Florida ballot initiative law mostly upheld by federal judge, but key part suspended
The law (HB 1205), signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May, was promptly challenged by Florida Decides Healthcare, a group looking to expand Medicaid access in Florida. Other groups also involved in statewide petitions joined the lawsuit, including Smart & Safe Florida, which is proposing an recreational marijuana initiative.
On June 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker denied motions to block multiple portions of the new law that toughens regulations on ballot initiatives, coming after DeSantis and state officials claimed fraud in last year's petition gathering. These parts of the law include a requirement for all petitions to be turned in to local elections offices within 10 days and fines for missing voter information and late petition returns.
Walker did grant one motion from the health care group, which challenged a law change in the racketeering statute to include violations of state election code and petition fraud. The judge sided with the plaintiffs over a "vagueness claim" for the new law's expanded definition for "racketeering activity."
"But such a standardless and discretionary determination only lends itself to the mischief associated with an unconstitutionally vague statute that allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement," says the order on the motion for preliminary injunction. They can be granted early in a lawsuit to temporarily stop something, like enforcement of a law, until the case is fully decided.
Despite the judge's multiple denials, Mitch Emerson of Florida Decides Healthcare called the ruling a "major victory."
"The court put a halt to one of the most dangerous parts of HB 1205 – a vague criminal penalty that would have made grassroots participation in the democratic process a potential felony," Emerson said. "That's not just a win for Florida Decides Healthcare – that's a win for every Floridian who wants to engage in the ballot measure process without fear or intimidation."
Representatives and attorneys for Smart & Safe Florida did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit ultimately argues that the law violates First Amendment rights to political speech and to petition government with its increased penalties, stricter deadlines and toughened regulations on who can circulate petitions.
For years, groups have collected petitions to successfully pass initiatives that set caps on the number of students in classrooms, approved medical marijuana, restored voting rights to felons and mandated a $15 minimum wage.
On top of the new state regulations that didn't exist in campaigns for last year's amendments, petition groups already face a looming Feb. 1 deadline to submit nearly 900,000 signatures.
Yet this law comes after two contentious ballot amendments failed to meet the state's threshold of 60% to amend the constitution — one guaranteeing access to abortion and another approving recreational marijuana for adults.
DeSantis campaigned against both initiatives, yet voters supported them by 57.2% and 55.9%, respectively.
2024 marijuana amendment: Recreational marijuana in Florida snuffed out after amendment falls short of 60%
Among the increased penalties and stricter deadlines, the law also requires all petition circulators to be Florida residents. On May 30, Smart & Safe Florida filed an emergency motion claiming that the prohibition on non-resident petition circulators "injured" the group's ability "to carry their message to the public."
On top of it, the group argued in that motion an already-existing limitation from the law that limits each volunteer to only collect 25 petitions.
In their motion, the organization said that the state law's nonresident provision is "very likely the difference between" the amendment getting on the ballot or not.
(This story was updated to add new information.)
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@gannett.com. On X: @stephanymatat.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Ballot initiative crackdown largely survives First Amendment test
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?
