Judge largely declines to block Florida law restricting ballot-initiative drives
In passing the law earlier this year, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the bill's Republican sponsors said the petition process needed reform because it is riddled with fraud.
But groups like Florida Decides Healthcare, which is trying to get an amendment that will expand Medicaid access on 2026 ballots, quickly sued, saying the new law stifles people's ability to use the petition process. Other groups, including the recreational marijuana campaign Smart & Safe Florida, joined the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker largely denied the plaintiffs' request to block three sections of the new law.
Plaintiffs had asked Walker to temporarily block a requirement that campaigns turn in all petitions within 10 days to county elections offices. They also contested changes that increased fines for organizations that turn in petitions late and that added new criminal penalties for filling in missing voter information.
The plaintiffs argued that the law violates the First Amendment right to engage in political speech.
But Walker, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said court precedent makes clear that the initiative process doesn't have to be the most user-friendly version possible.
Walker said the challenging groups hadn't yet proven they were 'severely burdened' by the new law's requirement to turn petitions in within 10 days and the increased late fines.
Instead, he said, 'the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs.'
The marijuana and Medicaid expansion campaigns have said they've been affected by slowed petition collection and discouraged volunteers since the law took effect in early May.
The groups hoping to qualify for the 2026 ballot need about 900,000 verified petitions by early next year.
Out of all the groups' asks, Walker granted only one plaintiff an injunction on one point.
Jordan Simmons, a project director for the Medicaid expansion group, challenged part of the law that includes election code violations for petition fraud in the racketeering statute.
Walker sided with Simmons' argument that the racketeering law change was too vague.
Despite Walker rejecting most of the Medicaid expansion groups' asks, Mitch Emerson, a spokesperson for Florida Decides Healthcare, called the ruling a 'major victory.'
'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said in a statement. 'This ruling was an early, extraordinary step in the legal process—and we are optimistic about what comes next, both for the remaining parts of HB 1205 that we're challenging and for the future of citizen-led democracy in Florida.'
Groups have for years used Florida's ballot initiative process as a way to pass changes to the state constitution that lawmakers have refused to put forward. Through petition collection, groups have gotten voters to approve things like medical marijuana, felon voter restoration and a $15 minimum wage.
Last year, DeSantis used the power of his administration to successfully oppose two amendments put on the ballot through the petition process: the recreational pot amendment and one that would have protected abortion access.
Months after both those measures failed, DeSantis' office suggested a draft bill that would have made petition collection virtually impossible.
During the injunction hearing in May, Glenn Burhans, an attorney for Smart & Safe Florida — which sponsored a failed 2024 ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana and is hoping to get a similar amendment on 2026 ballots — said that he thought lawmakers passed the petition change bill because the marijuana measure 'is very popular.'
The challenge to the new law is ongoing, and the amendment groups are seeking to block other provisions of the law in another request for a temporary injunction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Holds the Key to Trump's Murdoch Lawsuit—and Her Jail Cell
In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing more important to President Donald Trump than enriching himself. The uproar over releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files may have angered some of his base, but, remember, Trump has been covered with scandal his entire life, and it hasn't held him back. So, if you think that the only thing Trump wants from Epstein's co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is for her to say Trump's friendship with Epstein was only a matter of their common interest in Rococo decoration, you'd be wrong. Sure, she will say something like this, but Maxwell can also put money in Trump's pocket. In the end, that will matter more to him. Here's how she'll do it. Trump has sued media titan Rupert Murdoch and others because his newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published a bawdy letter it said Trump sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. According to the Journal article, Trump's letter was part of an album Maxwell assembled containing notes from Epstein's friends. To authenticate Trump's note and the obscene drawing that accompanied it, Journal reporters claim to have seen the album and talked to people knowledgeable about it. Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla.,... Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 12, 2000. MoreBut Trump emphatically denies ever writing the note, including its wish for Epstein that "may every day be another wonderful secret." He sued Murdoch and the others for defaming him—for publishing false and damaging statements about him with intent to harm his reputation. Murdoch and his fellow defendants want the case dismissed. They certainly have powerful First Amendment free speech claims to make, but they may not get an exoneration so easily. Trump may be able to drag Murdoch and his empire through the mud for a while before there's any decision about whether The Wall Street Journal was telling the truth. On that score, Maxwell may hold the key. It would be one thing if the Journal had incontestable evidence that Trump wrote the letter. Murdoch and the newspaper might win a quick judgment if that were the case, but Maxwell could block that by aiding Trump. Without a quick win, Murdoch and company will face the ugly business of the evidence gathering process known as discovery. Trump will demand to pry into the inner workers of the Murdoch empire. He will seek mountains of documents, pose endless written questions, and demand pre-trial testimony from a parade of witnesses. Too often judges don't adequately police the discovery process, and it leads to endless fights, expenses, and for Murdoch, unwelcome publicity for his personal and business life. Maxwell's course to help give Trump his chance to engage in this torment is simple. Remember, Trump has no case if it turns out he wrote the licentious letter. All Maxwell has to say is that she assembled the album and doesn't recall any letter in it from Donald Trump. In the world of Trump bribery, this should be worth a commutation—a shortening—of her sentence. For a pardon, she would do better to say that she specifically recalls that Trump did not send a greeting and that the two former friends fell out because Trump felt there was something fishy about Epstein. Wait for it. It's coming. If it wasn't discussed between Maxwell and Trump's personal lawyer and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during their recent long interview together, Maxwell probably doesn't need to be told what to do about it. After all, she has already received an incentive having been moved to a comfier prison. Sadly, each new Trump bribery nightmare seems to keep coming true. Some hoped he really wouldn't accept the $400 million plane from Qatar, until he did. Some thought maybe CBS would show some backbone when Trump sued it, until it didn't. And now here's the scariest thought of all. If Trump can keep his lawsuit in court and Maxwell in his pocket, Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit might prove to be his biggest payoff of all. Why not? Murdoch also owns Fox News. He has been Trump's biggest booster in the past, so why shouldn't Murdoch be glad if Trump's lawsuit stays in court? It becomes a perfect way for Murdoch to willingly give Trump what he wants more than anything else—money. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
What the new China chip taxes tell us about doing business in Trump's America
Depending on your age, you might think I'm describing Soviet-era Russia — or Russia in the Putin era. You'd certainly think about modern-day China, where the government is an official partner in many private companies, and has unofficial but meaningful influence over most of them. And in 2025, you might also think that's beginning to describe America in the second Trump administration. Last week, for instance, Donald Trump called on the CEO of Intel to resign because of his past business connections to China. In June, Trump approved Nippon Steel's plan to buy US Steel — but only after the US government was granted a " golden share" in the company that gives Washington the ability to approve or veto some actions, like closing plants. In January, Trump floated the idea of having the US government own a portion of TikTok's US operations. And now Trump is requiring Nvidia and AMD to hand over 15% of revenue from high-end chip sales to China, as first reported by the Financial Times. (Nvidia has released a statement noting it "follow[s] rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets," without addressing reports about the deal directly; AMD and the White House have yet to comment.) You can make arguments for or against any one of these transactions — US chip sales to China have been a particularly divisive issue, even within the Trump administration. But taken together, there's little question that in Trump 2.0, we should expect the federal government to insert itself into private business. Call it "state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises," Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip wrote Monday morning. It's an exceptionally timely piece he appears to have written before the Nvidia/AMD story broke, because it doesn't contain any reference to it. (You can make the list of Trump's interventions even longer if you'd like: He personally required former Paramount owner Shari Redstone to pay him $16 million to settle a seemingly specious lawsuit, for instance. And Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, has required Paramount's new owners to promise to " root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media." You could also include the concessions Trump is demanding from some of the nation's most prestigious universities and law firms.) The chip story is particularly hard to get your head around, since it inverts the premise of the tariff plans Trump has been pushing this year. Instead of taxing goods made overseas and imported into the US, the US is now taxing goods made by American companies, in America — the thing he supposedly wants to see much more of. It's not surprising to see Donald Trump say one thing and do another. And half a year into his second presidency, it's no longer surprising to see the Republican-controlled Congress let him do just about anything he wants: This is the same Congress that passed a law last year requiring TikTok's US operations to find a US buyer or shut down — and hasn't said a word about the fact that Trump has decided to ignore that law, repeatedly. And again, you might not care about the moves the Trump administration has made to steer companies to date. You might even like them. But the odds are increasing that he's going to end up involving the federal government in an industry or company you do care about. Maybe one you work in. How are you going to feel about it then?
