Case: Grimes v. Florida Department of State

This case involved the question of whether Florida is constitutionally required to provide voters with the option to vote by mail-in ballot, regardless of whether such a ballot is requested.

Three Florida registered voters filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida on May 12, 2020. The Plaintiffs were a home-bound elderly man, a religious leader that worked with the elderly, and a retired law enforcement official that also worked with the elderly. Defendants included the Florida Department of State, Florida Division of Elections, Laurel M. Lee in her capacity as the Secretary of State of Florida, and Mark Early in his capacity as Leon County Supervisor of Elections and State. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. Plaintiffs cited Section 101.62(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which provides that a voter may request a mail-in ballot if the request is made in person or in writing. The case was initially assigned to Judge Ronald W. Flury but was reassigned to Judge Charles W. Dodson on the same day. In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Section 101.62(1)(a) was improperly read to provide that mail-in ballots should only be sent to a voter upon request. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. They sought declarative relief to determine that Section 101.62(1)(a) does not preclude Defendants from automatically providing voters with mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to require Florida and the County Supervisor of Elections to 1) automatically send mail-in ballots to all registered voters in the country, whether requested or not; 2) include with the ballot a stamped, self-addressed return envelope; and 3) extend the period of time for processing mail-in ballots. During the Coronavirus pandemic, several states (e.g., California, Oregon, Utah) shifted to automatically sending mail-in ballots to voters. Plaintiffs cited these state practices and claimed that implementing them in Florida would be favorable to the public interest because it would support the integrity of the voting process at a time when the pandemic prevented people from safely accessing the voting centers.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 7, 2020. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs lacked standing because they alleged no personal harm from the existing mail-in ballot framework. They also argued that that no actual controversy existed between the parties and as evidenced by the request for declaratory judgment in the form of an advisory opinion. Finally, they argued that Plaintiffs failed to state what constitutional cause of action gave rise to their request for an injunction and failed to join indispensable parties (i.e. the Election Supervisors in the counties where the Plaintiffs resided). On July 15, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice filed by the Department of Florida and the Secretary of State. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice filed by Defendant Mark Early.

In response, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 29, 2020, dropping the original three plaintiffs from the case and adding two new plaintiffs, an elderly woman and the Farm Workers Association of Florida. The amended complaint also dropped Mark Early as a defendant but added Christina White in her capacity as Supervisor of Elections in Miami-Dade County and Bill Cowles in his capacity as Supervisor of Elections in Orange County. The complaint cited the 1st and 14th Amendment as supporting the right to vote and argued that a cumbersome election process violates constitutional protections. In all other relevant respects, the amended complaint mirrored the original complaint. On August 5, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. They argued that the former plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint but with none of those plaintiffs remaining, there was no continuation of action to amend, and the amended complaint amounted to a new lawsuit.   

The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike on August 13, 2020, and dismissed the case with prejudice. As of September 13, 2020, the case is closed.