It’s a presidential election year, which means experts are already predicting record-setting turnout in November. Florida is the nation’s largest swing state, and once again, Florida voters will play a key role in determining who our next president will be in November. But, the presidential election is not the only crucial election Floridians will engage in this year. As Tip O'Neill famously said, “All politics is local,” and local and state officials will play a critical role in ensuring that Floridians have equal and unencumbered access to the polls.

At the ACLU of Florida, we’re pushing Florida officials to adopt policies that improve voter registration procedures and the voting process, to ensure more citizen participation in our elections.  Due to unprecedented increases in state and federal funding for election protection, triggered by foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the State has  the great opportunity to improve election administration procedures.

In Florida, each of our 67 counties has its own supervisor of elections (SOE) and that individual has a wide degree of discretion on issues governing access to the polls. That includes: determining the number of early voting days available to voters in their county; the accessibility of polling locations; and the signature matching process for vote-by-mail ballots. Unfortunately, policies on these issues vary widely throughout the state.

As the SOE is largely responsible for ensuring the administration of elections in their county, engaging with them and their staff on how to improve access to the ballot box can greatly increase local participation in our elections. And, this is something anyone can do locally!

Increase early voting days across the state

• Each county should provide for the maximum number of early voting days possible. 
• Early voting days should include the Sunday before Election Day.

By law, each county must provide for early voting starting at least 10 days before Election Day and ending no sooner than three days before that day. But counties, according to their own discretion, can expand the number of early voting days, starting two weeks before Election Day and can also include the Sunday before Election Day. Most Floridians have more flexibility on weekends, allowing them to coordinate childcare and transportation to the polls. Additionally, the Sunday before Election Day or “Souls to the Polls” is a major day African American churches across the country coordinate transportation to polling locations. In many counties, the number of voters taking advantage of early voting peaks on the Sunday before Election Day, making it a prime reason why SOEs across the state should take full advantage of allowing for the maximum number of early voting days possible in their county.

In order to increase early voting days in your county, urge your SOE to:

• Provide the most early voting days and hours possible.
• Publicize early voting opportunities throughout the county.

Ensure fair and uniform vote-by-mail (VBM) procedures and signature matching

During every election cycle, thousands of vote-by-mail ballots are not  returned to supervisors of elections on time or are rejected by county canvassing boards for a variety of reasons. Two principal reasons for the rejection of a vote-by-mail ballot are due to a missing or signature mismatch, meaning the  signature on the envelope bearing the ballot does not “sufficiently” match the signature on file for that voter. When there is a signature mismatch, often, these rejections are arbitrary and because Florida’s counties do not use standardized coding when documenting the reasons for VBM ballots to be initially rejected, processed, or cured, it makes it difficult to track these problems across the state. 

In order to ensure VBM ballots are counted in all 67 counties, urge your SOE to:

• Invest in voter education on the vote-by-mail process, signature requirements and other absentee ballot procedures. 
• Provide follow-up notices to remind voters to return their vote-by-mail ballot.
• Provide a process for voters to track their vote-by-mail ballots once they are submitted, such as an online portal. 
• Ensure that county canvassing boards only reject vote-by-mail ballots for legitimate signature mismatch reasons and require “cure” affidavits for voters who challenge the rejection of their ballots.
• Ensure voters know how to update their signature when they submit their vote-by-mail ballots

Ensure equity and accessibility in the selection of polling locations

Since the 1965 Voting Rights Act by the U.S. Supreme Court was gutted in 2013, the nation has seen many polling places closed, especially in communities of color.

In order to increase genuinely accessible polling locations for all Florida citizens, urge your SOE to:

• Ensure that a sufficient number of polling places exist in communities of color.
• Ensure that early voting locations exist in all areas of a county and that those locations serve all citizens equally. 
• When using private facilities as polling places ensure these locations are open and accessible to all. 
• Use colleges and universities as early voting sites as often as possible.

Facilitate vote-by-mail ballots for people in jail, those experiencing homelessness or attending colleges and universities, and provide voter education for those citizens

It is not necessary for a person to have a fixed address in order to vote. Voters who are experiencing homelessness, attending college, or in jail may have trouble registering to vote and/or voting on Election Day.

For voters who are experiencing homelessness, urge your SOE to:

• Ensure that early voting and polling sites are located in places accessible to those experiencing homelessness, who may not have personal transportation.
• Provide postage-paid return envelopes for vote-by-mail ballots or pick up ballots from homeless shelters.
• Provide voter education forms, flyers and how-to guides for distribution and create kiosks accessible to homeless people for those materials.
• Provide signage in public spaces across the county to help people understand how they can vote without a traditional address.

