A Florida law requiring felons to pay legal fees as part of their sentences before regaining the vote is unconstitutional for those unable to pay, or unable to find out how much they owe, a federal judge ruled Sunday.
The 125-page ruling was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee. It involves a state law to implement a 2016 ballot measure approved by voters to automatically restore the right to vote for many felons who have completed their sentences. The Republican-led Legislature stipulated that fines and legal fees must be paid as part of the sentence, in addition to serving any prison time.
Hinkle has acknowledged he is unlikely to have the last word in the case, expecting the administration of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to launch an appeal.
The case could have deep ramifications in the crucial electoral battleground given that Florida has an estimated 774,000 disenfranchised felons who are barred because of financial obligations. Many of those felons are African Americans and presumably Democrats, though it’s unclear how that group of Floridians overall would lean politically in an election and how many would vote.
The judge called the Florida rules a “pay to vote” system that are unconstitutional when applied to felons “who are otherwise eligible to vote but are genuinely unable to pay the required amount.”
A further complication is determining the exact amount in fines and other kinds of legal fees owed by felons seeking the vote — by some estimates it would take elections officials several years for those pending now. Hinkle said it’s unconstitutional to bar any voter whose amount owed could not be “determined with diligence.”
Hinkle ordered the state to require election officials to allow felons to request an advisory opinion on how much they owe — essentially placing the burden on elections officials to seek that information from court systems. If there’s no response within three weeks, then the applicant should not be barred from registering to vote, the ruling said.
Hinkle said the requirement to pay fines and restitution as ordered in a sentence is constitutional for those “who are able to pay” — if the amount can be determined.
The case, Kelvin Jones vs. Ron DeSantis, consolidates five lawsuits filed by advocates of disenfranchised felons, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
“This is a tremendous victory for voting rights,” Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. “The court recognized that conditioning a person’s right to vote on their ability to pay is unconstitutional. This ruling means hundreds of thousands of Floridians will be able to rejoin the electorate and participate in upcoming elections.”
The 2018 ballot measure, known as Amendment 4, does not apply to convicted murderers and rapists, who are permanently barred from voting regardless of financial obligations.
___
Material from the Associated Press was used in this post.
5 comments
Paula
May 25, 2020 at 7:54 am
Hope this judge’s ruling stands! Very happy to read this.
Jim Donelon
May 25, 2020 at 8:13 am
Now the Governor’s office will appeal to the Court of Appeals who will side with the Judge and then the Governor’s office will appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court – who will be in summer recess – and they will take up the matter next term and give a ruling in June 2021.
Meanwhile, Trump will get re-elected and get to appoint yet another Supreme Court Justice or two.
And what kind of ruling could we expect from that Supreme Court????
This is what happens when petitions are drawn up too loosely to allow the Republicans to twart the will of the voters.
Ron
May 25, 2020 at 8:50 am
A foolish ruling, creating a class of law that applies to one group–can pay–and another group–can’t pay. Why then should any felon admit that he/she can pay? Why then should anyone ever have to admit to having the ability to pay for any good they wish to receive?
Indigence forever, the new American way.
John
May 25, 2020 at 10:41 am
The judge is correct. This is nothing more than a poll tax, meant to suppress the vote.
Frank Rizzo
May 25, 2020 at 4:22 pm
Voting is the very essence of this country. We are not governed by a dictator or a king. We govern ourselves. EVERY American Citizen, I don’t care if they’re black, white, yellow or purple, EVERY American citizen, with NO exceptions have the right to vote and determine how America is governed, not the pompous select few.
The states who deny ex-cons the vote contain Un-American fascist, racist and backwards hillbillies and need to stop their BS and get with the program.
To all those who do not like Judge Hinkle and the 11th Circuit court of appeals rulings, get the hell out of my country and go live in a dictatorship like Russia, North Korea or China. Things will be more towards your liking there.
Comments are closed.