Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Florida's fight over felon voting keeps intensifying

Forida Gov. Ron DeSantis

Voting rights advocates and Gov. Ron DeSantis are continuing their court battle over Florida's plans for restoring felons' voting rights.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The courtroom tussle over when felons may vote in Florida has taken two fresh turns.

Advocates for voting rights and civil rights last week asked a federal judge to block enforcement of a new law setting conditions on when former convicts can return to the polls — at least until their lawsuit is settled.

In response, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the same judge to dismiss the advocates' litigation, arguing their complaints should be weighed in state (not federal) court.

There are several reasons why the dispute over restoring the franchise to Floridians after they're released from prison has become one of the most closely watched voting rights cases of the decade, even becoming an issue in the presidential campaign.


Because Florida is the nation's most populous tossup state, any significant shift in the voter rolls (in this case, benefitting Democrats) could have decisive consequences. When the initial decision to restore felons' voting rights was made by 64 percent of voters in a referendum last fall, the result was hailed as signaling a cultural shift and also the power of ballot initiatives. And because the Republicans in Tallahassee have since moved to limit the sweep of the decision, the current state of affairs is especially polarized between the people and their government.

The Legislature passed a law this spring to implement the referendum, which restored voting to felons (except murderers or sexual felons) "who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation." But the law says completing the sentence will include paying all fines, fees and restitutions ordered by the court.

The lawsuit says those conditions amount to the sort of poll tax that's out of bounds under the U.S. Constitution. But the governor says the dispute should be refereed using Florida's constitution.

Fewer than one in five of the state's 1.4 million released felons have repaid all of their outstanding financial obligations, the plaintiffs say.

Some Floridians affected by the amendment have already registered to vote and cast ballots in municipal elections since the law took effect in January, the lawyers argued in a brief with U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, so adding the state law requirements now would sow confusion.


Read More

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A 2021 poll shows 73% of Connecticut voters supported the amendment giving all voters the option to vote by absentee ballot without needing an excuse.

(Adobe Stock)

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A Connecticut voting-rights group is celebrating its 10th anniversary.

Bridgeport Generation Now has worked to broaden voting access and ensure fairer elections for city residents. Some of its most important work came at a time when many Bridgeport residents felt their votes didn't matter, pointing to absentee ballot fraud as the cause.

Keep ReadingShow less
Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

In its recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, a divided Supreme Court approved an expansive use of presidential power that upsets the Constitutional balance between Congress and the President. The Court approved the President’s summary dismissal of agency leaders (in this case, commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission), notwithstanding a statute signed by a former President and the Court's own precedent specifically forbidding such dismissals. This decision will further politicize and weaponize much of our federal government.

Keep ReadingShow less