For voters in jail, urge your SOE to:

• Visit the jail and regularly communicate with jail officials to ensure open lines of communication and ease of election administration.
• Provide voter education forms, flyers and guides for distribution to incarcerated persons. 
• Provide postage-paid return envelopes for ballots or pick up ballots from the jail.

Get to know your SOE

Not everyone can travel to Tallahassee to lobby their legislators, but there is a lot you can do in your local community by simply spending time with your local supervisor of elections. Find your SOE office here!

As local officials, SOEs are accountable to all of us to run secure and efficient elections. Here’s what you can do to start advocating for these reforms: 

1. Set up a meeting with your local SOE or their office and be specific about why you want to meet with your SOE and cover the issues we’ve outlined above. 
2. Let them know you want to help and will be sharing what you learn with your fellow advocates and interested community members. 
3. Once your meeting is set-up let us know you’ve scheduled a meeting or if you need help advocating locally by contacting our Statewide Voting Rights Organizer Sam at scoodley@aclufl.org. 
4. Please submit what you learn from the meeting through by completing this form. 

We’re so excited you’re interested in making our elections process more fair equitable across the state. 

Start today – and let’s do all we can to ensure 2020 is a smooth and secure election!

Congress has just five weeks to decide the fate of key foreign intelligence surveillance powers — forcing a showdown between surveillance reformers and defenders. And now, a group of Republicans and Democrats have unveiled the strongest comprehensive reform proposal that we have seen yet. 

The Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act of 2020, introduced by a bipartisan group of members including Sens. Wyden (D-Ore.) and Daines (R-Mont.), is a strong first step. The bill is a response to the spying abuses that seem to pile up by the day — the collection of over a billion call records, spying on a prominent Trump advisor based on flawed evidence, and use of extraordinary measures to prevent courts from judging the legality of the government’s practices. 

There are many things to like about the bill.   

For one, it makes many strong reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act — the infamous law that was used by the Bush and Obama administrations to collect the call records of nearly every single American. The bill puts a definitive end to the call record program, which was recently suspended by the NSA amid a cascade of reports revealing unauthorized record collections and legal violations. The bill also heightens the legal standard that the government must meet to collect records under Section 215 and rightly requires the government to purge those records within three years, with limited exceptions.

In addition to reforming Section 215, the bill also attempts to rein in other national security authorities that the government has abused. For example, it inserts a sunset into the Justice Department’s “National Security Letter” administrative subpoena authorities, which the government has often misused to collect information in non-terrorism cases and pressure companies to turn over information that the government should only be demanding with a court-ordered warrant in hand. Such a sunset will rightly prompt oversight by Congress and a debate over whether these provisions should be permitted to continue at all. 

Moreover, the bill takes a first step towards ensuring that individuals trapped in the government’s surveillance regime can better exercise their constitutional rights. In particular, the bill requires the government to notify individuals in cases where information “obtained” or “derived” from Section 215 collection is used against them. It also defines the meaning of “derived,” in FISA, to prevent the government from engaging in legal gymnastics and evading its notice obligations.     

Finally, the bill takes an initial step towards reforming the secretive, one-sided intelligence court.  The Carter Page debacle brought the deficiencies of the court into stark relief: despite numerous omissions and inaccuracies, the FISA court approved an initial application and three subsequent renewal applications targeting the Trump campaign advisor for surveillance. To help prevent these types of abuses in the future, the bill would enhance the power of amici curiae — “friends of the court” whom the FISC currently appoint in a narrow number of novel and significant cases — to raise concerns in a larger subset of proceedings or to recommend a case review by a higher court. In addition, the bill would put in place several added transparency measures to give the public a better understanding of how the government is using the Patriot Act and other spying powers.

Despite these strong provisions, the proposed bill is far from perfect and members of Congress should address its gaps.   

For one, the bill fails to fully protect the rights of defendants by ensuring they have access to FISA applications and orders in cases where intelligence information is used against them. If, like Carter Page, someone was improperly surveilled on the basis of government misstatements or omissions, they should have the ability to prove the government was wrong. Along the same lines, the bill does nothing to ensure that individuals who are spied on — but never prosecuted — are notified. Criminal statutes like the Wiretap Act have long required after-the-fact notice to surveillance targets, with provisions designed to protect ongoing investigations.  There is no reason that a similar requirement should not exist in the intelligence context. 

