Latest news with #HB1205
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Petition groups argue new Florida law is 'depriving our oxygen.' Will it survive scrutiny?
A new Florida law has significantly dropped volunteer numbers of petition groups to collect signatures for next year's ballot, their lawyers told a federal judge June 30. In Tallahassee's federal courthouse, petition groups — including Florida Decides Healthcare (backing Medicaid expansion) and Smart and Safe Florida (adult-use marijuana) — asked U.S. District Judge Mark Walker to block parts of the law (HB 1205), which created tougher regulations for ballot initiatives. The groups collect signatures to get their proposed state constitutional amendments on the 2026 ballot. Measures need no less than 60% statewide approval to be added to the Florida Constitution. The law went into effect July 1, and it brings higher fines for late petitions, stricter deadlines and restrictive rules for volunteers. Under the new statute, volunteers must be Florida residents and sponsors could face $50,000 fines for each volunteer that violates any of its provisions. More on HB 1205: Florida House passes bill tightening rules for ballot petition drives on amendments Florida Decides Healthcare, the group campaigning for Medicaid expansion, originally filed the lawsuit. Additional groups joined the lawsuit to ask the judge to block parts of the new law, including the League of Women Voters of Florida and Florida Right to Clean Water. Smart and Safe Florida, which also joined the lawsuit, is repeating its effort for a recreational marijuana ballot initiative; its previous attempt came short, getting 55.9% in 2024. Ben Stafford, an attorney with for Florida Decides Healthcare, told the judge that the restrictions in this law demonstrate that its "purpose is to harm our campaign" and chill volunteers, which go against First Amendment rights to speech. Those restrictions include a freeze on petition verification from July 1 to Sept. 30. Stafford also said the costs to verify petitions increased, saying one county that previously charged $1 to verify a single petition now charges $4 a petition. "Do the math," he said. "This is like being forced to run around the state, talking to voters, but at the same time the state is depriving our oxygen to speak." Petition groups lawsuit: Florida ballot initiative law mostly upheld by federal judge, but key part suspended Mohammad Jazil, who represents Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, said the law focused on tackling fraudulent petitions, and he said gathering information about the volunteers helps identify who turned in fraudulent petitions. Volunteers who register to collect petitions must provide their names, addresses, phone numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security number. "They don't want to share personal information, but they're perfectly fine training volunteers to gather other people's personal information," said Jazil, with the Holtzman Vogel law firm. He continued, saying the government mostly already has all this information, but it just can't link the petitions to unregistered volunteers. The nearly eight-hour hearing included testimony from three petition gatherers, who described how fears of facing penalties from this law has led to decreased volunteers and stronger financial burdens for their grassroots campaigns. Ana-Christina Acosta Gaspar De Alba with Florida Decides Healthcare said volunteers are worried about giving their personal information for public record out of fear of harassment: "Overwhelmingly, the majority of volunteers are not willing to do this." The hearing comes weeks after Walker mostly denied requests to temporarily block multiple portions of the law, except for one motion from the health care group that challenged a change in the racketeering statute to include violations of state election code and petition fraud. In the order on the motion for preliminary injunction, Walker agreed with the plaintiffs over a "vagueness" claim for "racketeering activity." Such court orders can be granted early in a lawsuit to temporarily stop something, like enforcement of a law, until the case is fully decided. The judge did not issue a ruling, but said he would not submit an order until after reviewing the hundreds of case documents. 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@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida petition groups say amendment crackdown law unconstitutional
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blocks part of new Florida petition law, says noncitizens can gather signatures
A federal judge upheld most of a new Florida law toughening regulations for petition gathering, but ordered that state officials couldn't enforce a provision for some petition groups that prohibited nonresident and noncitizen volunteers from gathering signatures. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker wrote in an order granting a preliminary injunction for this provision that Florida officials have great leeway in regulating the initiative petition process, but that prohibiting nonresidents and noncitizens from circulating petitions "impose a severe burden on political expression." Furthermore, Walker agreed that the petition groups are "substantially likely" to succeed in First Amendment claims challenging the residency and citizenship requirements of the law. "But here, the State has categorically barred entire classes of people from participating in the core political speech that is central to this process," Walker wrote. Walker, however, denied other requests for preliminary injunction for other parts of the law, such as a 90-day pause on signature verification from supervisors of elections and an affidavit requirement for volunteers to include names and addresses on initiative petitions. The law (HB 1205) was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May and went into effect July 1. Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd's office is pending comment. The petition groups challenging the new state law include Florida Decides Healthcare (backing Medicaid expansion), Smart and Safe Florida (adult-use marijuana) and Florida Right to Clean Water. The marijuana group told the judge in late May that the nonresident provision of the law would substantially burden them since it fines $50,000 for each nonresident and noncitizen volunteer, arguing that it would face $23.7 million in fines under new state law since they hired about 474 nonresident volunteers since March. In a statement, Florida Decides Healthcare lauded a victory to the portion the federal judge did grant, although it noted that the group doesn't agree with every part of the ruling. Mitch Emerson, the executive director of the group, said, "this is a victory for the constitutional rights of Floridians, and brings us one step closer to providing healthcare access to over a million, including veterans, seniors, women, and working families." Walker's order comes a week after a nearly eight-hour hearing with testimony from three petition gatherers, who described how fears of penalties from this law led to stronger burdens and decreased volunteers for their grassroots campaigns. Petition groups testify: Petition groups argue new Florida law is 'depriving our oxygen.' Will it survive scrutiny? The crux of all plaintiff's arguments were that the new law violates First Amendment rights to political speech and to petition government. The urgency for a preliminary injunction was already heightened since petition groups face a looming Feb. 1 deadline to submit nearly 900,000 signatures. The latest injunction by the federal judge marks the second order granting relief, since Walker sided with Florida Decides Healthcare in early June that the new law's expanded definition of "racketeering activity," which was changed to include violations of state election code and petition fraud, was "unconstitutionally vague" and "allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Preliminary injunction granted: Florida ballot initiative law mostly upheld by federal judge, but key part suspended For years, petition groups have gathered signatures across the state to pass ballot initiatives for a variety of issues — like setting a cap on the number of students in a classroom, mandating a $15 minimum wage, approving medical marijuana or restoring voting rights to felons. The law's stricter penalties and deadlines aren't the only hurdle petition groups must face to put their measures on the ballot for the 2026 elections. This lawsuit comes after a recreational marijuana and abortion rights ballot amendment failed to meet Florida's threshold of 60% support to amend the constitution. Voters supported the amendments by 57.2% and 55.9%, respectively. 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@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Judge blocks part of new Florida law restricting amendment process
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration seeks to dismiss lawsuit by New Hampshire transgender teens
Attorney Chris Erchull (left) speaks outside U.S. District Court of New Hampshire on behalf of Parker Tirrell (right) after a U.S. District Court judge temporarily blocked a law barring transgender girls from girls' sports teams from taking effect on Monday, Aug. 19, 2024. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) The U.S. Justice Department is defending itself against two New Hampshire transgender high school students who allege that President Donald Trump's executive orders earlier this year would unconstitutionally deprive them of playing girls' sports. In a June 6 filing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Lawson argued the two students, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, had not established an imminent risk of being affected by the executive orders. And he contended that even if the executive order did affect the students, the administration's intent — to prevent transgender girls from playing girls' sports — is lawful. '… The Sports Order's classification is rationally related to the physical advantages of males in sports and serves the legitimate government purpose of ensuring equal opportunities for females,' Lawson wrote. The filing comes as Tirrell and Turmelle are suing the state of New Hampshire in federal court to overturn House Bill 1205, a 2024 New Hampshire law that limits middle school and high school girls' sports teams to children who were female at birth. That law would prevent Tirrell and Turmelle, both transgender girls, from participating on their sports teams. In September, Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily stops HB 1205 from applying to Tirrell and Turmelle, allowing them to continue playing while the case proceeds. That order does not apply to other transgender students in the state. But while the state law is temporarily frozen, lawyers for Tirrell and Turmelle argue Trump's executive orders this year pose a new threat. Those orders, titled 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government' and 'Keeping Men out of Women's Sports,' require the Department of Education to interpret Title IX, the law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools, to exclude transgender female athletes from female sports and warn school districts to align their policies to that interpretation or lose federal funding. In February, attorneys for Turmelle and Tirrell filed a motion to expand their lawsuit against the state to also include the Trump administration, and specifically asked the New Hampshire District Court to strike down Trump's executive orders. In its recent response, the Trump administration argues there is no evidence that the president's executive orders have affected Tirrell or Turmelle yet, and that the lawsuit seeking to stop those orders should thus be dismissed. Without that direct harm, plaintiffs have failed to state a proper claim for a lawsuit, defendants wrote. 'Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing, and their stated speculative risk of future injury is not close to imminent and may never become ripe,' the Department of Justice wrote. The plaintiffs had argued that the executive order 'to target investigations and rescind federal funding' put the girls' ability to continue playing on girls' sports teams at risk. But the government argues that that alleged threat is not strong enough. And they say the plaintiffs have not met a critical two-part test: to show that the injury is both 'imminent' — meaning it is 'certainly impending' and not just speculative — and 'particularized' — meaning it specifically affects the plaintiffs suing, and not just the general population. In an interview Monday, Chris Erchull, staff attorney for GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), rejected the government's contention that the executive orders do not pose a threat to the New Hampshire students. He pointed to the Trump administration's April lawsuit against the Maine Department of Education, in which the administration argued the state was violating Title IX by allowing transgender students to compete on girls' sports teams. That example, Erchull said, indicates that the administration could easily turn its attention on New Hampshire school districts. 'If they're not challenging the executive order in court, without court protection, the United States Department of Education can and almost certainly will go after the school districts where these two young people play sports and try to cut funding to those schools,' he said. But the Department of Justice attorneys wrote that any future funding cuts to Turmelle or Tirrell's public schools that might result from Trump's executive order would involve a number of decisions in the future and are 'far too speculative,' the government wrote. The process to cut off Title IX funds to a school district requires the Department of Education to file a notice to the school district, includes a potential hearing, and mandates a full written report to Congress, all of which can take months, the government wrote. 