Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

If payments are required for voting, Florida should know what felons owe. It doesn't.

Florida felons register to vote

Neil Volz (left) and Lance Wissinger are among the Florida felons who may need to pay fines before voting. But according to research by American Oversight, the state may not be able to track who owes money and how much they owe.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Silvestre is on the communications staff of American Oversight, a progressive ethics watchdog group.

Despite a federal court ruling it is unconstitutional to bar people with prior felony convictions from voting if they cannot pay off their legal fees, most formerly incarcerated Floridians were excluded from this year's presidential primary.

After nearly two-thirds of Florida's voters approved a 2018 ballot measure to restore voting rights to 1.4 million formerly incarcerated citizens, the Republican-run Legislature wrote a law requiring them to first pay all their court-imposed fines, fees and restitution.

The resulting legal battle — between what the voters want and what the politicians in charge in Tallahassee want — may last beyond the presidential election, when the state's 29 votes are the third biggest Electoral College prize. All the while, what the state actually knows about which felons owe what remains a surprisingly big mystery.


In February, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 17 formerly incarcerated plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the law could not be denied their constitutional right to vote as punishment for being "genuinely unable to pay fees, fines, and restitution on account of their indigency."

Since the ruling only applied to the plaintiffs, the case goes on. GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis, who insisted on conducting the March 17 primary despite the coronavirus pandemic, plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Meantime, Florida's inability to confirm whether and what those would-be voters might owe remains a serious concern.

Our investigation has revealed state agencies are not prepared to track the individual statuses of everyone who could be re-enfranchised. And despite the Florida Department of State's previous assurances that it is developing a centralized database, documents we obtained show that human errors like misspelled names and typos continue to pose a challenge — as have the sometimes confusing directives from the state.

One interagency agreement between the Department of Corrections and the Department of State — signed in 2016 and made available by our public records request — says "documents relating to misdemeanor offenders, offenders under supervision, and offenders sentenced prior to 1998 should be obtained from the appropriate clerks of court."

In January 2019, however, Leon County officials were instructed otherwise. A draft notice shared with employees by the county's criminal courts chief advised that to learn about costs and fines assessed before 1998, "one will need to contact the Florida Department of Corrections for any balances owed, including any court ordered restitution."

These conflicting directions circulating through different agencies seem confusing from the outside.

Last June, with the law's passage imminent, election officials in Leon County (centered on Tallahassee) asked the Division of Elections "how the state is going to move forward in regards to providing updated voter registration applications" that comply with the impending statute.

The guidance from the state agency — which instructed clerks on how to determine if a person is still incarcerated or under state supervision for a felony conviction — seems to have left Leon County with more questions than answers. A week later, the county supervisor of elections, Mark Earley, emailed the state office: "I just wanted to give you a heads up that ... without more specific details, it is very difficult to say with any clarity what the status of these individuals in relation to felony conviction actually is."

Leon County officials were not alone in their confusion. To prepare for the new law, court clerks statewide were running tests of 10 sample cases to compare their records with what the Department of Corrections had on file. They quickly found an array of problems — multiple felony convictions, files scanned and uploaded in bulk instead of individually, missing case numbers and misspelled names — making it difficult to track individual cases, let alone determine former prisoners' voting eligibility.

Clerks in Hillsborough County (Tampa) found, for example, that in four of five samples there were incomplete fee listings, old addresses or computer errors making a correct assessment impossible.

To manage the blossoming set of problems, the Legislature created a Restoration of Voting Rights Task Force and DeSantis began naming members last August. They were told to conduct a thorough review of the system and then propose fixes.

Records obtained about that investigation revealed, of the 38 counties that reviewed their records to see how easy it would be to implement the law, 28 of them reported name misspellings, contact information inconsistencies and missing figures that would complicate the process.

As the November election draws nearer, Florida's formerly incarcerated citizens will continue to face hurdles that prevent them from voting until a concrete resolution is reached through the courts. Until then, the best we can do is shed light on the obstacles these people will face even if their right to vote without first writing checks is upheld.

Read More

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
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

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

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less