Mark E. Walker (Federal judge)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
	Name: Mark E. Walker
	Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Progress
	Confirmed 294 days after nomination.
	Nominated: February 16, 2012
	ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
	Questionnaire: Questionnaire
	Hearing: May 9, 2012
	Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
	QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
	Reported: June 7, 2012
	Confirmed: December 6, 2012
	Vote: 94-0

Mark Eaton Walker is the chief judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. He joined the court in 2012 after being nominated by President Barack Obama. Walker became chief judge in 2018.

Early life and education

A native of Winter Garden, Florida, Walker earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Florida in 1989 and his J.D. from the University of Florida College of Law in 1992.^[1]

Professional career

2012 - Present: Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
- 2018 - Present: Chief judge
2008-2012: Judge, Florida Second Circuit Court
1999-2008: Private practice, Tallahassee, Fla.
1997-1999: Assistant public defender, Florida Second Judicial Circuit
1996, 1997: Private practice, Tallahassee, Fla.
1996-1997: Law clerk, Hon. Robert Hinkle, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
1994-1996: Law clerk, Hon. Stephen H. Grimes, Florida Supreme Court
1993-1994: Law clerk, Hon. Emmett Cox, United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit^[1]

Judicial career

Federal judicial nomination

Walker was nominated by President Barack Obama on February 16, 2012, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida vacated by Stephan Mickle. The American Bar Association rated Walker Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Walker's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9, 2012, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on June 7, 2012. Walker was confirmed on a recorded 94-0 vote of the U.S. Senate on December 6, 2012, and he received his commission the next day. Walker became chief judge of the court in 2018.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Noteworthy cases

League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Lee (2022)

On March 31, 2022, Judge Mark E. Walker, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, struck down three state election laws: one regulating the availability and supervision of ballot drop boxes, one imposing delivery requirements on third-party voter registration groups, and one barring certain activities at or near polling places and drop boxes. Walker also ordered that Florida submit any future changes to these policies for federal preclearance for a period of 10 years.

However, on May 6, 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the state's motion for a stay of the district court's ruling, allowing the disputed legal provisions to take effect and reversing the lower court's preclearance order.

In April 2023, a three-judge panel of judges on the 11th Circuit reversed most of the district court's ruling. The judges did uphold the lower court's ruling that parts of a ban on solicitation of voters within 150 feet of a polling place were unconstitutionally vague.^[4]

Background

On May 6, 2021, Gov Ron DeSantis (R) signed SB90, making a series of changes to Florida's election laws, including (but not limited to) the following:^[5]

Vote-by-mail:
- Requiring that voters requesting mail-in ballots (in person, in writing, or by telephone) provide either their Florida identification card numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.
- Reducing the duration of a mail-in ballot request form from two election cycles to one.
Drop boxes: Requiring that a secure drop box at a location other than the office of the county supervisor be open only during early voting hours, under the in-person monitoring of an employee of the supervisor's office.
Registration delivery: Requiring third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) to deliver applications to the Division of Elections or the Supervisor of Elections in the counties in which the applicants reside within 14 days of completing the applications (previously, 3PVROs could return completed applications to any Supervisor of Elections).
Solicitation: Barring anyone from "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter," either inside a polling place or within 150 feet of a drop box or the entrance of a polling place (this prohibition can be construed to apply to "line warming" activities, such as giving out water, snacks, umbrellas, etc.).

The Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate approved the final version of SB90 by votes of 77-40 and 23-17, respectively, on April 29, 2021. In the House, the vote split along party lines: all Republicans present voted in favor, and all Democrats present voted against. In the Senate, the vote also split largely along partisan lines, with one Republican (Sen. Jeff Brandes) joining the chamber's 16 Democrats in opposing the bill. SB90 took immediate effect.^[5]

Several groups, including the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP, filed four separate lawsuits, alleging that the aforementioned provisions were intentionally racially discriminatory, in violation of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. The suits were consolidated at trial.

The district court's ruling

Walker, who was appointed by President Barack Obama (D), ruled that Florida's historical racial, political, and electoral contexts, as well as the specific sequence of events leading up to SB90's passage, supported the plaintiff's claims.^[6]

“

The main question … is whether the Legislature enacted SB90 purely to secure an electoral advantage for the Republican party without regard to whether it harmed minority voters, or whether SB90 was enacted, at least in part, to target minority voters in order to secure an electoral advantage for the Republican Party.^[7]

”

Walker concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the Legislature acted with discriminatory intent in adopting the vote-by-mail request and identification provisions. However, Walker found that the remaining challenged provisions "specifically target Black voters," in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Walker permanently enjoined (i.e., barred) enforcement of these provisions.^[6]

