A federal court ruled that Florida cannot cut the number of early voting days from 12 to eight in several counties because it could "disproportionately affect" minorities.
The three-judge panel cited protections under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in its decision, which prevents localities from making certain changes to voting rules without clearance from federal officials. Specifically, five of Florida's 67 counties are protected, the court noted.
The Florida legislature approved the reduction in hours last year in a bill that included a variety of changes to the state's election rules and Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law May 19, 2011.
The judges wrote in their decision:
We cannot, at this time, preclear Florida’s early voting changes because the State has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that those changes will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Specifically, the State has not proven that the changes will be nonretrogressive if the covered counties offer only the minimum number of early voting hours that they are required to offer under the new statute, which would constitute only half the hours required under the prior law.
In writing their opinion the panel did leave room for the law to go forward as long as the maximum number of hours allowed under it, rather than standard practices, were utilized for early voting. The judges cited the inclusion of additional weekend voting time, Sunday in particular, as a way to offset the impact of less days of available voting.
The record evidence persuades us that, if the covered counties offer the maximum available early voting hours each day on a standard 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. schedule, the negative effect of reducing the number of days from 12 to 8 would likely be offset by the ameliorative effects of adding non-working weekday hours, a Sunday, and additional weekend hours.
In other words, if there are 12 hours of early voting available each weekday (ideally 7 am to 7 pm, which opens up traditionally non-working hours) over the course of those eight early voting days, plus an additional Sunday of voting, Florida could convince the federal court that its new law would not disproportionately impact minorities.
The court also upheld a separate new rule under the law that impacts Florida residents who move counties and then want to re-register and cast their vote in their new county on voting day. Although, the judges found that such “inter-county mover” changes disproportionately affect minority voters, because they are more likely to make those address updates directly at the poll, it ultimately did not find enough evidence that the new rule would prevent minorities from casting a ballot.
The new law will require such movers to fill out a provisional ballot at the poll instead of a regular ballot.
The AP first reported the decision, and TPM has posted the text of the decision here.



Good, this republicans are out of control with this voter suppresion, They know they cant win anymore elections without it. Since their position are so extreme.
"The record evidence persuades us that, if the covered counties offer the maximum available early voting hours each day on a standard 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. schedule, the negative effect of reducing the number of days from 12 to 8 would likely be offset by the ameliorative effects of adding non-working weekday hours, a Sunday, and additional weekend hours."
Finally, a judicial tribunal that has decided based on principle and public policy (the law) rather than politics, with regard to voter suppression. The concept, here, is a simple one based on the theory of adverse impact. The State of Florida, having proposed the change, was bound to prove that the change would not adversely effect the rights of one group of American citizens versus another relative to the constitutional exercise of their franchise (the vote) and they (Florida conservatives) did not meet the text. Sorry Mitt: Nice try, but it seems that your brand of "Back to The Future" won't be playing in "prime time" in Florida; at least, not in time to make the difference you and your "robber barons" were hoping for.
We need to go back and personally sue those individuals who knowingly created and then enacted such policies. Hit them in the pocket. Is it not illegal to holler "fire" in a theater? Then why is it not illegal for individuals to come up with laws that are clearly a violation of the voting rights act, and they are not held to pay for their actions? Those individual clearly knows what their action will result in- voter suppression- yet they get away with it.
Personally sue them!!!!!!!!!
I would like to know why truth in advertisement is not applied to political ads. If that was applied, the ad content for these ads would be minimized and taking things out of context would be reduced dramatically? The should be treated like any other company since now companies can pour money into these campaigns with no accountability.