforcement of each of those aspects of Walker’s ruling pending further proceedings, the state is entitled to apply them.
The League of Women Voters of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Fair Elections Center, the Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters were among the voting-rights organizations that sued to block the law.
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.
Republished with permission[/vc_message]
