A federal appeals court has overturned an order stopping the enforcement of key provisions of Florida’s 2021 law placing restrictions on ballot drop boxes and absentee voting that the law’s critics argue are discriminatory.
The 11th Circuit of Appeals ruled May 6 that a lower court erred in staying provisions of last year’s Senate Bill 90, rejecting the position that the Florida Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters by passing the measure. The lower court had blocked enforcement of provisions that limited the use of voter drop boxes, added rules governing third-party voter-registration groups and barred voter solicitations within 150 feet of polling places and drop boxes.
“We are pleased to see that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the district court’s injunction of SB 90, our 2021 election integrity law,” Christina Pushaw, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary, told the Florida Record in an email. “We expect this law to stand up to any further legal scrutiny. As the 11th Circuit describes in its order … the district court’s historical-background analysis is ‘problematic,’ to say the least.”
Election fraud is the true source of suppressing the voters’ will, according to Pushaw, and the Florida law will reduce potential discrimination.
“It invites undue, outside influence into the election process and jeopardizes the fundamental American assurance that everyone gets one equal vote and every legal vote counts,” she said. “We will always guard against fraud in elections in Florida.”
But one of the parties that has challenged the new law, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), characterized recent state election law changes as an assault on voters.
““It is wrong to force Floridians to face these barriers to voting that will especially diminish the voices in government of communities of color, women and voters with disabilities,” Bradley Heard, the SPLC’s deputy legal director for voting rights, said in a prepared statement. “The importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote against these barriers is exactly the reason why a federal court placed the state under preclearance.”
Had the federal district’s court’s decision been upheld, the state would have had to gain “preclearance” under the federal Voting Rights Act before making substantial changes to voting regulations.