Long Form Affidavit Florida Electronic: Fill & Download for Free

The state of Florida allows a car to be given or received as a gift. In order to do so, you must:1) complete a vehicle title transfer (same as if you were selling the car)2) provide either a bill of sale (write ‘gift’ in the sales price field) or affidavit as proof that the transfer was a gift.Be aware that transferring the title carries a fee. Because it's in-state, a vehicle title transfer in your case would only carry a fee of $75.25 for the electronic title issue, with possibly an additional fee of $2.50 if you wanted a paper title issue. In some places, you can opt for same day service, which is an additional $10.The state of Florida does not allow a license plate to be transferred to another person. Licence and registration certificate are given to the owner of a car and Florida Statutes (320.0609) state they must remain with the owner. When you transfer ownership, the new owner must have the license and registration on the car in their name.If the car will get a new license plate, that will be $28. If there's a Florida plate that can be transferred to the car (say from a previous car in the same category), it will only cost $7.35 and the $225 “new wheels on the road“ fee (which actually has nothing to do with whether or not the car is new, but rather whether or not it is new to Florida) can be avoided. Transferring a Florida registration is $100 I believe.The car can be registered for one or two years at a time, no more. For a one year registration, the registration period begins on the first day of the birth month of the owner. You may want to take that into consideration when you're transferring the title because the full amount is charged for the registration period regardless of when during that period the car is actually registered. Additionally, proof of Florida insurance is necessary to get the license plate and registration.The cost of registration of a private vehicle depends on its weight and for how long you're registering it. It is broken down as follows for one or two years, respectively:Under 2,500 lbs - $27.60 / $55.20 (1yr/2 yrs)2,500-3,499 - $35.60 / $71.203,500 lbs & up - $45.60 / $91.20Registration expires at midnight on the birthdate of the owner.Hope this helps.If you found this informative, please give it a thumbs up.

In the recent news, there are at least Four developments during the last 7 days, which should make “Trump aware of the gravity of Mueller’s investigation”.(Following initial answer, see numerous updates following my initial answer - up to nearly current news)First: Wednesday, June 6 - Finally, some nearly conclusive, direct evidence of collusion / conspiracy, between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.From Britain, evidence that the Russian government found ways to directly assist and collude (conspire) with the Trump campaign, to get Trump elected president of the US. Cambridge Analytica, set up and funded by Trump’s largest contributor, billionaire Robert Mercer, and managed by Trump senior advisor (Trump’s shadow Chief of Staff) Steve Bannon, reached out to Wikileaks to help index and publicize the stolen materials. The Trump campaign paid Cambridge Analytica millions of dollars. Now The Guardian reports that Cambridge Analytica director 'met Assange to discuss US election'. “There was no known connection until October last year, when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had “reached out” to Assange in July 2016 and offered to help him index and distribute the 33,000 emails that had been stolen from Hillary Clinton.”This report is so detailed, and so complex that I urge you to watch the video, here:New Cambridge Analytica revelations connect Trump Russia dotsSecond: Thursday, June 7 - See article: Judge sets hearing on June 15, on revoking Paul Manafort’s bail in Mueller investigation.This hearing may well immediately place Manafort in federal prison, pending the trials for his current indictments. If convicted, the charges against Manafort already may result in sentences large enough to be well beyond his life expectancy. This eventuality may induce Manafort to decide finally to “co-operate” with Mueller.Trump knows what means “co-operate with Mueller”.See article: Special counsel Mueller files witness tampering indictment against Paul Manafort and Russian citizen“Federal prosecutors asked Judge Berman to revoke bail in a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Monday night. According to an FBI affidavit included with the motion, Manafort used encrypted messaging applications in February to try to reach two unnamed business partners who could be witnesses to his alleged fraud and money laundering. The judge has ordered the FBI agent who filed the declaration regarding the messaging to be in court and available to testify if necessary.”See short video:This is about witness tampering by Paul Manafort, while he has been on bail: “The subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury, the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written.. Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.Third: Thursday, June 7 - See video: Key architect in Trump deals takes pains to lower profile “CNBC reached out to Trump chief architect John Fotiadis on April 11 for comment about this work.Trump, with Michael Cohen and John Fotiadis, traveled through / throughout the former Soviet Union, making numerous sales pitches for placement of Trump properties. As such, the question rises: What has Fotiadis been witness to? What corroboration could his testimony provide, coupled with the evidence seized in raids on Michael Cohen various residences and electronic devices, in the furtherance of Mueller’s investigation of Trump, his activities, the activities of the Trump Corporation, as well as potential conspiracy of Trump, et al, with the Russians for his 2016 election?