Case: League of Women v. Secretary of State
1:06-cv-21265 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed Date: May 22, 2006
Closed Date: June 7, 2009
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On May 22, 2006, the League of Women Voters of Florida, People Acting for Community Together (Pact), Florida AFL-CIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 79 (AFSCME), SEIU Florida Healthcare Union, as organizations and representatives of their members, the President of the Tallahassee League of Women Voters, and one hundred eligible voters who have not registered to vote, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Defendants included the Secretary of State for the State of Florida and the Director of the Division of Elections within the Department of State for the State of Florida. Plaintiffs were represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Advancement Project, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, and Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. The case was assigned to the Honorable Patricia A. Seitz, referred to the Honorable John J. O’Sullivan, Magistrate Judge, then re-assigned to the Honorable Paul C. Huck.
Plaintiffs claimed that Florida state law, 2005 Fla. Laws 277 §§ 2, 7 (codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(36), 97.0575), severely burdened their efforts to encourage civic engagement by registering citizens to vote. The law imposed potentially ruinous fines and burdensome reporting requirements on all organizations registering voters. However, Florida's political parties were entirely exempt from the onerous rules. Plaintiffs argued that the law had forced them to shut down their nonpartisan voter registration activities in Florida. Plaintiffs challenged this law as discriminatory and as suppressive of their speech and associational rights and therefore violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the law interfered with their speech and association rights while unjustifiably exempting political parties (Counts I and II). Plaintiffs further argued that the law chilled and burdened their exercise of free speech and association (Count III) and burdened the John and Jane Does’ right to vote (Count IV). Plaintiffs requested that the Court declare that Florida state law, 2005 Fla. Laws 277 §§ 2, 7 (codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 97.021(36), 97.0575) violated the United States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, and grant a preliminary injunction from enforcing this law.
On June 28, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants argued that the challenged legislation served a valuable purpose, and it did so without implicating or threatening any protected interest. It includes no provisions that regulate speech, expressive conduct, or associational choices. Moreover, because the legislation’s different treatment of political parties and others was consistent with legitimate and recognizable differences among them, there was no improper discrimination or Equal Protection violation. In making its policy decision, the Florida Legislature did not exceed the limits imposed on it by the United States Constitution.
On August 28, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. As to Counts I and II, the Court found that the law unconstitutionally discriminated in favor of political parties by excluding them from the definition of “third party voter registration organization.” As to Count III, the Court found that the law’s combination of heavy, strict, joint and several liability fines was unconstitutional as it chilled Plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech and association rights. As such the Court granted the preliminary injunction with respect to Counts I-III. As to Count IV, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because, on the face of the Complaint, Plaintiffs did not have standing to address the rights of Florida citizens generally. The Court also dismissed the claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.
On August 28, 2006, Defendants filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal to appeal the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Shortly thereafter, on September 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
On November 30, 2007, the parties filed a Notice of Filing a Stipulation where they agreed that Defendants shall not enforce Fla. Stat. § 97.0575, which subject third-party voter registration organizations to financial penalties for failing to submit voter registration applications in the manner prescribed by law, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Stipulation would remain in effect until the earlier of 30 days after either Plaintiffs or Defendants elected to terminate the Stipulation or the state on which it is superseded by an Order of the Court.
On February 22, 2008, Defendant appealed the Court’s Order preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 97.0575. While the appeal was pending, the Florida legislature substantially amended that section. Subsequently, the Secretary of State for the State of Florida submitted a Suggestion of Impending Mootness, contending that the amended law was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2008, and would moot the pending appeal and the underlying preliminary injunction order. Since the legislative amendments went into effect by the time the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the appeal, the law preliminarily enjoined no longer existed and the appeal was dismissed. On March 31, 2008, Defendants filed a Notice of Termination of Stipulation.
On April 3, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and argued that for the same reasons the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected Defendants’ appeal, namely the law preliminarily enjoined no longer existed, should now provide the basis for the Court to dismiss the case. Specifically, Defendants argued that on May 21, 2007, Governor Crist signed into law Chapter 2007-30, Laws of Florida (the “2007 Act”), which was a comprehensive elections bill that included changes regarding voting machines, elections audits, candidate eligibility, elections canvassing, voter registration, selection of minor-party candidates, voter initiative petitions, and campaign finance. The 2007 Act eliminated the concerns on which Plaintiffs challenged the prior statute and on which the Court enjoined its enforcement.
