Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Florida felons win strong vote of support in federal appeals court

Clarence Singleto, Florida felon registering to vote

Clarence Singleton registers to vote under a Florida law allowing convicted felons to regain their voting rights. Efforts to require felons to first pay all outstanding fines and fees before being eligible have prompted several lawsuits.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A federal appeals court on Wednesday continued to block Florida's new law denying the vote to criminals who have served their time but not made payments that resulted from their convictions.

The decision, by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, is symbolically important to the cause of felon voting rights. But it's also quite narrow. It maintains an injunction on enforcement of the law imposed by a federal trial judge, but that ruling only covered the 17 felons who have sued.

As many as 1.4 million other Floridians, as a result, still will not be able to vote March 17 in the Democratic presidential primary, the third-richest delegate prize of the nominating contest.


Besides, the appellate court's ruling came a day after the deadline for registering to vote in that primary.

The next turning point begins April 6, when a federal court opens a hearing in Tallahassee on the merits of the case. That's when a judge will hear arguments that the law — which says felons may resume voting only after paying all fines, court costs and restitution imposed as part of their sentences — amounts to an unconstitutional modern-day poll tax.

The fight stems from how the Republican-run state government decided to implement a state constitutional amendment, adopted in 2018 with almost two-thirds of the vote, that restored the franchise for all Floridians with felony convictions upon completion of their sentences.

Months later, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation written by his GOP colleagues in the Legislature saying that completing a sentence would mean more than release from prison and finishing parole and probation – it also requires fulfilling all monetary obligations.

Civil rights groups and felons affected by the law filed suit, arguing the stipulation disproportionately targeted the poor and people of color. Although the Florida Supreme Court sided with the state, its opinion did not have the force of law, leaving the final decision in the federal court system.

"The long and short of it is that once a state provides an avenue to ending the punishment of disenfranchisement — as the voters of Florida plainly did — it must do so consonant with the principles of equal protection and it may not erect a wealth barrier absent a justification sufficient to overcome heightened scrutiny," the three-judge appeals panel concluded.

The ACLU of Florida, among others, celebrated the decision as a "huge victory for our brave clients!"A spokesman for DeSantis said the state would ask the entire 11th Circuit to reconsider the ruling.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less