In court hearing, attorneys debate palatability of new restrictions on citizens' initiatives
Florida Decides Healthcare Executive Director Mitch Emerson talks to reporters in Tallahassee outside the federal courthouse May 22, 2025. (Photo by Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix)
A federal court hearing held Thursday to determine the fate of Florida's strict new law on ballot initiatives veered into culinary criticism as an attorney compared the measure to 'sausage.'
Attorneys for the DeSantis administration insisted that sausage is edible while those on the other side called it 'rancid.'
Florida legislators passed the law after citizens' initiatives to allow abortion and recreational pot nearly passed last November. Critics contend that the new law — with all of its restrictions on groups and who can collect signatures — will make it nearly impossible for outside organizations to ever place an initiative on the ballot in the future.
Groups have challenged the new law — which was a top priority for Gov. Ron DeSantis — on grounds that it violates their rights to free speech and due process.
During the hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker listened to about three hours of testimony on Florida Decides Healthcare's and Smart & Safe Florida's request that he block certain provisions of the law while the legal challenge moves ahead — including a requirement that sponsors turn in completed petitions within 10 days after the voter signs the petition, as well as stepped up fines and criminal penalties.
Walker, who posed pointed questions to both sides, asked everyone to 'please be patient,' as he considers his ruling.
Florida Decides is behind a campaign to put a Medicaid expansion on the ballot in November 2026. Smart & Safe Florida is behind a renewed initiative to make recreational marijuana legal for adults in Florida.
Both groups need to collect and certify 880,000 voter signatures before Feb. 1 of next year to make the November 2026 ballot.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Tallahassee attorney Glenn Burhans Jr. said that, prior to the new law taking effect, Smart & Safe Florida was collecting 78,000 signatures per week. Since the law took effect, he said, the group is collecting between 12,000 and 15,000 signatures per week.
He said that 1,100 petition circulators who were out in the field have been 'lost' due to the law with its felony penalties.
'That places the ability to get this on the ballot in peril,' he said.
Burhans noted that the law not only condenses the time to submit a petition, it doesn't allow for the period to be extended to account for office closures or holidays — the Legislature, he noted, rejected such extensions. That means petition collectors could have as little as seven days to turn in the forms, he said.
Burhans used the coming Memorial Day Weekend as an example, noting that supervisors of elections offices will be closed from May 24-27. If Smart& Safe Florida collected 1,700 signatures on May 16 but didn't deliver them before an office closed, it could face fines of upward of $255,000 ($85,000 a day times three days).
'Your honor, that's real life. That's impact,' he said.
Tallahassee attorney Mohammad Jazil, representing Secretary of State Cord Byrd, said that the timeline was condensed from 30 days to 10 days to give the supervisors of elections more time to review the petitions and sniff out fraudulent forms.
The state intends to keep language in its rules and regulations that would allow sponsors to deliver petitions outside the 10-day time frame for holidays and office closures, Jazil said.
Walker pressed Jazil on some points, such as what constitutes personal identifying information that must be placed on the petitions. Jazil defended HB 1205 and at one point noted that legislation being made was like watching sausage get made — a famously distasteful process. Jazil joked that this sausage, HB 1205, was edible.
'Sometimes the sausage aren't real tasty, that's why we have challenges here,' Walker replied.
In his rebuttal, Burhans said the law bans supervisors from reviewing ballots between July 1 and September 1. That, he said, doesn't give supervisors more time, but instead creates a 90-day log jam.
Additionally, Burhans stressed that HB 1205 specifically removed language from statute allowing for extensions for holidays and office closures. Agencies cannot promulgate rules contrary to law, he said.
'The sausage is not only bad, it's rancid and filled with maggots,' Burhans said.
Mitch Emerson, executive director of Florida Decides Healthcare, told reporters following the hearing that he was optimistic.
'We had the opportunity to make it very clear why this law is unconstitutional and un-American. This isn't just about one campaign. It's about protecting every Floridian's right,' he said. Blocking the law, he continued, would return the state to the existing rules that petition gathers have relied on for years.
