Federal Judge: Florida Can't Block Felons From Regaining Voting Rights For Inability to Pay Fines

[OfTheCross]

Florida can't bar residents with felony records from regaining their right to vote just because they're unable to pay off their court fines and fees, a federal judge ruled Friday night.

Last November, Florida voters approved Amendment 4 by 64 percent. The constitutional amendment was supposed to restore voting rights to an estimated 1.4 million Floridians with felony records, the largest single expansion of the franchise in recent history.

So Florida Republicans introduced and passed a bill to require payment of fines and fees as a condition of regaining one's right to vote. Legislators said they were merely clarifying the language, but civil liberties groups assailed the law, calling it a poll tax. (When the language for the ballot measure was initially approved, a lawyer for the group submitting the amendment explicitly told the Florida Supreme Court that the terms would include payment of fines and fees.)

reason

It's a shame they call themselves Republicans. This is certainly not the Party of Lincoln in Florida

[Hoodat]

According to Amendment 4, felons must serve out all stipulations of their sentences which includes fines.   If this judge considers this to be unconstitutional, then Amendment 4 becomes null and void.  Which means that no convicted felon can vote.  Not sure here how one can consider this to be shameful for the Republicans.  They tried to do something nice here by restoring voting rights for felons.  It is the Clinton-appointed judge and the ACLU that are blocking the law from being implemented.

[OfTheCross]

According to Amendment 4, felons must serve out all stipulations of their sentences which includes fines.   If this judge considers this to be unconstitutional, then Amendment 4 becomes null and void.  Which means that no convicted felon can vote.  Not sure here how one can consider this to be shameful for the Republicans.  They tried to do something nice here by restoring voting rights for felons.  It is the Clinton-appointed judge and the ACLU that are blocking the law from being implemented.

The people did it themselves. Last November, Florida voters approved Amendment 4 by 64 percent.

The Republicans tried to block the will of the people.

[Hoodat]

The people did it themselves. Last November, Florida voters approved Amendment 4 by 64 percent.

The Republicans tried to block the will of the people.

Ah yes, the will of the people.  The will of the people which states that felons must complete all stipulations of their sentences before having voting rights restored - the very stipulations which this judge just overruled.  Got it.

Funny you should mention 'will of the people' when you have already stated your opposition to it.

And yes, the Republicans did try to do something nice by cementing this Amendment into law to ensure the "will of the people" was properly defined.

[Hoodat]

This from your own article:

Complications emerged almost immediately. The language of Amendment 4 said that voting rights would be restored "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation," but it did not say whether "all terms" included financial obligations imposed by courts.

So Florida Republicans introduced and passed a bill to require payment of fines and fees as a condition of regaining one's right to vote. Legislators said they were merely clarifying the language, but civil liberties groups assailed the law, calling it a poll tax. (When the language for the ballot measure was initially approved, a lawyer for the group submitting the amendment explicitly told the Florida Supreme Court that the terms would include payment of fines and fees.)

The bottom line here is that "all terms of sentence" constitutes a poll tax.  Therefore, Amendment 4 as written is unconstitutional.  So back to square one.  Felons don't get to vote.

[Hoodat]

More info:

Judge rules against voting restrictions

John Kennedy     |     10/18/2019  8:21 PM

The ruling is a partial victory for civil liberties groups, who argue that lawmakers were subverting a constitutional amendment expected to restore voting rights to 1.4 million Floridians.

~snip~

The judge’s temporary injunction is limited to 10 felons named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit seeking to regain their voting rights. Hinkle said an inability to pay court debts should not bar them from registering and he urged state officials to develop a better process for other felons unable to pay their court-ordered financial obligations.

https://www.gainesville.com/news/20191018/judge-rules-against-voting-restrictions



btw, demanding someone pay a fine is not a poll tax.  The fine is not in place as payment for the privilege (i.e. not a right) to vote.  It is there as restitution for a crime committed.  But hey, if felons would rather do the extra time instead of being free and paying a fine, I am sure the State of Florida could work that out.  Maybe they could contract with Cuba to house their prison inmates.

[OfTheCross]

This from your own article:

Complications emerged almost immediately. The language of Amendment 4 said that voting rights would be restored "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation," but it did not say whether "all terms" included financial obligations imposed by courts.

