Case: Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner

This case concerned whether the decision of Florida's Secretary of State to provide only a single-day voter registration extension in certain counties during Hurricane Michael was sufficient to protect voting rights in Florida during the voter registration process for the 2018 general election.

On October 9, 2018, the Florida Democratic Party filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Ken Detzner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the state of Florida. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought an emergency injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from enforcing the voter registration deadline on October 9, 2018, and a temporary restraining order requiring the Secretary of State to extend Florida's voter registration deadline by at least one week. The plaintiff claimed that the single-day registration extension only in some counties failed to adequately protect the voting rights of Florida citizens who could not register to vote by the October 9 registration deadline. In addition to declaratory relief, the plaintiff sought emergency injunctive relief as it filed its suit on the same day of the voter registration deadline for the general election on November 6, 2018. The plaintiff argued that the single-day registration extension would deprive its members and constituents of the opportunity to register as Democrats prior to the registration deadline, thereby harming its chances of electing Democratic candidates to public office. The plaintiff brought the action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The case was assigned United States District Judge Robert L. Hinkle.

On October 8, 2018, the day before the voter registration deadline, the Governor of Florida issued a mandatory evacuation order in the areas in Hurricane Michael's path requiring that evacuations or life-saving preparations be complete by the following day, which was also the voter registration deadline. In response, the Secretary of State issued a directive authorizing any local registration office that would be closed on October 9 to accept voter registrations on the first day they each resumed operations after the weather emergency passed. This deadline extension applied only to paper voter registration applications and only in counties in which an office of the supervisor of elections was closed on October 9.

The plaintiff argued that this extension was not sufficient to adequately protect the voting rights of Floridians for two reasons. First, by being limited to a single day rather than a week, it imposed an undue burden on the voting rights of those eligible voters who were displaced by Hurricane Michael or whose voter registration offices were closed, and who had been unable to register by the deadline and would struggle to do so even with the one-day extension. Further, because this extension only applied to in-person registration, an additional burden was imposed on eligible voters who sought to register online or by mail. Second, the plaintiff alleged that the directive discriminated between eligible voters based on their method of voter registration and the area in which they lived. More specifically, only eligible voters who sought to register by paper in-person and lived in areas where a supervisor's office was closed on October 9 were granted the extension, while those who sought to register online or by mail or did not live in such an area but still missed the deadline were out of luck. The plaintiff highlighted the fact that eligible voters who sought to register online faced power outages, those who wanted to register by mail may have been displaced, and that those living outside areas concerned by the directive may have still been prevented from registering because of the hurricane. Accordingly, the plaintiff argued that the directive constituted an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as disparate treatment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On October 10, 2018, the Court conditionally denied the temporary restraining order sought by the plaintiff in its initial suit. The Court argued that the Secretary of State's directive did indeed go far enough to provide additional opportunities to those directly impacted by Hurricane Michael to register to vote. The Court outlined that the directive had to be properly understood in three respects: i) it was mandatory; ii) it applied to any county in which any supervisor's office that would ordinarily be open was instead closed for any portion of October 9; and iii) the directive extended the deadline to the first full business day on which all the supervisor's offices in a county were open.

On October 16, 2018, the case was consolidated with New Florida Majority Education Fund vs Ken Detzner.

On November 5, 2018, the day before the general election, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that because both the October 9 voter registration deadline and the date until which the plaintiff requested the deadline be extended (October 16, 2018) had passed, and because the general election was to be held the next day, the case had become moot. The defendant additionally submitted that the plaintiff only sought injunctive relief, which could not be granted for a moot issue, and that there was a remote possibility that the circumstances at the heart of the plaintiff's suit would occur again.

On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argued that, because the defendant had conceded that the equal protection issue likely would not be moot, the case involved factual issues that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff explained that these factual issues concerned the extent to which adequate notice was given regarding supervisor office closures and re-openings.

On December 10, 2018, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the action.

On December 12, 2018, the Court confirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case was effective without an order.

The case is now closed.