'This means giving people back the ability to organize, gather signatures, and bring issues directly to the ballot without fear, confusion.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP tax and spending bill dings states that offer health care to some immigrants here legally
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults outside of the Governor's Reception Room at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) The Republican budget bill the U.S. House approved last month includes a surprise for the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid: penalties for providing health care to some immigrants who are here legally. Along with punishing the 14 states that use their own funds to cover immigrants who are here illegally, analysts say last-minute changes to the bill would make it all but impossible for states to continue helping some immigrants who are in the country legally, on humanitarian parole. Under the bill, the federal government would slash funding to states that have expanded Medicaid and provide coverage to immigrants who are on humanitarian parole — immigrants who have received permission to temporarily enter the United States due to an emergency or urgent humanitarian reason. The federal government pays 90% of the cost of covering adults without children who are eligible under Medicaid expansion, but the bill would cut that to 80% for those states, doubling the state portion from 10% to 20%. That's the same penalty the bill proposes for states that use their own money to help immigrants who are here illegally. Ironically, states such as Florida that have extended Medicaid coverage to immigrants who are here on humanitarian parole but have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would not be harmed by the bill, said Leonardo Cuello, a Medicaid law and policy expert and research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. It is 'wildly nonsensical and unfair' to penalize expansion states for covering a population that some non-expansion states, such as Florida, also cover, Cuello said. 'It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage.' Republican tax bill could slash billions for Oregon Health Plan, state officials say West Virginia is one of the states where lawmakers are nervously watching U.S. Senate discussions on the proposed penalty. Republican state Rep. Matt Rohrbach, a deputy House speaker, said West Virginia legislators tabled a proposal that would have ended Medicaid expansion if the federal government reduced its share of the funding, because the state's congressional representatives assured them it wasn't going to happen. Now the future is murkier. Cuello called the proposed penalty 'basically a gun to the head of the states.' 'Congress is framing it as a choice, but the state is being coerced and really has no choice,' he said. There are about 1.3 million people in the United States on humanitarian parole, from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Venezuela as well as some Central American children who have rejoined family here. The Trump administration is trying to end parole from some of those countries. A Supreme Court decision May 30 allows the administration to end humanitarian parole for about 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Not many of those parolees qualify for Medicaid, which requires a waiting period or special status, but the 40 states with expanded Medicaid could be penalized if immigrants qualify for the program, said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage. – Leonardo Cuello, Georgetown University research professor Meanwhile, an increasing number of states and the District of Columbia already are considering scaling back Medicaid coverage for immigrants because of the costs. The federal budget bill, named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is now being considered by the Senate, where changes are likely. The fact that so many states could be affected by the last-minute change could mean more scrutiny in that chamber, said Andrea Kovach, senior attorney for health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago. By her count, at least 38 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by the new restrictions, since they accepted some options now offered by Medicaid to cover at least some humanitarian parolees without a five-year waiting period. 'They're all going to be penalized because they added in parolees,' Kovach said. 'So that's 38 times two senators who are going to be very interested in this provision to make sure their state doesn't get their reimbursement knocked down.' The change to exclude people with humanitarian parole was included in a May 21 amendment by U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who chairs the House budget committee. Arrington's office did not reply to a request for comment, though he has stressed the importance of withholding Medicaid from immigrants who are here illegally. '[Democrats] want to protect health care and welfare at any cost for illegal immigrants at the expense of hardworking taxpayers,' Arrington said in a May 22 floor speech urging passage of the bill. 'But by the results of this last election, it's abundantly clear: The people see through this too and they have totally rejected the Democrats' radical agenda.' Some states already are considering cutting Medicaid coverage for immigrants, though Democratic lawmakers and advocates are pushing back. Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed phasing out a program that provides Medicaid coverage to adults regardless of their immigration status, a move she says would save the District of Columbia $457 million. Minnesota advocates protested a state budget deal reached last month with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz to phase out health care coverage for adults who are here illegally, a condition Republican lawmakers insisted on to avoid a shutdown. Similarly, Illinois advocates are protesting new state rules that will end a program that has provided Medicaid coverage to immigrants aged 42-64 regardless of their legal status. The program cost $1.6 billion over three years, according to a state audit. The state will continue a separate program that provides coverage for older adults. 'Our position is that decision-makers in Illinois shouldn't be doing Trump's work for him,' said Kovach, of the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. 'Let's preserve health coverage for immigrants and stand up for Illinois immigrant residents who have been paying taxes into this state for years and need this coverage.' Illinois state Sen. Graciela Guzmán, a Democrat whose parents are refugees from El Salvador, said many of her constituents in Chicago may be forced to cancel chemotherapy or lifesaving surgery because of the changes. 'It was a state budget, but I think the federal reconciliation bill really set the tone for it,' Guzmán said. 'In a tough fiscal environment, it was really hard to set up a defense for this program.' Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek is among the governors holding firm, saying that letting immigrants stay uninsured imposes costs on local hospitals and ends up raising prices for everyone. 'The costs will go somewhere. When everyone is insured it is much more helpful to keep costs down and reasonable for everyone. That's why we've taken this approach to give care to everyone,' Kotek said at a news conference last month. Medicaid does pay for emergency care for low-income patients, regardless of their immigration status, and that would not change under the federal budget bill. Franny White, a spokesperson for the Oregon Health Authority, said her state's Medicaid program covers about 105,000 immigrants, some of whom are here illegally. She said the policy, established by a 2021 state law, can save money in the long run. 'Uninsured people are less likely to receive preventive care due to cost and often wait until a condition worsens to the point that it requires more advanced, expensive care at an emergency department or hospital,' she said. California was among the first states, along with Oregon, to offer health insurance to immigrants of all ages regardless of their legal status. But it now is considering cutting back, looking to save $5 billion as it seeks to close a $12 billion budget deficit. In May, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed freezing enrollment of immigrant adults who are here illegally, and charging them premiums to save money. 'It's possible that other states will decide to cut back these services because of budgetary concerns,' said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research organization. If the federal budget bill passes with the immigrant health care provision intact, states would have more than two years to adjust, since the changes would not take effect until October 2027. 'We have time to really understand what the landscape looks like and really create a legal argument to make sure folks are able to maintain their health care coverage,' said Enddy Almonord, director for Healthy Illinois, an advocacy group supporting universal health care coverage. Stateline, like the Capital Chronicle, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@
26 minutes ago
Trump says he's 'very disappointed' in Elon Musk. Musk strikes back in real time.
