Opening the door for hundreds of thousands of convicted felons to be added to Florida’s voting rolls, a federal judge on Sunday struck down major parts of a state law requiring felons to pay court-ordered “legal financial obligations” to be eligible to vote.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle’s highly anticipated ruling also laid out a procedure for state elections officials to determine whether felons seeking to vote have outstanding legal financial obligations and are unable to pay court-ordered debts.
Hinkle’s decision came less than a month after an eight-day trial in the lawsuit, filed by voting- and civil-rights groups who alleged that linking voting rights and finances amounts to an unconstitutional “poll tax.”
The record “shows that the mine-run of felons affected by the pay-to-vote requirement are genuinely unable to pay,” Hinkle wrote in Sunday’s 125-page decision.
The law, approved by Republicans in a party-line vote last year, required felons who have completed their time behind bars to pay fees, fines, costs and restitution affiliated with their convictions to be eligible to cast ballots.
The law — fiercely defended by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration — was aimed at carrying out a 2018 constitutional amendment that restored voting rights to felons “who have completed all terms of their sentences, including parole and probation,” excluding murderers and individuals convicted of felony sexual offenses.
More than three-quarters of the 1 million Floridians who have been convicted of felonies and completed their time in jail or prison have outstanding legal financial obligations, or LFOS, and more than 80 percent are unable to pay the court-ordered debts, according to an analysis conducted by University of Florida political science professor Daniel Smith for the plaintiffs.
“I find as a fact that the overwhelming majority of felons who have not paid their LFOs in full, but who are otherwise eligible to vote, are genuinely unable to pay the required amount, and thus, under Florida’s pay-to-vote system, will be barred from voting solely because they lack sufficient funds,” Hinkle wrote Sunday.
The system “is irrational as applied to the mine-run of affected felons and thus is irrational as a whole,” he added.
Testimony from county elections officials, clerks of court, felons and scholars throughout the trial spotlighted the difficulty in ascertaining whether people who were convicted of felonies owe money. Court records, especially in older cases, can be contradictory or incomplete. Databases are difficult to navigate. People sometimes have to pay to obtain the records.
“The state has shown a staggering inability to administer the pay-to-vote system and, in an effort to reduce the administrative difficulties, has largely abandoned the only legitimate rationale for the pay-to-vote system’s existence,” the judge wrote.
Voting-rights advocates hailed Hinkle’s decision.
“Our democracy requires that every eligible voter have equitable access to the ballot box. Instead of embracing this founding principle, the Florida Legislature and Gov. DeSantis enacted a modern day poll tax to keep people from accessing this fundamental right,” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Legal Director Daniel Tilley said in a prepared statement. “It should alarm Floridians that there are people occupying the highest echelons of political power in our state who fought to keep Florida tied to its racist past and bar people from voting. We are pleased the court saw right through that and rejected this blatantly discriminatory voter suppression scheme.”
Many felons do not know, and some have no way to find out, the amount of LFOs included in a judgment, Hinkle wrote.
Few people will know that they must obtain copies of their judgments to ascertain how much they owe, Hinkle added.
“Most will start with the internet or telephone or perhaps by going in person to the office of the county supervisor of elections or clerk of court. Trying to obtain accurate information in this way will almost never work,” the judge said.
Hinkle pointed to research by a professor and graduate students who tried to obtain information on 153 randomly selected felons. The group found “there were inconsistencies in the available information for all but three of the 153 individuals,” Hinkle wrote.
“Even if a felon manages to obtain a copy of a judgment, the felon will not always be able to determine which financial obligations are subject to the pay-to-vote requirement,” he added. “The takeaway: determining the amount of a felon’s LFOs is sometimes easy, sometimes hard, sometimes impossible.”
Hinkle also faulted a procedure released by the state in the days leading up to the trial.
The plan instructs state elections workers to credit all payments felons have made — including fees to collections agencies or other third parties — toward the total amount assessed at the time of sentencing. If the payments equal or surpass the amount assessed at sentencing, the voter is considered eligible, according to the new procedure, which Hinkle dubbed the “every-dollar” approach in Sunday’s order.
“The state’s principal justification for the pay-to-vote system is that a felon should be required to satisfy the felon’s entire criminal sentence before being allowed to vote — that the felon should be required to pay the felon’s entire debt to society. But the every-dollar method gravely undermines this debt-to-society rationale. Under the every-dollar approach, most felons are no longer required to satisfy the criminal sentence,” Hinkle scolded.
The ability to vote for three felons who committed the same crime and drew the same sentence would depend on whether they have money or not, Hinkle explained.
“This result is bizarre, not rational,” he wrote.
The dollar amounts in examples are small, Hinkle wrote, but the U.S. Supreme Court “has made clear that when the issue is paying to vote, even $1.50 is too much.”
The judge also criticized the state for crafting the policy in an attempt to “shore up the state’s flagging position in this litigation.”
Hinkle’s order also found that felons cannot be required to pay court-ordered fees and costs, which he decided are unconstitutional “taxes.”
The judge’s order creates a form for people to seek an “advisory opinion” from the Florida Division of Elections to determine whether they have outstanding financial obligations, a process suggested by the state during the trial. Hinkle’s form also allows people to assert that they are unable to pay the court-ordered costs.
