Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Florida top court ruling on felon voting is hardly the final word

Former felon Erica Racz registering to voting

The state Supreme Court said it was fair to make ex-felons like Erica Racz (seen registering to vote in January 2019) pay all monetary penalties before regaining the franchise. But it was only an advisory opinion.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Republicans hoping to limit the newly restored voting rights of convicted felons in Florida have won the backing of the state Supreme Court. But it's really just a victory in the court of public opinion, because the justices issued only an advisory opinion Thursday while the real decision is up to the federal courts.

At issue is a law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature last year to implement a state constitutional amendment approved in 2018 with the support of almost two-thirds of the electorate, restoring voting rights to about 1.4 million Floridians with criminal records.

It is the largest single expansion of voting rights in the country since 18-year-olds got the constitutional right to cast ballots half a century ago. But its reach could be sharply limited if Republicans successfully defend the financial curbs they want to impose.


The statewide vote was a breakthrough moment for the cause of felon voting, a major goal of civil rights groups nationwide who argue the democracy will work better if ex-convicts can participate fully. But since felons mainly vote Democratic, their cause has been spurned by most Republicans — especially in tossup states led by Florida, where really small numbers of votes often tip elections.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The amendment approved by the state's voters gave back the franchise to felons who had completed "all terms" of their sentences. Proponents say that language was meant to include probation and parole, nothing more. But the subsequent law said that would include paying all fines, court fees and restitution.

Under a torrent of criticism, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis last summer asked the state's top court, filled mostly with GOP appointees, for its opinion.

"We conclude that the phrase, when read and understood in context, plainly refers to obligations and includes 'all'" fines, fees and restitution, four justices agreed in court's response, which has no immediate legal ramifications. (One justice dissented.)

Still, DeSantis tweeted that he was pleased by the ruling, adding, "voting is a privilege that should not be taken lightly."

Opponents of the requirement argue that conditioning the right to vote on making payments (which many people just out of prison can ill afford) amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax — a reference to the practice of charging a fee before someone was allowed to vote, used for decades to prevent African-Americans from casting ballots.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice have all challenged the law in federal court on behalf of a handful of Florida felons, and a federal judge last fall blocked its implementation while the litigation was being argued.

Danielle Lang of the Campaign Legal Center said in a statement that the state court decision "changes nothing" in the federal case. "We will continue to fight to ensure that people with felony convictions are not denied the right to vote based on their inability to pay," she said.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 28. The deadline is Feb. 18 for registering for the state's March 17 primary, which could be a pivotal moment in the Democratic presidential race.

But the judge's preliminary injunction appears to apply only to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, meaning that the hundreds of thousands of other ex-felons who owe money to fully repay their debt to society remain in limbo.

Read More

Painting of people voting

"The County Election" by George Caleb Bingham

Sister democracies share an inherited flaw

Myers is executive director of the ProRep Coalition. Nickerson is executive director of Fair Vote Canada, a campaign for proportional representations (not affiliated with the U.S. reform organization FairVote.)

Among all advanced democracies, perhaps no two countries have a closer relationship — or more in common — than the United States and Canada. Our strong connection is partly due to geography: we share the longest border between any two countries and have a free trade agreement that’s made our economies reliant on one another. But our ties run much deeper than just that of friendly neighbors. As former British colonies, we’re siblings sharing a parent. And like actual siblings, whether we like it or not, we’ve inherited some of our parent’s flaws.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress standing next to a sign that reads "Americans Decide American Elections"
Sen. Mike Lee (left) and Speaker Mike Johnson conduct a news conference May 8 to introduce the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Bill of the month: Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Last month, we looked at a bill to prohibit noncitizens from voting in Washington D.C. To continue the voting rights theme, this month IssueVoter and BillTrack50 are taking a look at the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of its service, IssueVoter summarizes important bills passing through Congress and sets out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues.

BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less