The bottom line here is that "all terms of sentence" constitutes a poll tax.  Therefore, Amendment 4 as written is unconstitutional.  So back to square one.  Felons don't get to vote.

The people decided that they do. This is what they voted for on the ballots:

"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."

[Hoodat]

What part of "complete all terms of their sentence" do you not get?

[OfTheCross]

What part of "complete all terms of their sentence" do you not get?

what part of including parole or probation do you not get?

Maybe the fines and fees were specifically excluded from the approved language to avoid a Constitutional dilemma of a poll tax.

[Hoodat]

what part of including parole or probation do you not get?

Remember in elementary school math when you studied unions and intersects of sets?  The design of that instruction was to lay down some basic concepts of logic.  Examine this set here:



The circle represents "all terms".  Anything item inside the circle constitutes "some terms".  Let's say the lime green square denotes 'jail time'.  The orange pentagon - 'community service'.  The blue hexagon - 'restitution'.  The red triangle - 'fines'.  The black rectangle - 'probation'.  The purple trapezoid - 'fees' (e.g. drug testing, court costs, early release costs, etc.)  And so on.  Each of these items represents a term of sentencing.  All of them together represent "all terms of sentencing".  If anything exists inside the circle, then by definition it is a term of sentencing.  This includes parole.  It includes probation.  It includes restitution.  It includes fines.  It includes every single barrier placed upon an individual by a judge in any criminal proceeding.  To argue that the inclusion of the words 'parole' and 'probation' by themselves excludes everything else is not only a preposterous supposition, it violates the most rudimentary logic.

Maybe the fines and fees were specifically excluded from the approved language to avoid a Constitutional dilemma of a poll tax.

As your link states (again):

When the language for the ballot measure was initially approved, a lawyer for the group submitting the amendment explicitly told the Florida Supreme Court that the terms would include payment of fines and fees.

So no, the fines and fees were not specifically excluded.  Hence the wording "complete all terms of their sentence".

[OfTheCross]

Remember in elementary school math when you studied unions and intersects of sets?  The design of that instruction was to lay down some basic concepts of logic.  Examine this set here:



The circle represents "all terms".  Anything item inside the circle constitutes "some terms".  Let's say the lime green square denotes 'jail time'.  The orange pentagon - 'community service'.  The blue hexagon - 'restitution'.  The red triangle - 'fines'.  The black rectangle - 'probation'.  The purple trapezoid - 'fees' (e.g. drug testing, court costs, early release costs, etc.)  And so on.  Each of these items represents a term of sentencing.  All of them together represent "all terms of sentencing".  If anything exists inside the circle, then by definition it is a term of sentencing.  This includes parole.  It includes probation.  It includes restitution.  It includes fines.  It includes every single barrier placed upon an individual by a judge in any criminal proceeding.  To argue that the inclusion of the words 'parole' and 'probation' by themselves excludes everything else is not only a preposterous supposition, it violates the most rudimentary logic.


As your link states (again):

When the language for the ballot measure was initially approved, a lawyer for the group submitting the amendment explicitly told the Florida Supreme Court that the terms would include payment of fines and fees.

So no, the fines and fees were not specifically excluded.  Hence the wording "complete all terms of their sentence".

That's not what the public voted on. The language on the ballot is what it is...aaand now we have court battles 

[Hoodat]

That's not what the public voted on. The language on the ballot is what it is...aaand now we have court battles

And the language of the ballot says "complete ALL terms of their sentence".

[OfTheCross]

And the language of the ballot says "complete ALL terms of their sentence".

Yes, and once all terms of their prison sentence are completed, they're released.

And once they're released, the public voted that their Rights to Vote be restored.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And the language of the ballot says "complete ALL terms of their sentence".

Yeah, but the actual text of the amendment says, "completion of all terms of sentence".

I'm not arguing with your point,  I'm just pointing out that the language on the ballot for a FL amendment is someone's summary interpretation of the actual amendment.  If you want to know what you're actually voting on, you can go and look it up elsewhere.  How nuts is that?

[Hoodat]

Yes, and once all terms of their prison sentence are completed, they're released.

Again, a prison sentence is but one possible result of a felony conviction.  It it possible to get no prison sentence at all for a conviction.  A judge could levy just a fine and restitution as a sentence if he/she so chooses, both of which are terms of sentence.