ReportWire

Tag: Florida voting

  • Bill would require new Florida voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship



    Credit: Shutterstock

    Legislation that would require new Florida voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship has again been filed in advance of the Florida legislative session kicking off next week in Tallahassee.

    HB 991 is sponsored by state Reps. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, and Dana Trabulsy, R- Fort Pierce.

    The bill is similar to Persons-Mulicka’s legislation from a year ago, which came in response to President Trump’s 2025 executive order requiring voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship. That bill died in committee.

    The 2026 bill from Persons-Mulicka and Trabulsky include these provisions:

    • Requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.
    • Mandates that the Florida Department of State review all current voter registrations for citizenship status and forward names to supervisors of elections to request proof of eligibility from voters. It lists documents voters can provide as proof, including a current and valid U.S. passport; a U.S. birth certificate; a Consular Report of Birth Abroad provided by the U.S. State Department; a current and valid Florida driver license or ID card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV); a naturalization certificate, a certificate of citizenship, a certificate number, or an alien registration number issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; a current and valid photo ID issued by the federal government or the government of Florida which indicates U.S. citizenship; an order from a federal court granting U.S. citizenship.
    • Requires driver’s licenses and state ID cards to display citizenship status.
    • Expands information-sharing on citizenship status between the Department of State, the DHSMV and jury coordinators.
    • Creates a new post-election audit process.
    • Makes changes to the recount process.
    • Makes new restrictions on campaign contributions from foreign nationals.

    Another measure requiring U.S. citizenship to vote that has been introduced in the House is HB 985 by Rep. Berny Jacques, R-Pinellas County. His measure is being embraced by voter integrity advocates in Florida. Among its provisions include:

    • Require supervisors to verify a citizenship’s status by using the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program or “SAVE” program that is administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services used by federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.
    • Election supervisors “who have determined that false affirmations have been made on a voter registration application” must refer the application to the Office of Election Crimes and Security.
    • Information received by the DHSMV indicating that a registered voter has received a driver’s license in another state “shall be considered a written request from the voter to have his or her name removed from the statewide voter registration system.”
    • Narrows the list of IDs that can be used at the polls.
    • Adds new requirements for voters who registered using a Florida ID.
    • Expands the use of provisional ballots for voters whose citizenship can’t be verified.
    • Creates additional steps for vote-by-mail requests.
    • Florida IDs and driver licenses issued to non-citizens must be marked “NC” on the front.

    “The future of our state and nation depends on free and secure elections!” Jacques wrote in a newsletter sent to his constituents this week. “I urge my colleagues to stand with me to safeguard our elections and support this critical piece of legislation. Thank you for your support — together, we will ensure that Florida’s elections are secure for the foreseeable future.”

    Neither bill requiring U.S. citizenship to vote has a Senate companion yet.

    Only four states — Arizona, Louisiana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire — require that voters provide a document proving their U.S. citizenship to register to vote,  according to VoteRiders, a nonpartisan organization.

    Other election bills filed for session

    Other election-related bills this year include a measure to revise the timelines for when special elections can take place. That measure has been filed in the Senate by Boca Raton Democrat Tina Polsky and in the House (HB 597) by Democrats Mike Gottlieb of Davie and Daryl Campbell of Fort Lauderdale.

    Polsky is also the Senate sponsor of a proposal (SB 132) to establish a centralized database to track the voting rights of individuals with felony convictions. Rep. Felicia Robinson, D-Miami Gardens, is the main sponsor of the bill (HB 73) in the House.

    Another measure would limit foreign influence in state elections, government, and public institutions. The proposal, called “The Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement Act” (SB 1178), is sponsored by Sen. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach.

    The proposal requires agents of foreign countries of concern (defined as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Qatar, Syria, and “the Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro”) to register with the Division of Elections and file regular disclosures. It would prohibit public officials, employees, and candidates from accepting gifts, travel, or anything of value from foreign countries of concern or designated terrorist organizations.

    Update: This story originally reported that HB 991 “reportedly” had the support of the Florida supervisors of elections. However Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Wendy Sartory Link, who is serving as the president of the Florida Supervisors of Elections this year, told the Phoenix after this story was published that the supervisors “have not taken a position” on the proposal.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    The announcement comes as Republicans seek to maintain control of the U.S. House in this year’s elections

    Holcomb’s bill would add “vaccine status” to the list of reasons protected in law why patients cannot be discriminated against

    Luna’s push for a congressional stock trading ban received an endorsement Tuesday from DeSantis





    Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix
    Source link

  • Florida election supervisors again ask lawmakers to make it easier to vote by mail



    Credit: Shutterstock

    Florida election supervisors are again asking state lawmakers to change state law to make it easier for Floridians to vote by mail, but whether the GOP-controlled Legislature will act on the request is questionable, since they ignored a similar request earlier this year.