Under his order, people can register to vote and vote within 21 days of submitting a request for an advisory opinion, “unless and until the Division of Elections provides an advisory opinion that includes the requested statement of the amount that must be paid together with an explanation of how the amount was calculated.”
Hinkle had signaled earlier that he would rule against the state in the case. In a preliminary injunction issued in October, Hinkle ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to felons who are “genuinely unable to pay” court-ordered financial obligations.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February upheld Hinkle’s ruling, finding that requiring all felons to pay financial obligations violates equal protection rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment because it “punishes those who cannot pay more harshly than those who can.”
After the appeals-court ruling, Hinkle granted class certification in the lawsuit, meaning that hundreds of thousands of convicted felons could have their voting rights restored when the case is concluded.
–Dara Kam, News Service of Florida
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Paula says
Great news!
Jay Kosack says
One judge makes a decision that impacts our safety, economics and now our politics. One judge, that affects the millions of lives of our law biding citizens! One judge, that has this unlimited power to alter all the lives of our citizens. Now these felons can vote in an election they should not be able to because of being convicted as felons. This one judge is a Democrat! This judge’s, motives are not freeing these felons. This judge’s, underlying motive is to have these convicted felons vote democratic in our presidential election in, November. A vote which would be against our, President Trump. Democrats will do anything underhanded, like this, for their own selfish reasons. Democrats are determined to undermine our country in an way they can. This clearly is one of them and it’s a total disgrace against all the true Americans in our country.
CB from PC says
Well said!
Michael Cocchiola says
Jay… there’s nothing in the Constitution that says former felons can’t ever vote. Why would a felony conviction cause an American to lose his or her constitutional rights? Would you brand former felons with some identifying mark so we and they never forget or forgive? Should we tell former felons who have served their sentences that their right to vote is permanently voided no matter how hard they may strive to become good, productive citizens? Isn’t that the way our system of justice is supposed to work?
But then, I guess you’re a true American driven by vengeance rather than compassion.
really says
Dont like it. Its not what the people voted for. All too ambiguous for me. My days of voting are few. Doesnt seem to matter
Concerned Citizen says
But what about the victims?
Much ado about restoring felons rights. Do victims of crimes get a redo at a normal life?
I’m sorry that you broke the law and incurred fines,restituition and other fees. Should have thought about that before you victimized someone. Now the courts are just giving more incentive for people to go ahead and do what they want with no recourse.
Why am I bitter?
Several years ago I was the victim of a burglary. The house was locked and secured so they smashed the sliding glass door in the back. Causing hundreds of dollars in repair. Both suspects were known to law enforcement and the court. Having similar offenses and both were on probation. So during the course of the investigation they were found, re-arrested and sent to prison for new charges and VOP.
Meanwhile I’m left with a broken sliding glass door. And money out of pocket that I didn’t have to repair it. 6 years later and I still haven’t seen that money. And never will. So add insult to injury you not only violated my sense of safety and security you caused me undue financial distress. But hey you go right ahead and get those rights restored. Without completing your sentence.
Seems like these days the courts care more about cons than they do victims.
Mike Cocchiola says
I can see why you’re bitter, Concerned Citizen. You’re right. A broken window is reason enough to convict a person and condemn that person to a life of second-class citizenship or at least many years of imprisonment so they can become hardened criminals. That works well for our society.
Concerned Citizen says
Wow a little victim blaming eh?
You missed the part about burglary. So because I had stuff they wanted and they couldn’t work for it they can just take it? With no repercussions? Ok then
You also missed the point where both already had records. So obviously they did not care about their rights or mine. Yes I pressed charges. My home was burglarized and things I worked hard for were taken. And I did not regret doing it.
I was not the one who chose to break into someone elses home. While already on probation. They made that choice. Not me. Don’t blame me for “ruining someone elses life”
CB from PC says
Thanks to all this Memorial Day who gave their lives for our freedoms.
This Ruling VIOLATES THE RIGHTS AND WILL of Floridians who voted for passage of Amendment 4, WHICH AS ON THE BALLOT, REQUIRED ALL FINES AND RESTITUTION BE PAID.
Read the text of Amendment 4 as on the ballot.
Nothing was changed.
Can’t do the time and pay the fine?
Don’t commit the crime.
Loco says
Changes are finally afoot in this compassionless, souless, heartless, greedy, crazy ass right wing monkey shit throwing state. Bring some integrity and a semblance of intelligence back to living in Florida.
CB from PC says
Maybe you can throw some green compassion in the form of money to the victims of these Felon’s crimes.
Squatty says
If you can’t do the time or pay the fine, don’t do the crime. Seems simple enough.
Jane Gentile-Youd says
Way overdue. MONEY and nothing else seems to matter to our legislature.No amount of money should ever be required but community service could be a condition applied to.everyone or no one but notoney!
Concerned Citizen says
@ Jane Gentil Youd
I hope you are never the victim of a property crime like I was. I didn’t ask for those people to smash my sliding glass door. Yet I had to immediatley be responsible for the repair.
