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

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less