'Plaintiffs here do not (and cannot) plausibly allege that the Agency Defendants have even started this multi-step process for any educational program in New Hampshire, much less the two particular schools that Plaintiffs attend,' the government wrote. 'They do not (and cannot) point to even an initiated investigation in New Hampshire.' Attorneys with the Justice Department suggested that the U.S. Department of Education might not even bother with investigations into New Hampshire schools, since the state already passed a state law, HB 1205, barring transgender girls from playing girls' sports. Even if Tirrell and Turmelle are blocked from participating in sports, the executive orders do not violate the Fifth Amendment or Title IX, the government motion argues. According to the motion, Trump's executive orders are designed to protect women's sports, meaning that they uphold the purpose of Title IX. 'Because of the inherent physiological difference between males and females, the Sports Order's policy of 'oppos[ing] male competitive participation in women's sports' is substantially related to the important government interest of safety, fairness, and ensuring 'women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports,'' the motion states. The government's motion continues by asserting that neither transgender status nor gender identity are protected classes under Title IX. In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that gender identity is a protected class under the anti-sex-based discrimination provision of Title VII, in a case relating to employment law. But the Department of Justice says that decision does not apply to Title IX, and that the goal of keeping girls' sports exclusive to cisgender girls is allowed under federal law. Erchull disagrees. 'When you make a transgender status-based classification, that's a sex-based classification,' he said. 'And we have tons of precedent that says that that is entitled to heightened scrutiny, but what the federal government is saying is that that doesn't count.' The plaintiffs in the case will likely file a response brief to the government's motion in the coming weeks, and eventually the parties will appear in federal court for oral arguments, Erchull said. And attorneys on both sides are watching the Supreme Court this month. Justices are expected to issue a decision in United States v. Skrmetti, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Tennessee ban on transgender medical care. The decision could affect how both sides shape their arguments in New Hampshire, Erchull said.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawyers look to have Trump dropped from NH transgender sports ban lawsuit
Attorneys for the Trump administration have filed a motion seeking to be dropped from a lawsuit filed by two transgender teens fighting a New Hampshire law and a presidential executive order banning them from playing girls school sports. The families of Parker Tirrell, 16, and Iris Turmelle, 14, and the civil rights advocates representing them filed a motion in February in U.S. District Court in Concord to expand their lawsuit to challenge President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from playing in girls and women's sports. In a motion filed Friday, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson argued attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle — following months of litigation challenging state law — are now attempting to 'drag the federal government into a lawsuit well under way not because of any imminent injury, but because of a generalized grievance with policies set by the President of the United States.' GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire are representing Tirrell and Turmelle, who sued state Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, members of the State Board of Education and the students' respective school districts in August. The case challenges HB 1205, also known as the 'Fairness in Women's Sports Act,' signed into law last July. The law requires athletes in grades 5-12 to play on interscholastic or club teams matching the sex on their birth certificates. In September, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty blocked enforcement of the law while it is being challenged in court. Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 5 called 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' to bar transgender girls and women from playing in girls and women's sports. Just two days after attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle filed their motion to add Trump as a defendant in their lawsuit, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association told schools to abide by the order, saying in a news release that noncompliance could lead to 'possible consequences to federal funding.' In the motion filed Friday, Lawson argued attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle failed to claim the federal defendants have taken 'a single action' to implement the executive order against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' schools, or 'even in the state of New Hampshire.' 'What's worse, plaintiffs' attempts to rope the federal defendants into this case are based on flawed understanding of Equal Protection law' and separation of powers, the motion states. 'Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing and their stated speculative risk of future injury is not close to imminent and may never become ripe,' Lawson argued in his motion. The motion asks the judge to dismiss the claims against Trump, the justice and education departments and department heads. 'Plaintiffs assert a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim alleging that the 'Sports Order' impermissibly discriminates 'on the basis of sex,'' Lawson wrote, adding the plaintiffs also argued the order discriminates based on 'transgender status.' 'The Sports Order simply reaffirms that males and females are not similarly situated when it comes to sports,' Lawson wrote. 'The Supreme Court recognizes that 'differences between men and women' are 'enduring' and thus sex is not an inherently 'proscribed classification.' The biological differences between the sexes make them dissimilarly situated in sports, with males having a distinct physical advantage.'
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge largely declines to block Florida law restricting ballot-initiative drives
A federal judge on Wednesday largely denied a request from petition groups to block parts of a Florida law that changes how citizen-led amendments make it to the ballot. 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.
