In the ongoing legal battles over changes to Florida’s election laws, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals convened on Thursday to address a challenge to a 2023 law imposing restrictions on groups engaged in collecting voter registration applications.
Signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in May, the comprehensive legislation has been a focal point of the Republican-controlled Legislature’s persistent efforts to regulate “third-party” voter registration groups assisting individuals in the voter registration process.
The appeals court panel specifically delved into sections of the law during Thursday’s hearing, which prohibit non-U.S. citizens from “collecting or handling” voter registration applications for these groups and make it a felony for workers to retain voters’ personal information.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker had previously issued a preliminary injunction in July, blocking these contested sections of the law. The decision aligned with arguments presented by groups such as the NAACP, Alianza for Progress, and Hispanic Federation, who contended that the changes were unconstitutional. The DeSantis administration promptly appealed Judge Walker’s ruling to the Atlanta-based appeals court.
One of the central points of contention during the recent hearing was the level of legal scrutiny applicable when assessing the constitutionality of the law. Mohammad Jazil, representing the state, asserted that individuals working for voter-registration groups were acting on behalf of the government. He cited past court rulings allowing restrictions on non-U.S. citizens performing certain functions deemed a “political function.”
Jazil argued, “3PVROs (third-party voter registration organizations) are fiduciaries of the people. They’re extensions of the elections officials who help people register to vote. The 3PVROs are doing an inherently political function.”
However, Adriel Cepeda Derieux, an ACLU attorney representing the groups, countered that the state was urging the court to set a new precedent in reviewing the Florida law. Derieux pointed to established legal frameworks that determine the permissible functions for non-U.S. citizens.
Attorney Abha Khanna, representing the NAACP and other groups, emphasized that the workers involved “are not vested with discretion and do not engage in policymaking authority.” The core function, according to Khanna, is to deliver a form from one place to another, not to engage in crucial election administration tasks.
The court also delved into concerns raised by the groups regarding the law’s prohibition against retaining “personal information” about voters. Khanna argued that the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes “personal information” on voter registration forms renders the provision unconstitutionally vague.
“There is no uniform definition… I, sitting here today, do not know what information is considered personal information,” Khanna argued.
The judges questioned the clarity of the statute, with Judge Britt C. Grant pressing Khanna on the issue of whether the organizations’ activities were indeed crucial to the political process.
“We believe it is vital and important work. Is it crucial to the election administration process? No. Is it important to the First Amendment rights of our clients? Yes,” Khanna responded.
The legal arguments also underscored concerns about potential unintended consequences for individuals unknowingly violating the law due to its lack of clarity. As the case unfolds, it remains a focal point in the broader discourse surrounding election law changes and their impact on voter registration practices.