Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge ruled Sunday that it is unconstitutional to prevent felons in Florida from voting because they can’t afford to pay back court fees, fines and restitution to victims, striking down parts of a law passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last year.
Calling the law a “pay-to-vote system,” U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle’s 125-page ruling declares that court fees are a tax, and it creates a new process for determining whether felons are eligible to vote.
"This order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay,” Hinkle wrote.
Its a nonsensical ruling by another Clinton judge that is going to be overturned on appeal.
Whether one thinks the Florida legislature was wise to enact legislation requiring payment of fines and fees before being able to vote as an enabling measure for the ballot amendment passed the other year, the ballot language clearly required such legislation or interpretation. Specifically, the language of the ballot held that the right to vote for ex-felons would be restored once all terms and conditions of a sentence are complete. Fines and fees are terms and conditions of a sentence, so it naturally follows that folks who have not paid such are ineligible to vote. Note, I think that anyone who is free from jail after serving their time should be able to vote (if they are such bad people where a basic right is continued to be denied, then lock them up and throw away the key forever), but that's another story.
Onto the ruling, it appears to be legally flawed for several reasons:
First, even though the ruling isn't as sweeping as some media are making it seem on its face, in practice the ruling effectively guts the law by requiring voting rights be restored for those people who have a court appointed attorney (the assumption is that they cannot pay fines or fees, but that's a simplistic assumption) or whose fines/fees have been converted to civil liens. But given the simplistic nature of the ruling, it applies to more than it needs to apply to, which courts (to include the Supreme Court) have long been weary of.
Second, and more important, it misreads the 24th Amendment. This is not a poll tax. This is forcing people to court ordered and sanctioned restitution to society for crimes that they committed. This is contrary to a poll tax, which was passed as a way to largely keep blacks from voting on account of race. If the Supreme Court has ruled that making people pay for voter ID is legal and that people may permanently be disenfranchised if they commit certain crimes--and considering the historical nuances behind the institution of racist poll taxes--it is nonsensical to argue that the requirement to pay fines amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax.
To add, the fact that fines and fees are used to fund government administration does not make them taxes. And, more importantly, it does not make them poll taxes as contemplated by the 24th Amendment.
Note, even if this ruling was not overturned on appeal--which I fully expect it to be, especially as Trump appointed judges to the 11th Circuit Court of appeals have now made the court have a majority of constitutional conservatives on the bench--it still won't be going into effect before the election, which is what Democrats really want. That is because it is bound to be placed on hold during an appeal. And by the time that such appeal is done with, the Supreme Court won't allow for a change so-close to the election; that's the standard that has been set.
Considering that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is 7-5 conservative vs. leftist judges, I expect the district court's ruling to be officially shut down.
As I've stated many times in this forum before, I am all for allowing people who have been released from prison to vote. And I think it's ridiculous to bar them from voting. However, in this case, the only question that I care about is whether the Constitution prevents Florida from requiring that ex-felons pay court imposed fines and fees (as clearly stipulated by the ballot amendment itself). As I explained in my first post, it clearly does not.
This is a Poll Tax any way you want to slice it. These Ex-Felons have served their time and I voted to restore their Rights to Vote. If paying off Court costs & Fines was so important why wasn't it included in the ballot language?
This is nothing more than the Republicans trying to prevent 1.4 Million Ex-Felon Floridians from voting because it appears they won't be voting Republican especially when you consider how former Governor Rick Scott treated them and the process to reclaim their rights.
This is a Poll Tax any way you want to slice it. These Ex-Felons have served their time and I voted to restore their Rights to Vote. If paying off Court costs & Fines was so important why wasn't it included in the ballot language?
This is nothing more than the Republicans trying to prevent 1.4 Million Ex-Felon Floridians from voting because it appears they won't be voting Republican especially when you consider how former Governor Rick Scott treated them and the process to reclaim their rights.
It is in the ballot language:
Quote:
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.
"All terms of their sentence including parole or probation" includes fines and fees that were part of their sentence. Fines and fees do not exist separate and independent from a criminal sentence; it's all part of the same package.
Hardly a poll tax under the 24th Amendment either and any such argument ignores the context that the amendment was enacted under.
The full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated the amendment and law implementing the amendment
Quote:
TALLAHASSEE — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against felons in Florida seeking to restore their voting rights without first paying off court debts and fees, finding that a 2019 state law designed to curtail a successful ballot measure still created a clear path to the ballot box.
The 6-4 ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is another victory for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who opposed lifting Florida’s lifetime ban on voting for felons. The law calls for felons to include the exact amount the in court costs they owe when they apply to vote with the Florida Department of State. Critics of the law argued that determining the costs was difficult, if not impossible. But the appellate panel determined Florida was within its rights under the federal due process clause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