“Between 2007 and 2013, Fotiadis designed all or part of six Trump-branded developments: a Trump Tower in Kazakhstan; a Trump-branded seaside resort in the republic of Georgia; a 47-story Trump Tower in Tbilisi, Georgia; hotel rooms at the Trump Tower in Istanbul; a Trump movie studio complex in Florida; and major portions of the Trump Parc Stamford, a condominium tower in Connecticut.”“Fotiadis did not respond to a call or an email. But eight hours later, he announced on Twitter that he was closing his firm, John Fotiadis Architect, or JFA, after 10 years in business. A few days later, Fotiadis closed the Twitter account he had used to announce he was closing down his firm.By the end of the week, all the content from Fotiadis' professional website, including his portfolio, had been removed, leaving only a notesaying he planned to join a New Jersey-based engineering company.Gone was Fotiadis' impressive portfolio of 30 projects (some of which are pictured below), including villas, schools and office buildings he has designed for clients around the world. Also gone was any reference to the two overseas branches of JFA that he had opened — in Tbilisi and Kiev, Ukraine.””This is about money laundering by Trump, and whether evidence of such money laundering may constitute Kompromat in the hands of Putin, or others.Fourth: Friday, June 8 - See article: Special counsel Mueller indicts Paul Manafort and Russian associate Konstantin Kilimnik on new obstruction charges“Special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday (June 8) filed new witness tampering criminal charges against ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as well against Russian citizen and former Manafort operative Konstantin Kilimnik.The U.S. is now charging Manafort and the associate, Konstantin Kilimnik with obstructing justice and conspiring to get potential witnesses to lie about lobbying work they’d done for Ukraine. Each of the two charges carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.For Manafort the charges come at a perilous time, just hours before (i.e., Friday, June 8) his lawyers were due to file legal briefs explaining why he should be allowed to remain free on bond pending his trial scheduled for next month in Alexandria, Va. He faces a second trial in Washington in September.Prosecutors filed court papers Monday accusing Manafort and Kilimnik of attempting to sway the testimony of two potential witnesses who might offer evidence against Manafort. Authorities charge that the conduct of Manafort and Kilimnik amounts to witness tampering, and have asked a judge to revise or revoke Manafort’s bail package.The superseding indictment (See: Superseding Indictment - full text) — the third against Manafort issued by a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury — came days after Mueller asked a judge to revoke Manafort's $10 million bail and jail him because of alleged efforts to tamper with potential witnesses at his upcoming trials.Manafort, 69, and the 48-year-old Moscow resident (See: ==> Konstantin Kilimnik were both charged with obstructing justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by using intimidation or force against a witness, and also with tampering with a witness, victim or informant.The charges echo allegations Mueller made Monday in his request to revoke Manafort's bail.”Just for fun: The Superseding Indictment includes (on page 30) a Forfeiture Allegation, seeking to seize any properties involved in the offenses.What does it mean?I believe it is safe to assert that Trump is brilliantly aware of the gravity of Mueller’s investigation. Things are heating up for Trump in Washington, and elsewhere, and they appear to be happening at an accelerating pace.This latest indictment brings the number of people Mueller has charged in his probe of election meddling to 20. Five have pleaded guilty. The latest obstruction charges bolster Mueller’s case by laying out the argument that Manafort had corrupt intent to hide his activities, according to former prosecutors.As they say, anyone mentioned so far, who has neither been called in to speak with Mueller, nor has been indicted, is on the short list of probable, ultimate Targets of the Mueller investigation. These include all adult members of the Trump family, and at least one Kushner.Hang on to your seat.Update July 13: While the MSM speculates on what Trump and Putin will discuss in Helsinki - I think the most insightful speculation has already been posted by Dima: See here ==> What is the "New Yalta" deal that Putin wants USA and Europe to accept?Update Jul 18: I missed the significance of Marcy Wheeler’s story about her agonizing decision to unmask a reporting source, and talk to the FBI: Washington Post “A journalist’s conscience leads her to reveal her source to the FBI. Here’s why.” While the WP article is significant in that it discusses the on going case, as well as Ms. Wheeler’s very unusual dilemma, it states in part:“Her blog post centers on a text message she says she got from the source on Nov. 9, 2016 — about 14 hours after the polls closed — predicting that Michael Flynn, who would be Trump’s appointee for national security adviser, would be meeting with “Team Al-Assad” within 48 hours. Russia has been perhaps the Assad regime’s staunchest ally.As she noted: “The substance of the text — that the Trump team started focusing on Syria right after the election — has been corroborated and tied to their discussions with Russia at least twice since then.””In a new interview with Pod Save America, Wheeler elaborated, claiming that Mueller is “sitting on a lot” and that we’re bound to see some big plot twists before this is all over. (See Wheeler’s interview starts at 48:40 “Helsinki warmed over.” | Crooked Media”When asked if the revelations in Mueller’s report will ultimately be jaw-dropping, Wheeler said this:“I think there are some big plot twists. I did a series some months ago when the questions that Mueller wants Trump to answer came out, and I laid it out. This is clear quid pro quo. They went to Trump and said, ‘We’ll help you. We want sanctions relief, we want Syria, throw in Ukraine, maybe we’ll throw in a Trump Tower.’ And that’s it; that is the basic equation we’re talking about.”So - maybe the fog is lifting. We have Dima’s perspective (above: update July 13 - “New Yalta Deal”), Marcy’s perspective (just above), and then we have what we have personally observed of Trump’s performances, in person, in Helsinki.Go figure - Trump knows the truth, he (or his people) can read, and if this is only close to the central story - he must be aware of the gravity of the investigation.Update July 25: Not a Witch Hunt, anymore?The certain fact that both the WH and the Kremlin edited the Reuter’s question out of their official transcripts, is as close to evidence of collision, or intent for such, that I have yet seen.And, then the WH placed on the WH website, an edited version of this same video - which millions around the world personally witnessed.It will require some veryclever back-stepping, to make this evidence go away.Lee———————The Atlanticreportsthat Reuters reporter Jeff Mason’s question to Putin was edited out of the White House transcript. What was the original exchange?Putin (replying to previous question): That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.Mason: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russian relationship back to normal.However, the White House transcript, um, abbreviated the exchange as follows:Putin: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.Mason: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.The edit excises the damning question about helping Trump win the election. The omission completely changes the meaning of the exchange, and makes it look like Putin acknowledges doing something legitimate and diplomatic, instead of admitting to hijacking the Presidential election from the American people.In addition, Rachel reported tonight that on the video on the WH website, the same part of the reporter’s question is edited out. They’ve removed the evidence!You can hear it already — “Of course no one admitted any election interference; just read the transcript and watch the video for yourself! No collusion! No collusion!”Collusion, meet Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice, meet Collusion.Updating to add link to video of Rachel’s segment about this:Click on this linked video: White House leaves Putin support for Trump out of transcriptMaddow Blog✔@MaddowBlogWhite House edits (Helsinki presser) video, to remove question about whether Putin wanted Trump to win.>>>This evidence doesn’t prove collusion. But it sure suggests it.- Life is uncertain - eat dessert first ….<<< - >>>Update October 12: Inevitable release of Mueller’s investigation findingsAll along there has been speculation that Trump may interfere in the Mueller investigation, especially such that either the public will never learn what the FBI determined (because it was never made public) or that knowledge of the evidence and findings of the FBI might be thus be kept secret, essentially for ever.But: “A federal judge on Thursday (Oct 10) granted a request to unseal part of a Watergate report known as the Road Map (See: Judge Unseals Watergate Report That Led To Articles Of Impeachment Against Nixon) which gives details about President Richard Nixon’s involvement in covering up the Watergate break-in, and which was used to inform articles of impeachment against him.The Road Map, which was sent to the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, could be used as precedent for how Special Counsel Robert Mueller will end his investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia.”What I found wholly unexpected, and vastly fascinating (see video) is that this Road Map includes an independent, unimpeded means by which Mueller can bypass resistance within either Congress, the WH or the DOJ, and make his findings public - in spite of Trump’s best efforts to prevent its release to the public - “to use the inherent authority of the Grand Jury”.And note - therefore, such findings also become known, and accessible to independent Attorneys General - of any state - who may choose to separately prosecute any of these folks in pardon-proof state courts. For RICO, just for instance.Where would you want to serve your 10 year prison sentence:Door #1: Club Fed ("white-collar, minimum-security resort") ?Door #2: Sing Sing (a choice piece of NY State real estate, like Trump Tower) ?State prisons are no picnic, and presumably worse than the better accommodations available for these guys within the federal prison system.WOW !Well, Donald (and all you little Trumps), you better hope there is no “There” there …> —————————————————-Update November 4 (really - 11/4): Potential WH preparations to stop Mueller Investigation.Blame Tommy Hartdegen’s query to me, 11/3, “No more updates?”, to which I asked, “The blog is not long enough for you ? “Of course there is news - the question is: Can we uncover something significant? From my answer to TH (quoting myself - an odd circumstance):“My guess (guess) is that if the Democrats take control of the House (in January), they will independently initiate undertaking a parallel investigation - rather as performed for Watergate. Nevertheless, some time much sooner - after November 6th elections, using the lame duck Congress, Trump may move his own people into the