When St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch said this week that litigation against Florida’s new Anti-Diversity in Local Government law is “on the table,” he highlighted the vagueness and the “wracked exemptions” larding down the bill as the central problem facing cities across the state: no one is entirely sure what the law prohibits.

Senate Bill 1134, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year, takes effect Jan. 1 and broadly prohibits counties and municipalities from funding, promoting or taking “official action” related to diversity, equity and inclusion. It also voids local ordinances, resolutions, policies and programs that conflict with the statute, allows residents to sue over alleged violations and exposes elected officials to potential removal from office.

What qualifies as “official action,” however, is left undefined.

“SB 1134 feels, for Equality Florida, just like the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law did” said John Harris Maurer, public policy director for Equality Florida, the largest LGBTQ+ civil rights agency in the state. Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law – officially named the Parental Rights in Education Act – restricts classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools.

“School districts were facing a lot of uncertainty and potential liability. We filed lawsuits seeking clarity from the courts, and ultimately reached a settlement that averted the majority of the harms because so much of the harm stemmed from the lack of clarity and ambiguity. This is a similar tactic with this bill.”

Maurer believes the ambiguity itself is what will ultimately drive litigation. “The courts will have to provide clarity,” he added.

Whether that happens before Jan. 1 remains unclear, too. While certain constitutional challenges can be filed against the bill before it takes effect, more importantly, Maurer said, local governments are not yet obligated to rewrite or repeal policies that could eventually conflict with the statute.

Instead, Equality Florida is advising cities to wait, recommending that local governments do not repeal ordinances or policies that are at issue with the law.

Though cities may have to change their defensive and litigation tactics once the laws take effect, because, unlike most state laws, SB 1134 authorizes virtually any resident to sue a county or municipality over an alleged violation without first showing they were personally harmed.

“Normally, someone would have to show they experienced harm flowing from that law and that the court could redress the harm they are experiencing,” Maurer said. “Very permissive enforcement coupled with the high penalty of removal from office is why we are anticipating such a chilling effect.”

That combination could cause local governments to abandon initiatives simply to avoid becoming a test case.

The legislation also creates potential exposure for individual elected officials. A council member or commissioner found to have violated the statute while acting in an official capacity could face allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance in office, while courts are authorized to award damages, costs and injunctive relief.

“It’s open-ended liability for costs to local government,” Maurer told Poliverse.

How those damages would be calculated (or what specific actions would trigger them) remains unanswered, and those unanswered questions help explain why Welch said litigation remains a possibility, but consistently refrains from defining particulars of what that litigation would look like, aside from the assurance that “we aren’t going to change who we are.”

Maurer said he and his team are speaking with their national partners, who are all interested in seeking litigation against this bill, but when that might happen was not disclosed.