Second, Congress needs to place greater limits on the Patriot Act and other surveillance powers to strengthen First Amendment protections and ensure intelligence authorities are not abusing the laws to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, and other protected characteristics.

Third, while the bill makes a notable effort to limit the types of records that can be obtained under Section 215 — prohibiting the collection of cell site location information, GPS information, and browsing history, among others — this language should be strengthened. Congress must make crystal clear that the government cannot use Section 215 to obtain other types of location information or sensitive records, like tax returns or medical records. Under Section 215, the government can obtain large quantities of records by merely showing that they are “relevant” to a terrorism or counterintelligence investigation.  This standard is much weaker than the probable cause standard required by warrant.  Thus, in cases where the government seeks these sensitive records, they should be required to meet a higher evidentiary threshold. 

Finally, additional reforms are needed to fully empower the FISA court amici and tackle the deficiencies within the intelligence courts. Elements from a recent bill sponsored by Reps. Nunes (D-Calif.), Stewart (R-Utah), and other Republicans should be incorporated, including language requiring amici participation in proceedings targeting Americans, directing the amici to assess the sufficiency of evidence, and increasing transparency over the court’s proceedings.  

The clock is ticking — and it’s past time for Congress to pass these critical reforms.

Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel

Before I finished high school, I learned I was pregnant. As a result of fear and a lack of resources, by the time I confided in my mother and grandmother, I had no choice — I was going to be a mother. Becoming a parent as a teenager came with many harsh realities. I love my children with all my heart, but I know that everyone should be able to make the decision to parent for themselves.

This personal experience, along with my passion for young people, is how I came to my work at the Alabama Women’s Center. As a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and medical director of a Huntsville-based reproductive health clinic, I provide prenatal care, deliver babies, treat mothers after they give birth, and provide abortion care. I have been in the shoes of many of the young people I see in my clinic, and it’s important for them to know that regardless of their decision, I am here to support them.

Today, I’m testifying on Capitol Hill in support of the Women’s Health Protection Act because access to abortion care should not differ depending on your zip code, as it does for my patients in Alabama. 

Providing abortion care in my state is challenging. Decades of medically-unnecessary restrictions have slowly chipped away at access to abortion care in Alabama and nearby states, forcing many providers to shut their doors. It is not unusual for my patients to travel up to eight hours or from as far away as Louisiana and Florida. They are required to endure a 48-hour state-mandated delay period before I can provide the care they need. I know of people who have slept in their cars during this period because they had no other options.

The state also mandates that my patients receive outdated materials and misinformation that I then need to correct. We are required to perform ultrasound examinations, even when they are unnecessary and provide no medical value.

Alabama bans abortion after 20 weeks of gestation. Patients needing care after that point have to travel out of state, making the care more expensive. And young people have to navigate an onerous, time-intensive judicial approval process to have an abortion if they cannot involve a parent.

And, just last year, the legislature passed a near total ban on abortion that threatens doctors like myself with up to 99 years in prison for providing ethical, medically-appropriate care. Fortunately, the ban is currently blocked, as a result of a lawsuit filed by myself and other abortion providers, represented by the ACLU. But that does not change the web of medically unnecessary restrictions that still exists and causes harm to my patients on a daily basis.

Indeed, over the years, the Alabama Women’s Center has been forced to comply with onerous, medically-unnecessary building requirements. We were required to install 24-hour lighting, even though we do not see patients after 5 p.m.  A local anti-abortion group sued the zoning board, then drafted legislation (later struck down by a court) making it illegal to operate an abortion clinic within 2,000 feet of a school to try to force us to close.

Meanwhile, the maternal and infant mortality rates in Alabama remain unconscionably high. According to the Alabama Department of Public Health, a majority of Alabama counties lack hospitals that offer obstetrical care. Moreover, the number of pregnancy-related has steadily increased. Black women in Alabama are nearly five times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. We know that racial disparities in health care are exacerbated by policies that make accessing health care more challenging. Without access to abortion, maternal mortality rates will rise even more — in Alabama, and across the country.

Every patient deserves access to abortion care, regardless of where they live or how much money they have. Even though Alabama’s all-out abortion ban is not in effect, my patients are worried. One told me of the nightmares she had prior to coming to the clinic about being turned away and denied services because of these restrictive laws.

The bottom line is this: Abortion care is health care. Health care in any specialty should be patient centered, and medical decisions should remain between the patient and her physician, without political interference. The Women’s Health Protection Act would bring needed protection from that interference for my patients, safeguard their right to abortion care, and ensure that my patients have the time, information, and ability they need to make life-changing personal decisions.

Yashica Robinson, MD