DOJ to stop and silence the Mueller investigation. Potentially, he has the majority in SCOTUS, so one can imagine that he could thereby succeed in overcoming all seriously “threatening” objections (meaning - leading to hard time, or ultimate fortune forfeiture).We are in the quiet before the storm - the storm which starts November 7, 2018. It will be the next two years (2018 to 2020), not the last two years, which will be prominent in the future history books.”Although this pre-election period has been eerily quiet (the quiet before the storm?), some startling tidbits have just come to light regarding Trump’s potential near-term moves against the Mueller investigation. What is startling is that, last April, the WH secretly issued an ethics waiver to Noel Francisco. Noel John Francisco is an American attorney and the current Solicitor General of the United States - and next in line IF Rod Rosenstein is “removed”. The details are in this video:Secret waiver clears possible Trump Russia Rosenstein replacementOr see here: Trump's Secret Waiver May Allow Noel Francisco To Meddle In The Mueller InvestigationUpdate November 17: The DC docket shows dozens of sealed criminal indictments. Are they from Mueller? “ … several legal experts told ABC News the number of sealed cases awaiting action right now is unusual. Fourteen were added to the docket since late August alone, a review by ABC News has found, just as the midterm elections were drawing near and longstanding Justice Department policy precluded prosecutors from taking any public action that could appear to be aimed at influencing political outcomes.And there was good reason … for Mueller to lock in charges before the midterms.”Update January 1, 2019:Mueller may have certain evidence (smoking gun) proving Trump was part of a conspiracy with Russia / Russians to win his election. If so, I anticipate that both houses in Congress would vote to impeach. It would look like a repetition of the events in Nixon’s case - in the summer of 1974. Given the above, Trump’s support in Congress, and especially in the Senate, would (I believe) vote to impeach. Why? In part, to fail to do so, if presented with irrefutable evidence, would likely cripple, or even split the Republican Party.Where is the proof?One great, lingering mystery has been why the Trump campaign had so many contacts with Russians, and then, why did so many Trump people lie about their contacts with Russians? And for me, most recently, why did Flynn lie to the FBI? He certainly knew, when he did it, that he, a decorated US Army General officer (!) was committing a felony. Sitting in his WH office !I could not imagine why. Clearly, he cooly decided that committing the felony in broad daylight, witnessed by two FBI investigators, was less dangerous than telling the truth.But, what was the truth?On February 29, 2016 (~ 8 months before Trump’s election), Paul Manafort sent Trump a written “pitch” document explaining how he should direct the campaign. His pitch was backed by a recommendation from Roger Stone. The presumption is that Manafort proposed to Trump to perform a redux of the methods / techniques he used in Ukraine - to elect pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych - with Russian assistance.Fortunately, two others have done the heavy lifting to put the pieces together. Here is the first article, by Mark Sumner: (See: Here's what Paul Manafort was lying about—and it's the missing piece between Moscow and TrumpHere is the first article text:Paul Manafort was hauled back into court this week to face charges from the special counsel that he had breached his plea deal by “repeatedly lying.” And now (Second article:) the Guardian has a report that would seem to be something very, very worth lying about.Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.The source for the story sets Manafort’s visit to Assange in March of 2016. Which puts Manafort’s visit, and his chairing of the Trump campaign, squarely in the middle of the Russian hacking effort.This is what that period looked like when everything is put together: On February 29, Paul Manafort sent Trump a written “pitch” document explaining how he should direct the campaign. His pitch was backed by a recommendation from Roger Stone. The very next week, Trump senior campaign staffer Sam Clovis told the team that “good US-Russia relations” were a goal of the campaign. The week after that George Papadopoulos, fresh off hearing Clovis describe the campaign’s desire for good Russia relations, first met with the London-based “professor” who claimed to have Russia connections. That was all in March.So was this: Russians begin a dedicated attempt to hack into the emails of more than 300 employees of the DNC, DCCC, and Clinton campaign using two large teams of specialists. They managed to penetrate the the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, stealing 50,000 emails through a phishing attack. Hackers gained another entrance to other accounts on the campaign that same week, and began sophisticated attacks on the security of servers at the DNC. That was in March.At the end of the month, two things happened: Trump met with his campaign team, where Papadopoulos discussed Russian help and the possibility of meeting with Putin. And Paul Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign.If Paul Manafort was meeting with Julian Assange in March 2016, it shows that every part of the Russian plan, from stealing Democratic emails to distributing them through WikiLeaks, was planned in advance. And that the campaign chair of the Trump campaign was at the dead center of that plan.One key question is when the Trump campaign was aware of the Kremlin’s hacking operation – and what, if anything, it did to encourage it. Trump has repeatedly denied collusion.The March 2016 meeting wasn’t Manafort’s first visit with Assange. The use of both stolen emails and social media campaigns was something Manafort relied on heavily in his actions in Ukraine.Why did Paul Manafort lie? Because it increasingly looks like the origin of the plan to attack the United States through stolen emails, false media accounts, and social media pressure didn’t originate with Moscow, it came from Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.Manafort did for Trump what he did for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine. And with the same assist from Moscow. That’s worth lying about.And based on how Robert Mueller waited until Trump turned in his written responses before calling Manafort on the carpet, it’s going to be interesting to see how many of his lies Trump repeated.Please: Read both articles.