    David Ramba, representing the Florida Supervisors of Elections, told the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee on Wednesday that supervisors in the state want lawmakers to reinstate the checkbox on mail-in ballot envelopes, an item wiped away by a 2021 election law that requires voters to renew their vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots requests every two years instead of every four years.

    As election officials told lawmakers in a similar committee meeting before the 2025 legislative session, the results from two special elections held earlier this year put in stark relief how voters are still not used to the change in law.

    Referring to the Congressional District 1 election in the Panhandle, Ramba said there were 98,000 plus VBM requests on file in November 2024, when then-GOP U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz was running for re-election. After Gaetz resigned from the seat and a special primary election was held in January 2025, there were just over 12,000 VBM requests.

    Ramba said the same situation took place in Florida’s Sixth Congressional District, where a special election was held earlier this year after Mike Waltz stepped down to serve as Donald Trump’s national security adviser. (He’s now U.N. ambassador.)

    “It is a huge expense for our supervisors to go out and then solicit people who want to vote by mail,” Ramba said.

    “When they do vote by mail, and we receive your ballot in the November ’24 general election VBM, we are confirming your personal information. We know your address. We sent you that ballot. We do not send ballots out to people who did not ask for them. We have confirmed your signature. We have counted your ballot. We believe there should be the opportunity for that valid voter to — we call it ‘check the box’ — to be able to ask to continue to be on that vote-by-mail list.”

    Sen. Tina Polsky, a Democrat representing parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties, said it’s become obvious that the law making it incumbent for voters to request a vote-by-mail ballot every two years after an election simply isn’t working.

    “It’s not helping the electorate. The supervisors of elections have told us that. The numbers tell us that. All of our constituents tell us that. Every meeting I go to with constituents I end it by saying, ‘You must renew your vote-by-mail ballot,’ because people don’t know,” she said.

    “And so we should — we in this committee should look at the data and say, ‘This didn’t work. This was a failed experiment.’ Let’s go back to how it was before with checking the box, because there was no fraud associated with checking the box because of the excellent list maintenance and everything that they do and all of the laws that have been implemented since that time and take a look at that.”

    The request was one of just seven that the organization representing Florida’s 67 supervisors of elections made Wednesday to the committee.

    Other requests included:

    • Exempt from public records personal information of election workers as “Critical Infrastructure Assets.”
    • Have the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles automatically provide the election supervisors the new numbers assigned to the voters who receive a new driver’s license or identification card (the issue stems from a 2024 law that could affect voters’ ability to vote by mail or have their signature on a petition ballot be counted).
    • Allow a voter now deemed “inactive” to become an “active” voter if he or she signs a ballot petition form.
    • Give supervisors of election the flexibility to choose different early voting location sites when the the main office is not suitable for early voting.
    • Eliminating the requirement to place a ballot cast in a provisional ballot envelope if polling hours are extended by the governor beyond 7 p.m. on election night.
    • Expand the list of offenses involving “critical infrastructure” to include the theft or tampering of election equipment and/or ballots.

      Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Contact Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    Uthmeier said the ban was needed “to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.”

    The bill, if approved, would make it legal to use testing strips, and could help curb overdose deaths





    Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix
    Source link
  • Proposal could add ‘clarity’ to Florida’s constitutional amendment to restore felon voting rights

    Proposal could add ‘clarity’ to Florida’s constitutional amendment to restore felon voting rights

    click to enlarge

    State elections officials are moving forward with an updated process aimed at providing more clarity for people seeking to determine if they are eligible to vote, after a federal lawsuit over the handling of a constitutional amendment that restored voting rights to felons who completed their sentences.

    A proposed rule, released Thursday by the state Division of Elections, includes a one-page form for felons requesting what are known as “advisory opinions” from state lawyers to clarify if they are eligible to vote.

    The proposal would give state elections officials two weeks to determine “whether a form is complete,” require notification of “the felon within 14 days … of the specific deficiency or the need for any specific, additional information” and mandate that the state respond within 90 days of receiving a request for an advisory opinion.

    Desmond Meade, executive director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition who helped advocate for the 2018 constitutional amendment, called the proposal a “step forward” by the state.

