Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less