Hello my Fellow Patriots:Instances of wide-spread fraud, corruption, and voter suppression continues to cast an ominous cloud over our 2020 election! I would encourage all of you to maintain the course of hope with the patriotic passion that this country was built upon.Thanks for the Contributor request Everything Republican. It is my honor and patriotic duty to share informative information on your platform.Below you’ll find every legal proceeding currently ongoing as of November 14, 2020. The Election Litigation Tracker is updated daily. So I encourage everyone to tone out the negative narratives that we are being barraged with by all the forces that are aligning against a President that God Almighty has ordained for our country at this time. Instead, focus on relevant content such as what you will find below.Stand assured on the fact that we are already victors. We may not get the results that we want immediately, but the cat is out of the bag! The prognosticators of the evil corruption that we see before us are being exposed in an unprecedented manner. I’m fortunate to have sources within President Trump’s administration keeping me updated as things unfold, and my fellow patriots I assure you that we will prevail!!In addition to the states in which President Trump is currently leading, there are a variety of scenarios in which he can still win the election. One scenario involves maintaining the states in which he currently hold a lead in. Another scenario is dependent upon the legal outcome of current litigation in combination with the above scenario. And yet still, there exists a scenario of the inclusion of new affidavits in the process of being submitted into litigation. We have hundreds of credible affidavits in motion for litigation review, some of which are whistle-blowers from inside the Dominion Voting System company. Also add to the equation the recounts and audits that are pending.That’s where we are at this point. I encourage anyone who knows anything about voting irregularities in their respective states to contact: Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse. It’s imperative that you have verifiable evidence: video, audio recordings, or any credible sources you may be aware of.The deck may appear to be stacked against us, but we have the Trump card in our corner.2020 Election Litigation TrackerWelcome to the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of Election Law at Ohio State and SCOTUSblog. During the 2020 election season, we will provide up-to-date information on major election law cases as they make their way through every level of the court system. Our goal is to serve as a resource on election law and administration for the general public, lawyers, educators, journalists and policymakers. You can read all of our previous election-related coverage here. [Disclaimer: SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State are nonpartisan and do not endorse, support or oppose any candidate, campaign or party.]Credit: Art LienElection Cases We’re WatchingCase PageIssue(s)CourtPennsylvania Democratic Party v. BoockvarWhether a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requiring the state to count mail-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day, as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day, violates federal election law and the Constitution.U.S. Supreme CourtDonald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. BensonWhether Michigan's constitution and election laws require that absentee ballots be counted in the presence of an "elections inspector" from each political party; and if so, whether the state should stop counting ballots until that requirement is met or separate ballots counted without representatives of both parties present.Michigan Court of ClaimsHotze v. HollinsWhether nearly 127,000 votes cast via drive-through voting during the early voting period in Harris County, Texas, which contains much of the city of Houston, violate state election laws and should be invalidated.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th CircuitCarson v. Simon(1) Whether a measure by Minnesota elections officials extending the deadline for timely postmarked absentee ballots to be received and still counted until one week after Election Day violates the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether the challengers, two nominees to serve as Republican Party presidential electors in Minnesota, have legal standing to challenge the measure.