    “It is crucial that individuals seeking to vote, especially during election season, receive clear guidance on their eligibility. We look forward to continuing to engage with the state to break down barriers to full participation in our elections,” Meade said in a statement.

    Confusion over voter eligibility stems from a controversial 2019 law that Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature approved to carry out the constitutional amendment, which said voting rights would be restored “upon completion of all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” The amendment excluded people convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses.

    The 2019 law required felons to pay “legal financial obligations” — fees, fines and other court costs — associated with their convictions before they could be eligible to vote. But tracking down records related to sentencing has been problematic, time-consuming and, in some instances, impossible, according to elections supervisors and lawyers familiar with the process.

    In addition, lawmakers at DeSantis’ behest in 2022 created the Office of Elections Crimes and Security. Since then, more than two dozen people have been arrested for voting illegally. Many of the people who were arrested said they were convicted felons who believed they were eligible to vote and were provided voter-registration cards by elections officials.

    The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit last year that described a “bureaucratic morass” encountered by felons trying to find out if they were eligible to vote. The lawsuit outlined months-long delays in responses to requests for advisory opinions, many of which did not offer resolution about voter eligibility.

    After mediation between the state and the plaintiffs, elections officials held a rule-development workshop in June. During the workshop, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Mark Earley pointed to “a backlog of people” who are uncertain about their voting statuses.

    “We’re hearing that from our voters and prospective voters who are, frankly, as they’ve told me, they’re concerned about whether they should try to get registered because they just don’t know what their status is. It’s very difficult to determine that,” Earley said.​​

    The proposed rule released Thursday would require advisory opinions to include one of three responses: “You are eligible to register and vote,” “You are ineligible to register or to vote,” or “The Division (of Elections) lacks credible and reliable information concerning your eligibility to register or to vote; therefore, based on your good faith belief that all terms of the sentence have been satisfied, the information available to the Division, and the Division’s review of available information, nothing precludes you from registering and voting.”

    The revamped process likely will not be finalized before the Oct. 7 deadline to register to vote in the fall election.

    Neil Volz, deputy director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, commended the state for taking “a positive step in improving election integrity” and streamlining the advisory-opinion procedure.

    “For years, we have advocated for needed reforms on the front end of the election process. Considering there was no deadline in place before, this updated process will help ensure clarity and assurances for Floridians on their voting eligibility. People’s lives and our election system will be improved by these changes,” said Volz, a convicted felon whose rights were restored by DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Judge strikes down part of Florida elections law

    Judge strikes down part of Florida elections law

    click to enlarge

    A federal judge on Friday struck down part of a 2023 state elections law that placed restrictions on what are known as “third party” voter-registration organizations, saying the law discriminated “against noncitizens regardless of immigration status.”

    Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a summary judgment on part of the law that would prevent non-U.S. citizens from collecting or handling voter-registration applications. In July, he issued a preliminary injunction against that part of the law and another restriction that would make it a felony for voter-registration group workers to keep personal information of voters.

    Lawyers for Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration appealed Walker’s preliminary injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the issue is pending. They asked Walker to hold off on ruling on motions for summary judgment until the Atlanta-based appellate court decides on the injunction.

    Groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida, Hispanic Federation and the NAACP filed a series of lawsuits challenging the 2023 law, arguing in part that it unconstitutionally targeted groups that plaintiffs maintain play an important role in signing up Black and Hispanic voters.

    Walker’s ruling Friday came in a challenge filed by Hispanic Federation, Poder Latinx and individual plaintiffs. The judge’s ruling said that the part of the law regarding noncitizens violates constitutional equal-protection rights.

    The “Florida Legislature chose to discriminate against all noncitizens on the face of the challenged provision” without a compelling state interest, Walker’s order said.

    Walker relied in part on his July injunction order that found the provision in the law “impermissibly discriminates based on alienage.”

    Walker’s Friday decision granted a motion for summary judgment against Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, prohibiting him from enforcing the part of the law. The judge’s order also denied a motion for summary judgment against state Attorney General Ashley Moody because, he wrote, her role in the enforcement of the law remains a “disputed issue of fact.” The issue about Moody “must be answered with the benefit of a complete record after trial,” Walker’s order said.

    Walker said Byrd’s lawyers offered “no authority” for why the judge should wait until the appeals court resolves the state’s injunction appeal.

    “This court recognizes that it may be easier to simply wait for the Eleventh Circuit to weigh in on some of these issues in the appeal of the preliminary injunction,” Walker wrote. “But this court need not wait to decide the legal questions presented here.”