So yes restitution should ALWAYS be required as part of sentencing. Otherwise you’re guving criminals a free pass to do whatever they want. And restitution and fines are part of sentencing that you agree to in court. So if you don’t pay it your sentencing is not complete.
YankeeExPat says
Plato
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
Think I can says
Hats off to to this man, Desmond Meade who has work hard to make this happen. hoping his next task would be, to get some of the big name companies to take off the rule of not hiring felon’s.
Fuggetaboutit says
Of course Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote! They have earned that right. They have clearly demonstrated good judgement and the ability to make smart choices! Actually, they should get to cast a vote for every conviction. So for instance, if you are convicted of one felony, you get one vote. Two felonies = two votes, three felonies = three votes, etc, etc.
erobot says
Disgraceful.
By “my people” they obviously mean convicted felons, not innocents with enhanced melanin.
A Concerned Observer says
So, let me understand. If I go to Publix with a shopping cart full of groceries, but I cannot pay for them because I am a convicted felon and unable to pay, I am free to leave without paying? If a convicted felon (or anyone else for that matter) fails to pay court ordered child support, their Florida driver’s license is suspended. If anyone, convicted felons or anyone else, is unable to pay this outstanding court ordered debt, do they get their driver’s license back? What other special privileges are convicted felons due over the public in general? Withholding privileges for nonpayment of debts is the only incentive for the debtor to pay legal financial obligations. How is this called an unconstitutional “poll tax?”
If this ruling is to be called anything, let it correctly identified as a political ploy to garner a voting block by one political group over the other. A debt owed is a debt to be paid, regardless of political leanings of civil-rights groups initiating this action. Rest assured readers; if the debt is not paid by convicted felons, it will be paid by law abiding citizens.
Mary Fusco says
Your last sentence says it all. What a country we live in where victims have NO rights. How dare any of these POS think they can violate a persons home, body, property without restitution. These people made the conscious choice to intrude on the lives of others. They deserve nothing. In other words, if they can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It’s amazing that the bulk of society has to live with cameras, lights, alarms, guns, guard dogs, etc. to hold onto what they have worked hard for and protect themselves. Not to mention the drug dealers killing kids. Of course, it is more lucrative to deal drugs than get a day job. Something is messed up in our society.
Derrick Redder says
By complying with the original sentencing order these Convicted Felon’s are not in compliance and thus are in Contempt of Court.
There is nothing else needed either comply by completion of the sentence or declare Bankruptcy. Then by all means have at it.
Not only will this case be heard in a higher court. But will now be a stick pin for that class that were not
included ie Murders and Sexual Predators
oldtimer says
It’s funny that a judge in Florida already ruled that a convicted sex offender did NOT have to register as such because he had not yet paid his fines and therefore had not completed his sentence. This happened in our great state about three months ago but after the initial report in the paper there was no follow-up, I wonder why?
Annie says
Great news! This is what we voted for! Good to see our brothers and sisters , our fathers and mothers getting thier rights back! If anyone should have a right to vote and have a voice it would be someone who has expierience in the system and its flaws!
Pogo says
@Thanks U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle (and FlaglerLive)
Great news.
I offer another excellent report on this wonderful news (some of this sounds very familiar :-):
“…Hinkle’s ruling did not completely strike down the law, but the judge asserted that requiring people with felony convictions to pay off costs and fees violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban on poll taxes.
He said these costs, which are separate from restitution paid to victims or fines ordered by a court, amounted to a form of tax since it was used to pay for administrative costs. Florida, he said, is also not allowed to bar former felons from registering simply because they can’t afford to pay any remaining fines and restitution.
“[T]axation without representation led a group of patriots to throw lots of tea into a harbor when there were barely united colonies, let alone a United States,” Hinkle wrote. “Before Amendment 4, no state disenfranchised as large a portion of the electorate as Florida.“…”
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/05/24/federal-judge-strikes-down-restrictions-on-florida-felon-voting-1286097
The wailing and gnashing of teeth – rending of cloaks – by the trumpholes is predictable. Hmmm, must be melting… Just keep burning trumpholes – it will get you used to your long term future.
JustBeNice says
It’s simple-If All sentence requirements have been fulfilled -finished jail sentence check, followed and completed probation check, have employment as per probation orders check, have a known address check, paid All monetary fees, fines, restitution etc., check. Then by all means a convicted felon has done All that the court required of them then let them vote. One way for a released felon to know how much to pay back is to give him or her a bill upon leaving prison. Felons can earn a little money while incarcerated, so garnish that and apply it to what is owed to the victim, court costs etc. Then once released garnish a portion of wages. And ONLY after it is paid in full could he or she be given back the right to vote. As far as I see, if the money is owed then the sentence has not been completed.
LawAbidingCitizen says
This is terrible! when you are sentenced to prison, you are stripped of basic human rights. The only thing that should be provided to an inmate is shelter and food. You were sentenced to prison for a reason. Nowadays it seems like you get more if you’re a convict then if you were a law abiding citizen. SMH
Think I can said says
They have served there time, in jail or prison. We all make mistakes, I have learn from mine. Should I pay for the rest of my life?.