Law stopping Florida felons from voting temporarily halted | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Law stopping Florida felons from voting temporarily halted

Associated Press
1828731_web1_1828731-285bbc42306844ca8ba5786f39145aea
In this Oct. 22, 2018 file photo, people gather around the Ben & Jerry’s “Yes on 4” truck as they learn about Amendment 4 and eat free ice cream at Charles Hadley Park in Miami. A federal judge has temporarily set aside a Florida law that barred some felons from voting because of their inability to pay fines and other legal debts. The ruling handed down Friday, Oct. 18, 2019 by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle means thousands of felons who were denied the right to vote will be able to cast ballots unless the state gets a higher court to intervene or if Hinkle later upholds the constitutionality of the state law. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge issued a ruling Friday temporarily blocking a Republican-backed Florida law that barred some felons from voting because of their inability to pay fines and other legal debts.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle means thousands of felons who were denied the right to vote will be able to cast ballots unless the state gets a higher court to intervene or if Hinkle later upholds the constitutionality of the state law.

At issue is whether Florida lawmakers can require released felons to first pay all outstanding fines, restitution and other legal debts before they can regain the right to vote under last year’s voter-approved Amendment 4 .

Hinkle was particularly sympathetic to arguments made by lawyers representing disenfranchised felons who asserted that the financial requirement was akin to a poll tax.

With Florida’s history of close races, the case is not an inconsequential one. Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to develop an advantage at the ballot box. With next year’s high stakes presidential election looming, Florida will likely again be an intensely fought battleground.

Studies have shown disenfranchisement tends to take more votes from Democratic candidates, but it is unclear which party re-enfranchised felons are more likely to support in Florida.

While Hinkle appeared to recognize the state’s authority to stipulate that fines and other debts must be paid before a criminal sentence can be considered completed, he said “the last word will belong to the Florida Supreme Court.”

The state’s high court could very well entertain that question when it considers the law as part of a request by Gov. Ron DeSantis for an advisory opinion.

Hinkle said that was not an issue that he was ready to answer as part of his ruling for a temporary injunction against the state.

Both sides are expected to begin pleading their full case before Hinkle in April. Even then, the case could be far from final because of appeals.

In his opinion, Hinkle said a felon’s inability to pay raises constitutional questions, noting that about 80% of the state’s felons have unpaid financial obligations imposed by courts during sentencing.

As many as 1.4 million felons who have completed their sentences regained voting privileges under a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters last fall. But the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year passed a bill — later signed by DeSantis — stipulating that felons must pay all fines, restitution and other financial obligations to complete their sentences.

Both sides found victory in Hinkle’s ruling.

“Today’s ruling affirms the governor’s consistent position that convicted felons should be held responsible for paying applicable restitution, fees and fines while also recognizing the need to provide an avenue for individuals unable to pay back their debts as a result of true financial hardship,” Helen Aguirre Ferre, the governor’s spokeswoman, said in an email.

She said the governor would consider options “on addressing a pathway for those who are indigent and unable to address their outstanding financial obligations.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law were in court earlier this month seeking the preliminary injunction, which was granted in part Friday by Hinkle.

The case was filed on behalf of a group of Floridians who are seeking to have their voting rights reinstated.

“The court held that the right to vote cannot be denied based on a person’s inability to pay fines and fees. This ruling recognizes the gravity of elected officials trying to circumvent Amendment 4 to create voting roadblocks based on wealth,” said Julie Ebenstein, an attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

Secretary of State Laurel Lee said her department was reviewing the order but would comply with the ruling and provide guidance to local elections officials.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.