    The part about noncitizens was unconstitutional because the state could have adopted a narrower approach, Walker’s ruling said.

    “This court finds that, assuming arguendo that the citizenship requirement is supported by a compelling state interest, plaintiffs have demonstrated that it is not narrowly tailored to further that interest, and defendant Byrd has failed to proffer any evidence raising a genuine dispute as to the lack of narrow tailoring,” Walker said.

    Walker on Tuesday refused to step down from the case, rejecting arguments by the state that suggested he had a “closed mind.”

    The request for recusal stemmed from a ruling Walker issued Feb. 8 in a separate court battle about a 2021 elections law. In that ruling, Walker entered a judgment in favor of the state after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier decision in which he found the 2021 law improperly discriminated against Black voters.

    Meanwhile, Walker this month rejected a League of Women Voters challenge to another part of the 2023 law that prevents people with certain felony convictions from “collecting or handling” voter-registration applications. Walker ruled the organization did not have legal standing to challenge that part of the law.

    A trial about the 2023 law is slated to start April 1.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Judge ends challenges to Florida election law he admits targets Black voters

    Judge ends challenges to Florida election law he admits targets Black voters


    click to enlarge

    While saying Florida has repeatedly changed laws to “target” ways Black voters cast ballots, a federal judge Thursday closed the door on allegations that key parts of a 2021 elections law were unconstitutional.

    Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a 17-page order after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year overturned a ruling in which he found the law improperly discriminated against Black voters. The Atlanta-based appeals court sent the case back to Walker to address two major issues.

    Walker, in Thursday’s order, appeared to criticize the appeals court for “reweighing” facts in the case. But he entered a judgment in favor of the state, concluding that plaintiffs had not met a legal test for showing that the changes in the law “unduly burden” First Amendment and equal-protection rights.

    “As this court (Walker) previously found after a lengthy, two-week bench trial, the state of Florida has, with surgical precision, repeatedly changed Florida’s election code to target whichever modality of voting Florida’s Black voters were using at the time,” Walker wrote Thursday.

    “That was not this court’s opinion — it is a fact established by the record in these cases. Even so, following the state of Florida’s appeal, this persistent and pernicious practice of targeting the modalities of voting most used by Florida’s Black voters has apparently received the stamp of approval in this (11th) Circuit.”

    The issues involved parts of the law that imposed new restrictions on mail-in ballot drop boxes and voter-registration groups.

    It required boxes to be manned by employees of supervisors of elections and limited their use to early-voting hours. Also, it required voter-registration groups to return completed applications to elections supervisors in the counties where applicants live and imposed a 14-day deadline for submitting the forms.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature approved the law (SB 90) in 2021 as GOP leaders across the country pushed to make voting changes after former President Donald Trump’s loss in 2020.

    While Florida had a relatively smooth 2020 election, Republican lawmakers argued the changes were necessary to make the state’s elections more secure. Opponents, however, argued the changes were targeted, at least in part, at Black voters, who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates.

    For instance, opponents pointed to Democrats far outnumbering Republicans in casting vote-by-mail ballots in 2020. Also, they said minority voters more heavily rely on “third party” voter-registration groups to sign up to vote.

    Voting-rights groups and other plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the measure, and Walker issued a 288-page decision in March 2022 that blocked disputed changes in the law. A three-judge panel of the appeals court in April 2023 overturned major parts of Walker’s ruling, and the full appeals court later declined to take up the case.

    In his order Thursday, Walker said he needed to apply a legal test to “determine whether the state’s interests outweigh the asserted burdens on the right to vote in this case.”

    He wrote, for example, that “although the drop-box restrictions make it harder for after-hours drop-box voters to deliver their vote-by-mail ballots, the restrictions at issue do not keep people from voting.”

    “(The) burden here is relatively modest — something more than an incidental burden for those who depend upon more flexible hours to submit their ballots, without constituting a substantial burden on the right to vote,” he wrote.

    Also, he wrote that “based on the Eleventh Circuit’s reweighing of the facts, this court (Walker) cannot find that the (voter) registration-delivery requirements are intentionally racially discriminatory, and thus, necessarily pose a severe burden on Black voters. Instead, this court must consider the disparate impact these provisions have on voters who rely on 3PVROs (third-party voter registration organizations) to register — particularly Black voters — and the magnitude of this injury.”

    “On balance, this court cannot say that the registration-delivery requirements unduly burden plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of the Constitution,” Walker wrote, referring to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed





    Jim Saunders, NSF

    Source link