Walker also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to relief under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 3(c), a court, upon finding that a political subdivision (e.g., a state or a municipality) has committed intentional racial discrimination in voting, can mandate that the subdivision preclear changes to voting regulations with either the court or the U.S. Attorney General "for such a period as [the court] may deem appropriate."^[6]

Walker barred Florida officials from enacting any law or regulation governing 3PVROs, drop boxes, and line-warming activities without first clearing such changes with the court or the U.S. Attorney General for a period of 10 years.^[6]

The circuit court's ruling

On May 6, 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the state's motion for a stay of the district court's ruling, allowing the disputed legal provisions to take effect and reversing the lower court's preclearance order. The panel comprised judges Kevin Newsom, Barbara Lagoa, and Andrew Brasher.^[8]

In September 2022, a three-judge panel comprised of judges William Pryor, Britt Grant, and Jill Pryor heard oral arguments on the merits of the case. In April 2023, the judges ruled 2-1 that much of the law was constitutional and refuted Walker's ruling that aspects of the law were racially discriminatory. The majority opinion, written by Judge William Pryor, who was appointed by President George W. Bush (R), said:^[4]

“

The Supreme Court has warned against conflating discrimination on the basis of party affiliation with discrimination on the basis of race ...To be sure, as the organizations point out, “[i]ntentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party” is impermissible ... But we must be careful not to infer that racial targeting is, in fact, occurring based solely on evidence of partisanship. Evidence of race-based discrimination is necessary to establish a constitutional violation.^[7]

”

In her dissent, Judge Jill Pryor, who was appointed by Obama, wrote that the district court ruling was correct in ruling that it "committed no reversible error when it concluded that these provisions violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as section 2 of the Voting Rights Act."^[4]

The ruling did find that one provision, the ban on solicitation of voters within 150 feet of the polling place with an intent of "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter," was unconstitutionally vague.

The case was sent back to Walker, who closed the case on February 8, 2024.^[9]

Walker bars enforcement of Florida rule prohibiting early voting on college campuses

On July 24, 2018, Walker issued an order barring enforcement of a Florida rule, established by the secretary of state in 2014, prohibiting the use of college campus sites as early voting locations. Walker wrote the following in his order: "Simply put, Defendant's Opinion [i.e., Florida's rule barring early voting on college campuses] reveals a stark pattern of discrimination. It is unexplainable on grounds other than age because it bears so heavily on younger voters than all other voters. Defendant's stated interests for the Opinion (following state law, avoiding parking issues, and minimizing on-campus disruption) reek of pretext. While the Opinion does not identify college students by name, its target population is unambiguous and its effects are lopsided. The Opinion is intentionally and facially discriminatory." Walker barred the secretary of state from enforcing the 2014 rule, though he did not order election officials to designate early voting sites on college campuses, leaving such action to the discretion of local officials.^[10]

Patricia Brigham, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, which was a plaintiff to the suit, praised Walker's decision: "This is truly a victory for the citizens of Florida, especially with so many young people motivated to vote. This is the right decision, at the right time, for our democratic process." In a statement, a spokesman for Governor Rick Scott (R) said, "Governor Scott is proud to have signed the largest expansion of early voting in the state's history. We will review this ruling." Scott's office did not indicate whether the state would appeal Walker's decision.^[11]

Articles:

Judge orders new voting restoration process for former felons

On March 27, 2017, Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida ordered the state to develop a new method for deciding how ex-felons regain the right to vote. He gave the state until April 26, 2018, to come up with a new method. He said the new method needs “specific and neutral criteria to direct vote-restoration decisions” and “meaningful, specific and expeditious time constraints.”^[12]

In November 2018, voters in Florida decided Amendment 4, the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative. You can read more here: Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018).

Articles:

law.com, "'This Will Not Do,' Federal Judge Says of Florida's Voter-Restoration Process," March 27, 2018

Judge dismisses part of lawsuit challenging Florida’s teacher evaluation law (2014)

The Florida Education Association filed a lawsuit challenging a portion of the state’s teacher evaluation law that required teachers to be measured against student performance. The association claimed that some teachers could be judged based on students that the teachers did not instruct personally. Judge Walker dismissed that portion of the suit, but noted that the system had the potential to affect a teacher’s income and reputation in the community. He stated that some Florida newspapers print the teacher evaluations, for example. He also indicated that, while the plaintiffs had pointed out troubling flaws with the evaluation system, the Florida legislature had a legitimate interest in teacher evaluations. Walker held that the system created by the legislature was rationally related to this end and upheld the constitutionality of the law.

Articles: