Voters should not have to risk their lives in order to register to vote. Yet, in Florida, that's exactly the position that the state has chosen to put tens of thousands of people in. Despite the state’s Oct. 9 deadline to register to vote arriving amidst a looming Category 4 hurricane, Florida has refused to grant an adequate extension for Floridians to register to vote. 

Hurricane Michael threatens to lash Florida with a life-threatening storm surge, maximum wind speeds of 145 mph, and flash floods. Prolonged power outages in the Gulf Coast region are all but assured. Gov. Scott has declared a state of emergency in 35 counties, calling Hurricane Michael a “deadly threat” and a “monstrous storm” with a forecast that “keeps getting worse.” Evacuation orders are in place for parts of 18 counties, with National Guard search-and-rescue teams being deployed.

By all accounts, including the governor’s, this was no time for anyone to stroll into their local elections office to fill out a voter registration form. Under state law, Florida has the option of simply extending the deadline, but the state has refused to do so. As a result, tens of thousands of voters may find themselves unable to register in time and therefore unable to vote in the November election.

Florida’s refusal to extend the deadline statewide is not just nonsensical, it violates voters’ 14th Amendment rights, which protect against unnecessary burdens on the right to vote. Late last night, we filed a federal lawsuit, along with the ACLU of Florida and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, seeking a statewide extension of the voter registration deadline.

This is not the first time we’ve had to do this. October hurricanes are to be expected in Florida. Hurricane Mathew hit in October of 2016 just before the voter registration deadline for the presidential election. Then, like now, the state refused to extend its registration deadline, and the ACLU and others had to sue to have it extended. During the week extension for the 2016 registration deadline, tens of thousands of people filed new voters registrations and thousands of others updated their registration information.

The state should have learned its lesson, but once again, Florida is poised to violate the voting rights of thousands of people for no legitimate reason. Moreover, its proposed plan to fix the issue will only cause more problems. Secretary of State Ken Detzner has authorized supervisors of elections, whose offices are closed today as a result of Hurricane Michael, to accept paper voter registration on the next day the office is reopened, whenever that may be. This solution is clearly inadequate since it only applies in some counties and doesn’t inform voters which day the office will be open again to accept registrations.

Compounding the effects of Hurricane Michael, Florida’s online voter registration system was only functioning sporadically in the days before the deadline. After glitches before the primary election registration deadline, the ACLU and others repeatedly warned Florida about website issues and predicted that voters would face OVR problems before the general election registration deadline if the state did not address them. Despite the warnings and ongoing reports from Floridians unable to register online, the state did not take precautions to improve the website and now refuses to extend the deadline for registering online.

Gov. Scott, Secretary of State Detzner, and all other Florida leaders should be doing everything in their power to make sure those affected by the storm can still exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Julie Ebenstein, Senior Staff Attorney, Voting Rights Project, ACLU

The latest update on the controversial battle to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court is now spinning its way through the news cycle. Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor chosen by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Kavanaugh and his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, states that she would not have filed charges of sexual assault based on the information currently available. After this statement, many pundits sympathetic to Kavanaugh jumped board, stating that he deserves the presumption of innocence and should be appointed to the Court.

Well, yes and no.

The presumption of innocence attaches to a criminal trial.  The prosecutor has to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is a heavy burden. 

And as a former prosecutor, I agree.  This case would not be filed in a court of law today.

The focus is on today.  This distinction is important, because an ethical prosecutor cannot file charges based on the word of the victim alone. There must be some other corroborating evidence.  This is what makes delayed reports of abuse and assault so difficult. There is very little by way of corroborating evidence decades away from the crime.

However, the FBI has conducted an investigation with the results now before the Senate. They may or may not uncover evidence that corroborates her claim.

But even that is not to the point. 

This is a job interview, and no presumption of innocence applies to a job interview. There is never a guarantee when one interviews for a job that he or she will get it. Any number of reasons can be invoked – experience, whether the applicant will fit into the office culture, or if the applicant would be a good ambassador for the company or brand.

How many cases have you heard of where folks were not hired due to their social media posts? Thirty-seven percent (37%) of companies peruse social media networks to research candidates. A while back, when I was going through the process of seeking a judicial appointment in Miami, I was advised to shut down all of my social media platforms. Why? Because one post of me drinking a glass of wine at dinner could be misconstrued. It might lead persons involved in the decision process to believe I was a partier and unfit for the bench.

Seriously. 

My friends who have applied for positions at the U.S. Attorney’s Office have been told to make sure their finances were in order, and to be ready to discuss any family members who may have had interactions with the criminal justice system. I’ve known attorneys who had offers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office revoked due to not passing the background check. 

What caused the failure? Having a prior bankruptcy from many years ago.

The bottom line is: If there are questions about a person’s past, integrity, and demeanor, employers are within their rights to not hire the person. As long as the rejection is not due to race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected class, deciding who you want in your company is up to you.

The same logic applies to the highest court in the land. If there is a question about how a candidate views women -- knowing that cases involving women’s rights will come before the court -- that is a game changer. If there is a question about a candidate’s stability, his honesty… why even bother? There are other conservative judges who are baggage-free. 

Cross off Kavanaugh and move to the next one on the list.

It’s that simple. 

No one is entitled to a job.