Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Landmark felon voting rights trial begins in Florida, via teleconference

symbols of justice
Classen Rafael/EyeEm/Getty Images

The most important voting rights trial of the new decade started Monday.

The case is about whether several hundred thousand newly enfranchised Florida felons will be able to cast ballots this fall in the nation's biggest swing state. More broadly, it's about the balance of power between the people and the government.

As the trial opened, lawyers for former convicts argued the clear intent of the electorate, which voted overwhelmingly for a state constitutional amendment in 2018, was to permit their clients to register as soon as they were done with prison, probation and parole. Lawyers for the Republican state government, which decided in 2019 that repayment of fines and restitution would be required as well, said that was a valid interpretation of the voters' will.


Civil rights and voting rights groups argue the financial requirements amount to an unconstitutional poll tax, akin to what was used for decades to suppress the African-American vote. And in a preliminary ruling this winter, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the state "may not erect a wealth barrier" to registration and blocked the law from taking effect until after the trial — and the guaranteed appeal by whichever side loses in coming weeks.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The other central complaint of the plaintiffs is that Florida has no central system for determining what felons owe or certifying they have paid up, putting an unconstitutional and impossible burden on ex-offenders to prove they are eligible to vote. The judge in the case, Robert Hinkle of Tallahassee, demanded six months ago the state rectify that problem -- but Florida officials waited until two weeks ago to sketch a procedure for determining how much a felon owes.

Hinkle kept the trial timetable on track despite the coronavirus pandemic, switching it to webcams and telephone hookups, because of the tight timeline if the outcome is to be meaningful in 2020. The Florida congressional and legislative primaries are Aug. 18. Those who wish to vote in the presidential election have until Oct. 5 to register.

The state's 29 electoral votes are the biggest prize indisputably within reach of both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump won the state by 1.2 percentage points — 113,000 votes — last time, but recent polling has Biden slightly ahead.

The ballot measure, known as Amendment 4, restored voting rights to people with felony convictions (except murderers and sex offenders) once they complete "all terms of their sentence." The subsequent law, pushed through the Republican-majority Legislature by Gov. Ron DeSantis, defines "all terms" to mean all financial obligations connected with the felons' case. The state Supreme Court in January issued an advisory opinion that supported the governor's position.

At least 775,000 felons have such obligations, about 55 percent of the total in the state who are out of prison — the largest bloc of people in modern American history who could get their voting rights back at a single time.

Daniel Smith, a University of Florida political scientist who was the opening expert witness for the plaintiffs Monday, offered that estimate and said his research shows at least 45 percent of the felons with some outstanding obligations owe more than $1,000.

He has estimated that four in five felons who owe something have not paid yet. The report he prepared for the trial looked at records from all of Florida's 67 counties but did not make clear who might qualify as too poor to pay — a key statistic because the judge has signaled the law might be permissible if there's an exemption for the indigent.

Smith has said it is impossible to quantify how many might not be able to vote under the new law because of sloppy and inconsistent record record-keeping.

Before Amendment 4, the state since Reconstruction had barred people with felony convictions from voting for life — unless they could secure permission from a clemency board made up of partisan elected officials. As the referendum campaign was getting started in 2018, a federal judge declared that system unconstitutional and said it disproportionately punished African-Americans.

Thirty other states have laws on the books similar to the one being challenged. Attorney generals for 10 of them have filed court briefs in support of Florida's case. "If states are limited in their ability to pursue re-enfranchisement alongside their other interests, some states may well throw in the towel and prohibit any felon from regaining the right to vote," they wrote.

The trial is being conducted by teleconference — with the judge, witnesses and attorneys on video because of travel and social distancing limitations. The public is permitted to listen in, unusual for a federal trial court proceeding and a reflection of the high degree of interest in the case.

"We're really grateful that the court has found a way to let this go forward in spite of the circumstances," Julie Ebenstein of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing some of the plaintiffs, said in her opening argument.

Read More

Can George Washington inspire Biden to greatness?

Clancy is co-founder of Citizen Connect and board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Citizen Connect is an initiative of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which also operates The Fulcrum.

King George III reputedly said George Washington was the greatest man in the world for voluntarily relinquishing power. The indisputable fact is that Washington’s action remains remarkable in human history. And he actually did it at least two times.

On Dec. 23, 1783, Washington resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army and returned to Mount Vernon. He did it again when he declined to run for a third term as president by publishing his Farewell Address on Sept. 19, 1796. In June 1799 Washington was yet again urged to run for president and declined.

His reasoning on each occasion was a complex mix of the personal and political, but the bedrock was an unwavering commitment to put the good of the nation above personal gain and the factions that would ultimately become our toxic party system.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Three approaches to Independence Day

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Biden at the debate

After his disastrous peformance at the debate, President Biden needs to exit the race, writes Breslin.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Getting into the highest offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Getting into America’s highest political offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance has intensified calls for him to step aside. Not even 24 hours after his poor showing, The New York Times took the extraordinary and unprecedented position that the sitting president should immediately pass the torch to a more energetic and electable candidate. “The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform,” the editorial board declared, “is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Entrance to EPA building in Washington, DC
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Project 2025: The Environmental Protection Agency

Shapiro, a freelance journalist, was a newspaper editor for 30 years in California, Illinois and Iowa, including 21 years as executive editor of the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's "Cross-Partisan Project 2025" relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025

No matter if you’re a bleeding-heart woke liberal or a conservative anti-vaxxer, you want the water you ingest to do no harm.

The average human is 60 percent water, although men are more waterlogged than women and infants have more, seniors have less. Your heart and lungs are 75 percent to 80 percent H20. But much of that water is contaminated.

Keep ReadingShow less
Department of Energy building in Washington, DC
J. David Ake/Getty Images

Project 2025: The Department of Energy

Radwell is the author of“American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

There are few better examples of recent generations’ malfeasance, indeed selfishness, than their failure to assume financial responsibilities. For most of my adult life, the federal government has run large deficits, but in recent decades those have ballooned to mind boggling heights — The New York Times reports that we will hit$56 trillion by 2034 given current trends.

Tolerating such as a normal way of doing business masks a simple and uncomfortable truth: We are passing the buck (and bill) to the next generations, who will be forced to pay for our profligacy. (Some call this borrowing from future generations, but I think the term “robbing” is more apropos.)

Keep ReadingShow less