
Restoring felon voting rights a 'mess' in battleground Florida - howard941
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-florida-felons-insight/restoring-felon-voting-rights-a-mess-in-battleground-florida-idUSKBN1WM0YV
======
mAEStro-paNDa
This is only a "mess" because of undemocratic push-back against a ballot
measure that was voted on by the people.

It isn't limited to just voting rights either. Look into the push-back in
Arkansas over a ballot measure passed last year to raise the minimum wage.

~~~
munk-a
Yea - I must have missed the "who have cleared any debts and fines
outstanding" clause following the reinfranchisement of felons.

I know there is a large partisan divide, but one of these parties is for
enfranchisement and the other one is trying their hardest to keep all those
felons from voting.

~~~
zeveb
> Yea - I must have missed the "who have cleared any debts and fines
> outstanding" clause following the reinfranchisement of felons.

Apparently they have to complete all terms of their sentences:

> > No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration
> Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with
> felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including
> parole or probation.

------
rtkwe
This is one of the big reasons I think Warren's first priority plan of voting
reforms might be more important than any other. Gerrymandering, poll closures,
voter ID laws all of it is one big effort to hold on to power despite losing
the support of the voters which is the whole basis of the legitimacy of
government power in the US.

~~~
mAEStro-paNDa
How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted
on by the public, for example.

Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority
to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering
much easier.

Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or
gives enough detail of how they would be executed.

~~~
rtkwe
There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has
the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1
Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad
powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state
levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money
for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified
by the legislature of the individual states.

I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard
to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very
very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the
geyser of corporate money. [1]

[0] [https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-
dem...](https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-
democracy-6867ec1bcd3c)

[1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full
rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a
line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a
corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or
something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to
make way more money in return from legislative changes.

~~~
Steltek
In the vein of "dangling money", elections are expensive to run and states
would not want to double spend to follow their rules + Fed rules.

~~~
rtkwe
Yeah I imagine that's part of the calculus too that it would be easier to use
the same rolls, machines and rules but getting them to reform the district
drawing process would be somewhere our hypothetical Warren admin would
probably have to incentivize with money.

------
ch4s3
Wow, this is pretty crazy.

> Under a Florida law that went into effect July 1, he must pay those
> penalties before casting a ballot or risk being prosecuted for voter
> fraud... Florida has no comprehensive system for tracking such fines

It's not uncommon for states like Florida to make voting difficult, but this
is Kafkaesque and ridiculous.

~~~
throwaway5752
If you don't live in a Republican majority state, then you might not
appreciate the lengths they are will to go through at a bureaucratic level to
prevent non Republicans from voting and to otherwise minimize their political
power. You almost want to admire how clever and dedicated they are to it:
gerrymandering, removing classes of people from ballot roles, inconvenience
tactics of minimizing voting machines/locations for non-R precincts,
minimizing early voting and vote by mail (or defunding them), physical
intimidation at precincts, and maneuvers like the subject of this article.

You can look at the members of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commissi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity)
(Hans van Spakovsky, Chris Kobach) and see the impressive and coordinated job
they are doing at nationalizing the effort.

They have an incredible pipeline to create "movement" attorneys and advancing
them into the judicial system with the ADF, programs like the Blackstone legal
fellowship, and the relatively recently accredited Liberty U law school as a
feeder. They don't draw a ton of attention to themselves, but let's just
say... hopefully you are Christian, white, heterosexual, and don't want/need
contraception. They essentially have already won, the precedent is just
working its way through the judiciary.

~~~
souprock
This isn't something to blame on one party.

