Mark E. Walker (Federal judge)

Mark E. Walker

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!

---

Nonpartisan

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Tenure

2012 - Present

Years in position

12

Education

Bachelor's

University of Florida, 1989

Law

University of Florida College of Law, 1992

Personal

Birthplace

Winter Garden, Fla.

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.

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

Judicial career

Federal judicial nomination

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.
ANominated: February 16, 2012
AABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
AHearing: May 9, 2012
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: June 7, 2012
AConfirmed: December 6, 2012
AVote: 94-0

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.

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.

Below is a summary of key developments in this case, starting with background about the law itself, then moving on to the district court's ruling (and reactions to it), and concluding with a discussion of the appellate court's order.

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:

• 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 State 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.

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, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, noted that claims of racial discrimination must be judged against the test the U.S. Supreme Court established in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. The test incorporates the following factors:

• The historical context.
• "[T]he specific sequence of events leading up to" the challenged law's passage, including "procedural and substantive departure" and "contemporary statements and actions of key legislators."
• The impact of the challenged law, including the"foreseeability of the disparate impact, knowledge of that impact, and the availability of less discriminatory alternatives."

Walker concluded 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.

Walker then addressed the impact of SB90, dealing with each of the challenged provisions in turn:

• Vote-by-mail: Walker found that the racial impact of both the request and identification provisions was "unclear."
• Drop boxes: Walker found that SB90's drop-box provision "increases the time, transportation, and information costs of voting by drop box." Walker concluded that these costs would "fall more heavily on Black voters."
• Registration delivery: Walker held that, because 3PVROs "overwhelmingly serve minority communities," the registration delivery provision "disproportionately harms Black and Latino voters."
• Solicitation: Walker concluded that SB90's solicitation provision "will have a disparate impact on minority voters because minority voters are disproportionately likely to wait in line to vote, and because the provision discourages third parties from helping those waiting to vote."

Walker turned next to the question of whether these impacts were foreseeable and within the actual knowledge of legislators. Walker concluded, "The evidence before this Court not only suggests that the Legislature had such knowledge, but also that it specifically sought it out." With respect to the availability of less discriminatory alternatives, Walker found that "less discriminatory alternatives to each challenged provision not only were available but were presented to and rejected by the Legislature."

Having considered impacts, Walker framed the question of intent as follows:

“

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.

”

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.

Finally, Walker turned to the question of 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."

Walker concluded that relief under Section 3(c) was warranted in this case. Accordingly, 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.

Reactions

Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida said, “Senate Bill 90 was clearly an anti-voter measure that raised barriers to voting for marginalized groups with specific impacts on elderly voters, voters with disabilities, students and communities of color. The League is gratified that once again the constitutional rights of all of Florida’s voters have superseded partisan politics and that the targeted attack on Black voters will be stopped.”

In an interview, DeSantis described Walker's ruling as "the judicial equivalent of pounding the table" and suggested that an appeal was in the works: "I think that that's going to be reversed on appeal. The only question is how quickly it gets reversed on appeal, but it's not going to be able to withstand appellate scrutiny."

In a statement, Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) called Walker's ruling "an egregious abuse of his power," adding: "The illogical leaps and unsupported inferences in Judge Walker's opinion amount to a 288-page accusation of discriminatory intent based on limited analysis of data he thinks the Legislature might have had, the uncritical and complete acceptance of the comments of Democratic lawmakers, and a total disregard for other viewpoints."

Legal commentators discussed Walker's ruling within the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court held that preclearance mechanism contained in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Joe Patrice, writing for Above the Law, said, "While [Shelby] didn’t necessarily bar the door on a court reinstating preclearance requirements, no one thought to test the scope of the Court’s animosity toward this provision until now." Rick Hasen, writing for Election Law Blog, said, "This is a huge deal, and the district court's analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court."

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. In its unsigned order, the court cited the Purcell principle, which holds that "federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election."

“

According for Purcell, we hold that the state is entitled to a stay of the district court's order enjoining the operation of SB90's Drop-Box, Registration-Delivery, and Solicitation Provisions and subjecting Florida to preclearance. The district court's determination regarding the legislature's intentional discrimination suffers from at least two flaws, either of which justifies a stay. And, although we think it presents a closer question, we hold that the district court's determination that the Solicitation Provision is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is sufficiently vulnerable.

”

The circuit court's May 6 order did not represent a decision on the merits. Instead, the order stayed the district court's order pending resolution of the appeal to the circuit court.

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.

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.

Articles:

• Tampa Bay Times, "Judge: Florida’s early voting-on-campus ban shows ‘stark pattern of discrimination,’" July 24, 2018
• Orlando Sentinel, "Florida university campuses can host early voting sites, federal judge rules," July 24, 2018
• Miami Herald, "Federal judge calls Florida ban on early voting at college campuses 'discrimination,'" July 24, 2018

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.”

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:

• Florida Times-Union, "Judge rejects challenge to teacher evaluations," April 24, 2014
• Education Week, "Florida Judge: Teacher-Evaluation System Unfair, But Legal," May 7, 2014

See also

• United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
• United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

External links

• Judge Walker's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2012-Present	Succeeded by -

Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama
Nominated	Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama

Florida courts

---

Federal courts:

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida

State courts:

Florida Supreme Court • Florida District Courts of Appeal • Florida Circuit Court • Florida County Court

State resources:

Courts in Florida • Florida judicial elections • Judicial selection in Florida