State police in Florida are visiting the homes of individuals who signed a petition supporting an abortion rights amendment that is set to appear on the ballot in November. The investigation is probing alleged petition fraud, as critics argue that the timing of the probe, after the deadline to contest signatures, is a tactic to intimidate voters rather than ensure the integrity of the process.
The proposed Amendment 4 seeks to change the current Florida law, which bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, by allowing abortions until the fetus is viable, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. It also includes an existing exception that requires parental notification for minors seeking abortions.
To qualify for the ballot, supporters of the amendment had to collect over 891,000 petition signatures, with the campaign ultimately submitting more than 997,000 verified signatures, surpassing the requirement by 100,000. Despite this, state officials are investigating approximately 36,000 signatures for potential fraud, even though the Florida Supreme Court approved the ballot measure in April.
The investigation, led by the state’s Office of Election Crimes and Security, is looking into allegations of forged signatures being submitted and verified as valid by election supervisors. Police visiting voters’ homes, at the direction of Governor Ron DeSantis, are part of the scrutiny. DeSantis defends the investigation by citing instances of supposed voter signatures being from deceased individuals.
The creation of a dedicated elections police force in Florida in 2022, aimed at combating voter fraud, aligns with efforts to address unsubstantiated claims of election fraud following the 2020 presidential election. With over 13.6 million registered voters in the state, the investigation into petition signatures has sparked concerns of potential political interference to remove the amendment from the ballot.
Legal experts like Ciara Torres-Spelliscy emphasize that there is no legal precedent to remove the amendment from the ballot at this late stage. Torres-Spelliscy points to past decisions by the Florida Supreme Court to maintain controversial ballot initiatives, stressing the importance of upholding established precedents.
