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

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less