Opponents of a Florida abortion-rights constitutional measure filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to invalidate the amendment proposal, alleging fraud in the collection of signatures required to get it on the ballot.
The lawsuit, filed in multiple jurisdictions, cites as evidence an investigative report from the Florida Department of State’s Office of Election Crimes and Security, which was published Oct. 11.
The report accuses some workers who collected signatures of fraud. The report also accused Floridians Protecting Freedom, the coalition behind the proposal, of illegally paying workers based on the number of signatures collected.
The lawsuit was filed by two women from Taylor County and two women from St. Lucie County who want the proposal removed from the Nov. 5 ballot. One of the plaintiffs is the survivor of a failed abortion at 10½ weeks of gestation, according to the filing.
The defendants include 21 county supervisors of elections, state Secretary of State Cord Byrd and Floridians Protecting Freedom. The complaint alleges the elections officials failed to conduct a sufficient review before verifying petition forms and signatures.
Earlier this year, Floridians Protecting Freedom turned over a petition for the proposal with over 1 million Floridian signatures. Legally, the petition needed 891,523 signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
According to the state report, 16.4% of the signatures weren’t valid, which would leave the petition 60,000 signatures short of qualifying. According to the report, petitions were signed on behalf of deceased people, contained forgeries or signature misrepresentations, and used personal identifying information without elector consent.
The suit also alleges that Floridians Protecting Freedom hired a California company to gather fraudulent signatures.
“It was so rampant, the fraud, that almost 20% of the signatures that were turned in were forged signatures and were not real signatures of registered voters who were authorized,” said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Alan Lawson, who filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Lawson doesn’t expect the suit to arrive in a court before Election Day, but said that doesn’t matter.
“If it turns out that the evidence is as we know it to be from the report that there aren't enough signatures for it to legally be on the ballot, then it will not become law, even if it had enough votes to make it law,” he said.
Members of Floridians Protecting Freedom said the suit is an attempt to keep Floridians from voicing their decision regarding state abortion laws.
“Despite the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that the measure met the threshold for ballot placement months ago, opponents are still trying to interfere with Floridians’ ability to decide our fate for ourselves,” said Keisha Mulfort, communications strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of the coalition.
Among the opponents is the DeSantis administration, which has targeted the proposal through legal means, public service announcements urging a “no” vote and setting up a webpage warning against it.
On Thursday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order stopping the administration's health department from making threats against TV stations over a commercial promoting the amendment.
Floridians Protecting Freedom, which produced the ad, sued over letters health officials had sent to broadcasters claiming the ads had dangerous and false information about state law and that the department could initiate criminal charges if they don't stop airing the ads.
Also, a Leon County judge rejected a request by Floridians Protecting Freedom to shut down a website and remove ads about the amendment that were produced by the state Agency for Health Care Administration.
The website and ads were used to disseminate information about the measure. Floridians Protecting Freedom contended AHCA violated state law by using public resources to spread “misinformation.”
In refusing to grant a temporary injunction, the judge wrote that it was not for the courts to intervene and "decide what the people will be permitted to consider."
The amendment, which would enshrine abortion in the state constitution, reads:
“No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
The measure requires 60% of the vote to pass.