Maryland is not a Republican majority state.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional_district)

Illinois is also not a Republican majority state.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district)

~~~
throwaway5752
I'm sorry, it is in fact a single party issue at a national, coordinated level
right now. Not every R state is gerrymandered, and Maryland is a great example
of how not every D state is not gerrymandered. But you have Eric Holder and
the NDRC on one hand. You have Hofeller, Kobach, and von Spakovsky on the
other. It should be bipartisan and simply a matter of civic duty, and I look
forward to when it's that way again.

And IL 4 was drawn by Republicans after
[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/FSupp/7...](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/FSupp/777/634/2259862/)

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district#History)
_" In June 1991, Congressman Dennis Hastert, a suburban Republican, filed a
federal lawsuit claiming that the existing congressional map was
unconstitutional;[11] the present congressional district boundaries emerged as
a result of that lawsuit. A three-judge panel of the federal district court
adopted the map proposed by Hastert and other Republican members of the
Illinois Congressional delegation"_

------
duxup
>But another argument is shaping up to be central to the plaintiffs’ case:
Florida has no consolidated system for determining what felons owe or
certifying that they have paid up. It’s a situation that ex-offenders say
makes it virtually impossible for them to prove they are eligible to vote.

This seems absurd.

You can't vote because you owe us money... but we're not going to tell you how
much you owe, if anything at all.

~~~
michaelmrose
Why is paying up linked to voting? This just creates an incentive to
strenuously police and fine minorities so they can't put you out of office.

~~~
japhyr
Yes, exactly, it's a modern day poll tax and many people in power want such a
thing.

~~~
quickthrower2
This might be UK bias, but I take "poll tax" to mean a fixed tax on each
resident for community services (as opposed to say a tax based on the value of
the residence), but has nothing to do with voting. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax)

~~~
xigency
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States#Voter_registration)

------
JoshuaMulliken
I sure hope their lawsuit is successful this seems like an overreach of the
power of the legislature. If the people vote to make a constitutional
ammendment then it should be law!

> The Tampa pastor is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the payments
> law, which was crafted by Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature and
> signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, also a Republican. The law came just months
> after Floridians approved a ballot initiative restoring voting rights to
> more than 1 million felons who have completed their sentences;

~~~
bilbo0s
Not surprising that people try to hold on to power by hook or by crook. (And
there are a whole lot of crooks among Florida's power elite.)

------
geggam
I haven't ever understood how being a felon removes a right ?

Rights aren't something the govt gives so how can the govt remove them ?

~~~
jcranmer
You may be deprived, under the 5th Amendment, of life, liberty, and property
via due process of law. Since felons have been convicted of crimes under due
process, their right to vote (liberty) can be deprived.

~~~
yellowapple
I strongly doubt the Founding Fathers intended that to mean "we should
continue to deprive felons their rights to life, liberty, and property even
after they have served their sentence".

~~~
tptacek
In this case it matters less what the founders intended and more what the
framers of the 14th Amendment thought almost 100 years later. You can read in
_Richardson v Ramirez_ a bit of a history of felon disenfranchisement; a
reasonable summary might be: "there was a lot of haggling over the specific
language of the clauses of 14A, but disenfranchisement for crimes was a
consistent point of agreement".

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's right to disenfranchise felons (it
almost certainly isn't), nor does it mean any state is obligated to
disenfranchise (most states don't). It does however mean that it's not
straightforward to appeal to the Constitution in arguing to get rid of it.

------
s1artibartfast
Database and records issues aside, it seems that the constitutional amendment
was pretty clear:

"No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration
Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony
convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole
or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or
sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting
unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case
by case basis."

If the fees are part of parole or probation, then the felons should be not be
able to vote. Does florida not have a database of who is or isn't on
probation?

If the fees are not part of parole or probation, the new law should be clearly
unconstitutional.

~~~
magashna
> Does florida not have a database of who is or isn't on probation?

Apparently not when it comes to fees owed as part of that.

> Tyson searched court records, first on his own, then with the help of a
> nonprofit legal advocacy group. They say that because Florida has no
> comprehensive system for tracking such fines, the documents don’t make clear
> what he owes. The records, viewed by Reuters, show potential sums ranging
> from $846 to a couple thousand dollars related to crimes he committed in the
> late 1970s and 1990s. Tyson says he won’t risk voting until Florida
> authorities can tell him for sure.

~~~
s1artibartfast
>Apparently not when it comes to fees owed as part of that.

I think there is another more likely answer: Probation is tracked, fees have
not traditionally been considered a requirement for probation completion, and
the legislature is trying to shift the lines.

~~~
delinka
> ... fees have not traditionally been considered a requirement for probation
> completion ...

Is that the case? It seems like I've heard of cases where probation comes with
requirements ("wear this tracking bracelet") that are provided by a private
entity who bills the convict, and if the bill isn't paid, probation gets
revoked.

~~~
s1artibartfast
My understanding of the article is it applies to those who completed
probation, not those who's probation is ongoing or revoked.

------
erobbins
"developing a procedure to send counties regularly updated lists of felons on
their rolls who have unpaid fines and fees, but it has no timetable as to when
it will be ready"

Oh, I know when it'll be ready. About 2 weeks before the election, just in
time to purge voters without giving them enough time to do anything about it.

------
SamReidHughes
I wonder if labyrinthian fines could get classified as excessive fines,
somehow. But if the fine complexity is O(n) where n is the number of
convictions you have, I don't see what the big deal is.

~~~
crooked-v
The problem isn't the number of fines, but that different clerks and offices
will all claim that the total and remaining fines are all different amounts.

------
yardie
For a bit of context the current governor, Desantis, squeaked into the win
with less than 40,000 votes. He is trying everything in his power to not be a
one-term governor. So far he has:

* Liberalized his platform to appear more moderate. Terms are 5 years and a new generation of voters.

* Supress black votes through kafkaesque voter registration.

* Suppress black votes by denying ex-convicts (who make up a large block of felons) the ability.

------
chooseaname
It shouldn't be a mess. We voted for it and it passed. When we voted, there
was no stipulation that repayment was necessary. That came after and that bill
should have been struck down because that was not the will of the people.

------
jimbob45
On the bright side, there is no governorship or senate seat up for grabs, so
the stakes are considerably lower.

~~~
r00fus
Yup, just the 29 Congressional seats and President. Oh, and all the state
legislative seats. Not to mention mayoral seats and other state measures. Or
any 2020 ballot measure. Not much at all, really.

------
gowld
Just another poll tax.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States

~~~
tehjoker
If too many poors voted it would undermine our class structure through
democracy. Can't have that happen. /s

Building on what you said, everyone should have the right to vote, totally
unobstructed, even if they are in jail. Otherwise, you incentivize putting
people the powers that be don't like in jail.

~~~
Frondo
At least one state (Vermont) does allow people behind bars.

For the rest of them, prison populations are another form of concentrating and
diluting power: prisoners are counted toward district population, but have no
voting power.

I'm in the camp that thinks everyone should have the right to vote, prisoners
included. Voting is a fundamental component of citizenship, and being
imprisoned shouldn't take that way as a matter a principle, nor should a
citizen be disenfranchised after their release (as is also common, especially
in the states that enacted all these laws in the Jim Crow south era).

Especially if we want former prisoners to play a more positive role in society
after their release, stripping them of a right of citizenship, possibly
indefinitely, seems like a bad way to do it.

~~~
crooked-v
A simple thought experiment that can also help people reevaluate their views
on this kind of thing:

Imagine if [thing you like] was illegal, punishable as a minor felony with a
year in jail and the subsequent loss of voting rights. You know that 60% of
the population supports [thing you like] and would like to have it legalized,
but because a substantial chunk of this population has been or will be
punished this way over their lifetimes, support of [thing you like] only gets
a minority of the vote. The 40% of the population that opposes [thing you
like] uses this to claim that most people oppose [thing you like] and want it
to remain illegal.

~~~
kls
That is the whole issue with the criminalization of drug consumption it
creates all kind of societal issues and it screws up other areas that at one
time where and still should be reasonable. It get compounded with laws like
the 3 strike rule where you get hit with 3 small non-violent offenses and then
they can really jack up the charges and get you on a felony.

I am all for true felons loosing their right to vote. I don't want people that
have run ponzi schemes, violent high volume drug dealers or pedophiles to have
the right to participate in the society I live in. I think it is criminal that
some meth head that gets slapped with a felony for having a little too much on
them goes to prison, gets out, turns around their life and now cannot
participate fully in society due to poor laws.

~~~
crooked-v
I would personally prefer voting remain unconditionally open to everyone,
because treating it that way avoids future societal repression over [insert
moral panic over reasonably harmless subject here] and because the total
number of the kind of people you cite are a rounding error compared to overall
voter turnout totals.