President Donald Trump hit back on Elon Musk following Musk's rampage against his domestic megabill, saying on Thursday he's "very disappointed" in the Tesla billionaire. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore," Trump said. Musk responded to the comments in real time on X, where he continued to swipe at the legislation and at Trump directly. "Where is this guy today??" Musk wrote as he reupped another user's compilation of past Trump tweets criticizing high deficits, unbalanced budgets and more. At one point, Musk responded to a user: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." The president was asked about Musk's relentless criticisms of the tax and immigration bill while taking reporter questions alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office. "He hasn't said anything about me that's bad. I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible," Trump said of Musk. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed the House last month by a single vote. The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boost spending for the military and border security, while making some cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs. It now faces headwinds in the Senate, specifically among a small group of Republican fiscal hawks. Musk has said the the legislation, estimated by the nonpartisan budget office to add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, would undermine the Department of Government Efficiency's goal to reduce government spending and trim the national debt. Trump contended on Thursday that Musk, the CEO of Tesla, was really "upset" because the legislation would remove tax credits for electric vehicles. "But I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem." Musk pushed back on X and suggested Trump was not telling the truth. "False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" he wrote. In another post, Musk wrote: "Whatever." "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill," the post read. "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful," Musk added. "Everyone knows this! Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way."
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dr. Oz on Medicaid cuts: People should ‘prove that they matter'
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz defended President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' over criticism that millions of people could lose health coverage, saying those who would face new work requirements should 'prove that they matter.' Oz made the comments during an interview Wednesday on Fox Business, arguing that when Medicaid was created in the 1960s lawmakers did not include work requirements because it 'never dawned on anybody that able-bodied people who work would be on Medicaid.' 'We're asking that able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or at least volunteer or take care of loved-one who needs help or go back to school,' he said. 'Do something that shows you have agency over your future.' If Americans are willing to do that, he added, they should be able to be enrolled or stay enrolled in Medicaid. 'But if you are not willing to do those things, we are going to ask you to do something else. Go on the exchange, or get a job and get onto regular commercial insurance. But we are not going to continue to pay for Medicaid for those audiences.' 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he added. 'It's a much more enjoyable experience if you go through life thinking you are in control of your destiny and you will get better insurance at the same time.' Close to 11 million people would lose health insurance coverage if the House Republican tax bill passes in the Senate, mainly due to cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, according to analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Trump's sprawling agenda bill calls for trillions of dollars' worth of tax cuts, with offsets from sweeping cuts to federal benefit programs, primarily Medicaid. The bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion, according to an analysis from health care policy nonprofit KFF. Most of those savings stem from new work requirements for adults trying to enroll in the public health insurance program and more frequent eligibility checks. The bill calls for states to impose work requirements for childless adults between the ages of 19 and 64, with some exceptions, to be eligible for Medicaid. Adults would be required to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month beginning in December 2026 to qualify for the public health insurance program. Many Trump allies in Congress have sought to downplay the impact of the Medicaid reforms, denying it will reduce access to the program. Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans have raised alarm over Medicaid cuts. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought recently told CNN's Dana Bash that concerns over the bill are 'ridiculous.' 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' he said. 'No one will lose coverage as a result of the bill.' Democrats have pushed hard against the proposed cuts, while GOP senators such as Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) have pushed for changes to the bill passed by the House last month. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