The council called it a 'narrowly focused rule' to curb ongoing disruptions during its meetings. But some First Amendment groups are concerned it will put the city on a slippery slope. As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members. It was far from an isolated incident. A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics. Council members finally had enough. In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Already, the ban is getting put to the test. Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time. 'Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,' Harris-Dawson said. 'This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.' If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting. The council's motion calls the terms the 'most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets' at city council meetings. It said such words are 'inherently harmful,' citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.' Such 'fighting words,' the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say. Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties. 'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would 'implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.' Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community. Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits. "As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech," the group wrote. "Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect." But the council's motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms had been used and disrupted the meetings 'on many occasions.' The sergeants-at-arms 'prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out' on at least two occasions, the motion said. It acknowledged that the council 'faces competing duties' in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings. 'It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,' said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.' But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 'This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,' the spokesperson said. 'Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.' Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to 'Jerry Springer' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson described the ban as a 'narrowly focused rule' meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 'These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,' the spokesperson said. Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the 'following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences' and that 'viewer discretion is advised.' 'It's almost like you're about to watch an episode of 'Jerry Springer,'' said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy. During the council's July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a 'millionaire' after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word. Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to 'send the Jews back to Israel' and a reference to President Donald Trump's administration being 'the only America of constitutional betterment.' Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group's meetings have also been disrupted by such language. Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also 'frequently' called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote. 'The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,' Schreiner said. She requested the city council 'explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.' The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and 'apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.' Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are 'able to disrupt discussions for sport' using 'vile language and pointless hate speech,' the statement read. 'Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,' the statement went on to say. 'But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.' City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas' But the First Amendment 'exists for this exact reason,' Jablonsky said. The remedy, in her view, is to 'punish the disruption' and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it's vital to resist any efforts to ban words. 'If we don't, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,' she said. 'Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.' Wizner agreed, saying the 'only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." The ACLU's 2024 article, 'Defending Speech We Hate,' noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association. 'Our view is if the First Amendment doesn't protect the NRA in New York, it doesn't protect the ACLU in Texas,' Wizner said. But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have 'repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others' at meetings. 'Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. 'This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.' BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana mom sues school district after it banned her for recording a meeting
A mom and a national public policy organization are taking her northeast Indiana school district to court to challenge a school policy they say violates her First and 14th Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, filed a complaint Aug. 12 in the Northern District of Indiana that, if successful, could overturn the school district's meeting recording policy and clarify a gray area of First Amendment law. Whitley County Consolidated Schools' policy says a building administrator must first give permission before parents and others can record private school meetings such as parent-teacher conferences. Goldwater argues that the policy is unconstitutional, saying there is "no compelling, substantial, important, or even rational reason" to prohibit parents from recording. "We think there's a clear idea that the First Amendment protects more than just verbal speech. It protects conduct, and especially conduct that's inherently expressive," Goldwater attorney Adam Shelton said. "We think that presents a very good and important First Amendment question." In a previous statement to IndyStar, district Superintendent Laura McDermott said Nicole Graves was restricted from campus for "a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," not for expressing concerns. IndyStar has reached out to McDermott regarding the newly filed litigation. Last year, Graves recorded a meeting with her school principal about an incident on her daughter's school bus concerning the driver's behavior. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater. Discontent with the principal's answers, she posted part of the recording on social media. The district then notified Graves in a letter, which IndyStar obtained, that she broke policy and was given a school grounds ban and restrictions on staff communications. The punishment has since expired. As she brings her fight to court, Graves said she is surprised it has come to this but not that the school won't back down. She said she is continuing to fight to establish better policies for parents and protect children. "This is not fun for me. This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for," she said. "But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district." With her four children still attending school in the district, Graves is concerned about retaliation. She said she is keeping a close eye on her children's schooling and is "terrified" the school will ban her again. The right to record public officials engaged their official duties in a public place has been solidified through previous case law. Goldwater, through its complaint, is attempting to deepen those rights by arguing that some private conversations are protected as well. In its complaint, Goldwater argues that people have the right to record meetings with government officials as long as the recording doesn't violate the rights of other private individuals and the person is lawfully present. "When it's just a conversation between a parent and a school official about their child and doesn't implicate any privacy rights of other students, we think a parent has the right to record that meeting," Shelton said. If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton previously said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different. The complaint also says the policy violates Graves' 14th Amendment rights to control her child's education in several instances, overlapping with their First Amendment argument. Goldwater is seeking an injunction halting the recording policy and a judgment finding the school district violated Graves' First and 14th Amendment rights. This is Goldwater's second crack in two years at clarifying First Amendment case law on recording conversations with school officials. The institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 to take up the case of a Massachusetts dad denied the ability to video-record his son's special education accommodation conferences. The high court did not take up the appeal after a district court ruled the act of recording was not protected by the First Amendment. Shelton said the institute is hopeful the courts will take a full look at their arguments in Graves' case. "We think we have a very good argument here that the recording of this meeting is protected both by the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment," he said. "We look forward to expressing those ideas in court." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
State Legislatures Brace for More Belt-Tightening in 2026 Sessions
State legislatures next year will need to adjust annual spending plans to accommodate revisions in key allocations outlined in the recently adopted fiscal year 2026 (FY26) federal budget. HR 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the FY26 budget signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, makes wholesale changes to tax codes and a range of other state-administered programs, most notably Medicare/Medicaid and SNAP.
