Florida NAACP v. Browning

522 F.3d 1153 (2008)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Florida NAACP v. Browning

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
522 F.3d 1153 (2008)

KS

Facts

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required that each state create a voter-registration database and that each voter be assigned a distinct number within the database. To comply, when registering to vote, an applicant would provide the last four digits of the prospective voter’s Social Security number or driver’s license number. If an applicant had neither number, the state assigned the individual a unique voter-identification number in the database. Under Florida law, valid voter registration was required for an individual to be eligible to vote. Florida’s voter-registration application required personal information such as name, address, date of birth, and the required driver’s license or last four digits of the applicant’s Social Security number. After creating a registration application, the Florida Department of State verified the driver’s license or Social Security number provided by the appropriate issuing authority. The applicant was notified if the information provided on the voter-registration application could not be verified. If the failure to verify was due to a mistake on the part of the individual applicant, the applicant had to file a new application prior to the closing of the registration period. Individuals who failed to submit an accurate registration before the blackout period were not registered to vote and, therefore, not eligible to vote. The NAACP (plaintiff) sued Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning (defendant), arguing that Florida’s registration-application requirements violated HAVA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sought an injunction to prevent the enforcement of Florida’s law prior to the primary election’s book-closing date of January 29, 2008. The district court, holding that the NAACP had standing to sue and would likely succeed on the merits, granted a preliminary injunction. Browning appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, J.)

Dissent (Barkett, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership