Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Expert: Law blocks most Florida felons from regaining voting rights

Expert: Law blocks most Florida felons from regaining voting rights

Clarence Singleton registers to vote under a new Florida law allowing convicted felons to regain their voting rights. This summer Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that requires felons to first pay all outstanding fines and fees, prompted several lawsuits claiming discrimination.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The new law requiring felons in Florida to pay all their fines and court fees before getting their voting rights restored would leave about 80 percent of them unable to register, according to research that is part of a legal challenge to the law.

Professor Daniel Smith, chairman of the University of Florida political science department, also found that black convicts would be more likely to be left on the sidelines during elections than white convicts.

Smith submitted his testimony on behalf of several convicted felons who would be blocked from restoring their voting rights as well as the NAACP and the League of Women Voters.


Nearly two-thirds of Florida voters supported an amendment passed last November to restore convicted felons' voting rights. But on June 28, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation requiring repayment as a condition of registering to vote.

Within days several lawsuits were filed. They have been combined, and a hearing is set for Oct. 7 on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the financial requirements.

The suits claim that the requirement to pay fines and fees is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax, something that was used to prevent black people from voting in many states until the 1960s. They also claim that it violates the Voting Rights Act because black and Hispanic citizens would be disproportionately affected.

Plaintiff Kelvin Jones, a 46-year-old black man who lives in Hillsborough County, owes more than $50,000 in fines and court costs. He is disabled and unable to work, making it impossible to pay the money or to hire an attorney to ask that the fines be converted to community service. Even if that were to happen, his disability prevents him from doing the community service.

Smith emphasizes throughout his filing that the conclusions he draws are only estimates because no statewide database is available showing how many convicted felons still owe fines or fees. Nevertheless, using data from 48 of Florida's 67 counties, Smith estimates only about 20 percent of the more than 375,000 people with felony convictions owe neither fines nor fees and therefore could have their voting rights restored.

By extrapolating his findings to cover the entire state, Smith estimates that 8 percent of the more than 140,000 black felons who have finished their sentences have paid off all the fines, while 13.5 percent of nearly 180,000 white convicts have no outstanding fees and fines and therefore are eligible to regain the vote.

Shortly after the law passed, the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, the driving force behind passage of the amendment, announced a fundraising campaign to help convicts pay off their fines. The goal was to raise $3 million.

Meanwhile, officials in Miami announced a plan that would allow felons who still owe fines and fees to petition the court to modify their sentences, including converting some or all of what they owe into community service.

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