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th CircuitTexas League of United Latin American Citizens v. AbbottWhether Texas' limitation of one absentee ballot drop-off site per county violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th CircuitMichigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. BensonWhether a policy by the secretary of state of Michigan extending the deadline to receive absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day until 14 days after Election Day violates federal law and the U.S Constitution.Michigan Court of AppealsDonald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. BoockvarWhether a number of Pennsylvania elections accommodations in light of the coronavirus pandemic – providing additional drop-off sites and alleviating signature-matching requirements for absentee ballots, as well as lifting a restriction on employing out-of-county poll workers – violate state election law and the U.S. Constitution.U.S. District Court for the Western District of PennsylvaniaMi Familia Vota v. HobbsWhether previous stay-at-home orders and other closures due to the coronavirus pandemic justify an extension of Arizona's voter registration deadline past the original date of Oct. 5, 2020.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th CircuitArizona Democratic Party v. HobbsWhether recent changes to Arizona's election procedures – which provide both absentee voters whose signatures on their mail-in ballots cannot be verified, and in-person voters who cannot provide proper identification at the polls, up to five days after Election Day to remedy their ballot identification issues – must also be extended to absentee voters who submit unsigned ballots.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th CircuitThe New Georgia Project v. RaffenspergerWhether Georgia's requirement that absentee ballots be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day poses an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote in light of the coronavirus pandemic.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th CircuitMemphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. HargettWhether Tennessee may enforce a number of vote-by-mail regulations for the November 2020 election, including preventing first-time voters from applying for an absentee ballot, barring third-party distribution of absentee ballot applications, and a process for verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th CircuitWashington v. TrumpWhether recent changes announced to the United States Postal Service violate federal administrative rulemaking requirements and infringe upon the rights of states to regulate elections under the Constitution.U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of WashingtonTexas Democratic Party v. AbbottWhether a Texas law requiring voters under the age of 65 to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail violates the 26th Amendment or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.U.S. District Court for the Western District of TexasPeople First of Alabama v. MerrillWhether the coronavirus pandemic requires alleviating the enforcement of three Alabama election provisions: that absentee ballots must be signed in the presence of a notary or two adult witnesses, that applications for absentee ballots must include copies of valid photo ID, and that counties may not offer curbside voting.U.S. Supreme CourtMoore v. CircostaWhether coronavirus-related changes implemented after the start of absentee voting by North Carolina elections officials to a number of absentee ballot procedures – extending the deadline to receive ballots, and modifying requirements for postmarking and third-party collection of them – violate the state legislature's power to regulate elections under the Constitution as well as the equal protection clause.U.S. Supreme CourtOhio Democratic Party v. LaRoseWhether Ohio state law bars election officials from providing more than one absentee-ballot drop box per county, in light of the state's expected increase in mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.Tenth District Ohio Court of AppealsJones v. Secretary of State of MaineWhether the Maine constitution requires a full citizen-initiated referendum, as opposed to a "people's veto" effort, to repeal a ranked-choice voting law passed by the state legislature in July 2019 that went into effect in January 2020 without Gov. Janet Mills' signature.U.S. Supreme CourtDemocratic National Committee v. BostelmannWhether the coronavirus pandemic requires a number of changes to Wisconsin's election procedures, such as extending the deadline to return absentee ballots, permitting electronic delivery of those ballots for voters who do not receive them in time to mail them, and lifting the restriction on employing out-of-county poll workers.U.S. Supreme CourtA. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio v. LaRoseWhether, due to an expected increase in mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic, Ohio's provision of one absentee-ballot drop box per county infringes upon the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th CircuitRaysor v. DesantisWhether Florida's statutory requirement that prior felons pay all court costs and fees before regaining the right to vote is an unconstitutional poll tax under the 24th Amendment.U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th CircuitDonald J. Trump for President v. WayWhether an executive order by the governor of New Jersey in light of the coronavirus pandemic that requires mail-in ballots to be sent to all registered voters in the state, and extends the deadline for submitting them, violates federal election law and the Constitution.U.S. District Court for the District of New JerseyDonald J. Trump for President v. CegavskeWhether recent changes by the state legislature to Nevada's voting procedures including, among other things, the expansion of voting-by-mail and a requirement that officials count ballots received up to three days after Election Day, violate federal election law and the Fourteenth Amendment.U.S. District Court for the District of NevadaSource: 2020 Election Litigation Tracker - SCOTUSblog