Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Felons may vote in Florida’s presidential primary while ‘poll tax’ challenge continues

Florida voters in 2016

Voters lining up in Tallahassee to cast ballots in the last presidential election.

Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images

Hundreds of thousands of felons will be able to participate in Florida's local elections next month, and the presidential primaries next year, for the first time since their incarceration.

That is the most immediate and consequential result of a federal judge's decision to temporarily block implementation of a state law that imposes financial requirements before criminals released from prison and done with parole may reclaim the franchise.

Friday's ruling was a major victory for both civil rights advocates and for the two-thirds of Floridians who endorsed last November's ballot measure restoring voting rights to an estimated 1.4 million felons who have completed their sentences — the largest single expansion of voting rights in the United States in half a century and the biggest ever mandated by a popular vote.

It was a significant defeat for the Republicans in control of state government, who enacted a law in June restricting the vote to felons who had paid all fines, fees and restitution — a move that would prevent far more than half those released from the state's prisons from ever registering.


Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would not appeal the decision but would instead ask the Legislature to revise the law when it convenes next year. This assures felons may vote in local contests in three weeks and makes it highly likely they'll all be able to vote in the state's potentially crucial presidential primary March 17 — the fourth-biggest delegate prize in next year's Democratic nominating contests.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued something of a split decision last week. He ruled that while it's acceptable for the state to ask that all financial penalties be paid, it's not acceptable to bar people from voting if they cannot afford to pay.

Florida "cannot deny restoration of a felon's right to vote solely because the felon does not have the financial resources to pay the other financial obligations," Hinkle declared, citing as precedent a federal appeals court ruling from 14 years ago.

He blocked implementation of the current law until at least April, when he'll conduct a trial on the question of whether the fine and fee payment requirements amount to an unconstitutional poll tax.

"When an eligible citizen misses an opportunity to vote, the opportunity is gone forever; the vote cannot later be cast," Hinkle wrote in explaining the rational for his injunction. "So when the state wrongly prevents an eligible citizen from voting, the harm is irreparable."

The judge said the Legislature must come up with a measure permitting poor felons to vote, which he suggested could be as simple as amending Florida's voter registration application to allow felons to declare themselves indigent.

A spokeswoman for DeSantis, Helen Aguirre Ferré, said the governor agrees with the judge's decision. Hinkle's ruling, she said, "affirms the governor's consistent position that convicted felons should be held responsible for paying applicable restitution, fees and fines while also recognizing the need to provide an avenue for individuals unable to pay back their debts as a result of true financial hardship."

Some Republicans in Tallahassee are working behind the scenes on legislation that could respond to a more sweeping ruling from Hinkle next year that the repayment law amounts to a poll tax, or to the results of a separate lawsuit challenging the June statute that's headed to the Florida Supreme Court.

For now, county elections officials have no means for determining if a felon can afford to pay court assessments.

The repayment law was widely seen as an attempt by the GOP to suppress turnout from a new bloc of voters in the biggest state with a nearly even partisan split. Many if not most of the former felons are Latinos or African-Americans, whose votes generally go lopsidedly to the Democrats.

The nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition has raised nearly $1 million to help felons pay outstanding fines and will conduct a statewide bus tour next month to help them understand how to register.

The restoration of the vote was ordered by 65 percent of the electorate in November and applies to all felons, except those convicted of murder or sex offenses, who have completed their sentences. The GOP said the subsequent law is true to the voters' wishes because court-imposed financial obligations are part of a sentence.

But critics say the move is undeniably similar to the sort of poll taxes used to disenfranchise black voters during the era of Jim Crow, which led to ratification in 1964 of the 24th Amendment assuring that the right to vote cannot be denied for failure to pay "any poll tax or other tax."

The decision is "a critical step towards ensuring that the voting rights of other people with felony convictions are not trampled on by Florida officials," Leah Aden, the deputy director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight for full relief for Florida voters who must not pay to vote."


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Talent Isn’t the Problem. Belonging Is.

Zaila Avant-Garde on stage at the 30th Anniversary Bounce Trumpet Awards at Dolby Theatre on April 23, 2022 in Hollywood, California.

Getty Images, Alberto E. Rodriguez

Talent Isn’t the Problem. Belonging Is.

Every spring, as the Scripps National Spelling Bee captures national attention, we celebrate the brilliance of young spellers—children who command stages and spell words that even confuse adults. This time of the year makes me think back to when I was 9 years old, when I won my school’s spelling bee and advanced to the county competition. Standing in a large, crowded room, surrounded by what felt like hundreds of faces that didn’t look like mine, I whispered to myself: “I can’t do this.” Maybe I wasn’t supposed to be there at all.

So instead of showcasing my own brilliance, I committed self-sabotage by intentionally misspelling each word on the spelling test.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person at home feeling tired and stressed.

How positive male leadership is critical to the mental health and development of young men.

Getty Images, kieferpix

The Problem isn’t Masculinity – It’s the Men Modeling It

From the White House to Harvard to Buckingham Palace, 2026 has become a masterclass in how men should not behave. Donald Trump tweeted in expletives on a religious holiday, threatening to decimate “a whole civilization.” Larry Summers—one of the world's most powerful academics—resigned in disgrace from Harvard. Before that, Prince Andrew was arrested. This year alone, Bill Gates, George Mitchell, and other prominent men have been exposed for inappropriate, abusive, or generally shameful behavior.

In short, men aren't looking good right now—especially as role models for young men. Now more than ever, we need good men to step up for our boys.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less