On April 24, 2008, the Court agreed with Defendants and issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since changes in the law rendered the case moot.
On June 20, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs argued that because the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs should be deemed the prevailing parties entitled to an award of $708,725.00 in attorneys’ fees and $76,363.05 in costs. Additionally, the Plaintiffs urged the Court to award the full amount because of the significance of the relief Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained and the public benefits granted to Florida’s citizens and democracy. However, Defendants disagreed and on July 25, 2008, Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition re 86 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and argued that Plaintiffs are not the prevailing parties because they obtained a preliminary injunction that is no longer in effect and an amended law stands in the place of the law preliminarily enjoined.
Judge Seitz referred this matter to the Honorable John J. O’Sullivan, United States Magistrate Judge who found that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in the case because Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction of the law and obtained such result. The Defendants argued that Plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties because Plaintiffs later challenged the new amended law on the same constitutional grounds. The Court disagreed with Defendants and noted the fact that the Plaintiffs commenced a new lawsuit against the amended challenged law did not negate their prevailing party status with respect to the instant lawsuit.
The Court also analyzed Doe v. Busbee, 684 F. 2d 1375 (11th Cir. 1982), which was the case Defendants relied on. The Court identified Busbee as distinguishable from the instant case because the final judgment for the plaintiffs issued in Busbee was later vacated. As such, the plaintiffs in Busbee were not the prevailing party. By contrast, the preliminary injunction issued in the instant case was not overturned on the merits, it was mooted following the enactment of the amended challenged law. Thus, the preliminary injunction remained in effect until it was mooted and was never overturned.
Magistrate O’Sullivan then determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to appellate fees and that a reduction to the attorneys’ requested hourly rates was necessary. Judge O’Sullivan recommended that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs be granted in part and denied in part and that the Plaintiffs be awarded $351,156.60 in attorney’s fees and $36,116.50 in costs for a total award of $387,273.1. On December 18, 2008, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
On January 21, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Reassign Case based on the argument that because the Court swore in the Officers of League of Women Voters, Miami-Dade County Chapter due to the Court’s acquaintance with the League’s President this should have been ground for recusal. Plaintiffs disagreed and on February 6, 2009, filed a response. On March 6, 2009, Judge Seitz issued an Order of Recusal, and the case was re-assigned to the Honorable Judge Paul C. Huck.
On March 16, 2009, the Court found that Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan has thoroughly, carefully and appropriately reviewed the facts and legal issues related to the Motion in arriving at his recommendations contained in the Report. After its review of the record, the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report with the exceptions including additional reductions to the hourly rates. The Plaintiffs were awarded $315,219.00 in attorney’s fees and $26,339.99 in costs, for a total award of $341,558.99. Defendants timely filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for additional fees and costs, which motion remains pending. Plaintiffs and Defendants then resolved Plaintiffs’ claims for fees and costs by mutual agreement and Plaintiffs withdrew their pending motion for additional fees.
On July 7, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an Order of Dismissal, granting the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice, due to settlement, with the parties bearing their own costs and fees.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Deidre Fragapane (11/21/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5542169/parties/league-of-women-v-secretary-of-state/
Huck, Paul C. (Florida)
Rosen, Gary Charles (Florida)
Siegel, Craig L. (Florida)
Tirschwell, Eric A. (Florida)
Antonacci, Peter V. (Florida)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5542169/league-of-women-v-secretary-of-state/
Last updated July 1, 2026, 7:50 a.m.
Docket for: League of Women v. Secretary of State
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 22, 2006
Closing Date: June 7, 2009
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Non-partisan voter registration organizations and eligible voters
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Director of the Division of Elections
Secretary of State for the State of Florida
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Florida 1:06-cv-21265
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $341,558.99
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of League of Women v. Secretary of State, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43675/ (last updated 11/21/2024).