Panel of Federal Judges Asks Tough Questions About Florida Measure on Felon Voting Rights

January 29, 2020by Lawrence Mower, Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times Tallahassee Bureau (TNS)
Moments after Desmond Meade registered to vote under Amendment 4, his family and friends gathered for celebration at the Orange County Florida Supervisor of Elections office on Jan. 8, 2018. (Sara Espedido/Orlando Sentinel/TNS)

ATLANTA — Three federal judges hearing a legal challenge to a Florida measure allowing felons to vote asked tough questions of the attorney for Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday, repeatedly asking about the fairness of a subsequent bill that levied what critics called a “poll tax.”

The questioning by the judges for the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Atlanta went to the heart of the battle over Amendment 4, which voters passed in 2018. The justices appeared critical of the requirement passed by the Legislature last year that felons pay back all court fees, fines and restitution to victims before being allowed to vote.

The tacked-on legislative requirement will likely prevent hundreds of thousands of felons from voting because they can’t afford to immediately pay back what is often $500 or more in fees.

The judges sharply questioned DeSantis’ attorney, Pete Patterson, about how the law essentially creates two classes of felons: those who can afford to pay and those who can’t.

“Isn’t it punitive to say, ‘I will re-enfranchise this group, but not re-enfranchise this group’?” Judge Stanley Marcus asked. Marcus was U.S. attorney in Miami from 1982-85 and a federal judge in Florida until 1997 when he was named to the Court of Appeals.

Patterson responded that when 64.5% of Florida voters approved Amendment 4, the measure restored the right to vote to nearly all felons who completed “all terms of sentence,” which he said included the financial obligations.

Judge Lanier Anderson noted that under Patterson’s and the bill’s interpretation of Amendment 4, two felons could receive the exact same punishment for the exact same crime, yet one might vote before the other if he or she has more money.

“It’s precisely the same situation, except for punishment on the basis of poverty,” Anderson said.

“In one case, justice has been done,” Patterson responded. “In the other case, it has not.”

The court was hearing an appeal from DeSantis, a Republican who opposed Amendment 4, and Secretary of State Laurel Lee, who hoped to stop a U.S. district judge’s preliminary injunction in October.

That judge, Robert Hinkle, ruled that state officials must allow 17 felons who sued the state to register to vote. Patterson told the appellate judges that allowing the 17 to vote when they had not fulfilled “all terms of sentence” would cause an “irreparable harm” to the state and to other voters.

The judges are expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether to overturn Hinkle’s injunction.

Julie Ebenstein, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said she did not want to predict how the appellate judges would rule. But she noted the sharp line of questioning.

“The judges seemed very concerned about the irrationality of preventing someone from voting on the basis of their lack of wealth, when they were unable to pay,” Ebenstein said.

Amendment 4 overturned Florida’s 150-year-old law that banned felons from voting. The amendment restored the right to vote to nearly all felons who completed “all terms of sentence, including parole or probation.”

The historic amendment was celebrated as the nation’s greatest expansion of voting rights in decades, with up to 1.4 million felons believed to be enfranchised. Florida was one of just a handful of states that had not repealed its Jim Crow-era laws meant to keep black Americans from voting.

But almost as quickly, Amendment 4 became mired in confusion and debate, partly of its creators’ own doing.

At DeSantis’ urging, GOP lawmakers passed a law months later that applied some of the strictest terms possible to the amendment.

The resulting law, Senate Bill 7066, returned the right to vote only for those felons who were able to first pay all court fees, fines and restitution to victims. Other states allow felons to vote as they’re paying those fees over time.

For at least hundreds of thousands of felons, the new restrictions meant they would not be able to vote for years, if ever. Court fees often reach $1,000 or more, a considerable sum for felons who already have trouble finding work.

Court fines can be tens of thousands of dollars. And one felon told lawmakers that she owed $59 million in restitution to insurance companies, almost certainly guaranteeing she’ll never be able to vote.

Republican lawmakers were denounced nationally for creating a “poll tax,” but they justified the harsh terms in the bill by citing the words of the amendment’s own creators.

University of Florida attorney Jon Mills, who co-wrote the amendment, told the Supreme Court that “all terms” included financial obligations. The amendment did not define “all terms.”

Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court agreed that “all terms” included the financial obligations.

Civil rights groups sued as soon as Senate Bill 7066 became law, arguing that it was unconstitutional. In October, Hinkle wrote that he also agreed that “all terms” included the financial obligations.

However, citing an 11th U.S. Circuit Court opinion signed by eight judges, he wrote that Florida can’t stop people from voting just because they’re too poor. Hinkle concluded the felons were unable to pay. One of them owed $50,000 in fines, for example.

“Florida … cannot deny restoration of a felon’s right to vote solely because the felon does not have the financial resources to pay the other financial obligations,” Hinkle wrote.

Hinkle has not ruled on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 7066 itself. It’s set to go to trial in his courtroom in Tallahassee in April.

Patterson argued Tuesday that one of the reasons for the bill was to incentivize felons to repay their debts. But judges noted that many felons simply cannot afford to pay and likely never will.

“You don’t get blood out of a stone,” Anderson said.

The judges also had several questions for attorneys on both sides about how many felons cannot afford to pay back their debts. The state has no definite figures, but a preliminary study by University of Florida professor Dan Smith estimated that 80% of felons had not paid off their court obligations.

In October, Hinkle said lawmakers created an “administrative nightmare” with their bill, and he urged them to fix it this legislative session, which ends weeks before the trial.

Felons have no easy way to see if they still owe financial obligations handed down when they were sentenced. No local or state entity tracks restitution.

GOP lawmakers did include one way for felons to seek relief under Senate Bill 7066: They could ask a judge to convert their financial obligations to community service hours, which are typically converted at $10 per hour in Florida state courts. Such relief is not available to anyone convicted of a federal crime.

But Hinkle scoffed at the idea during a court hearing last year.

“If you had a $25,000 fine in a drug case, nobody’s going to work that off through community service hours,” he told lawyers for the state.

Hinkle said lawmakers could change their bill to make it more generous to felons, and the lawmakers who sponsored SB 7066 said they will make “tweaks” this session.


©2020 Tampa Bay Times (St. Petersburg, Fla.)

Visit the Tampa Bay Times (St. Petersburg, Fla.) at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

State News

Rhode Island Secretary of State Sees Opportunity in Primary Delay to June 2
State News
Rhode Island Secretary of State Sees Opportunity in Primary Delay to June 2
March 27, 2020
by Dan McCue

Less than a week after Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo approved a board of elections request to move the state's presidential primary from April 28 to June 2, a plan to have a mostly mail-in election in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak is already taking... Read More

Other States Want to ‘Trade’ for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Here’s What They’re Offering
State News
Other States Want to ‘Trade’ for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Here’s What They’re Offering

LEXINGTON, Ky. — We knew the internet was thirsty for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Now it’s sending its best trade proposals to nab him. Like NBA teams that feel like they’re one superstar trade away from being a contender, envious citizens from around the country have... Read More

Maryland Elections Board to Recommend No In-Person Voting for June Primary
Maryland Elections Board to Recommend No In-Person Voting for June Primary

BALTIMORE — The State Board of Elections is recommending that there be no in-person voting for the June 2 primary due to the new coronavirus pandemic, pushing citizens to mail-in or drop-off ballots that would be sent to every one of Maryland’s more than 4 million... Read More

Trump’s Refusal to Use Wartime Powers to Direct Scarce Medical Supplies Has Left States Fighting It Out
Trump’s Refusal to Use Wartime Powers to Direct Scarce Medical Supplies Has Left States Fighting It Out

WASHINGTON — When President Donald Trump invoked emergency war powers last week to fight the coronavirus outbreak, many were hopeful that the federal government would take charge in addressing the nation’s dire shortage of ventilators, protective masks and other critical gear for patients and medical staff.... Read More

Delayed Primaries Involve More Than Just Choosing A New Date on the Calendar
Political News
Delayed Primaries Involve More Than Just Choosing A New Date on the Calendar
March 25, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - As of this week, eight states - Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio and Rhode Island - and one territory - Puerto Rico - have postponed their presidential primary elections due to the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, three states - Alabama, Mississippi and North... Read More

Trump Wants Country ‘Opened Up,’ Prompting Blowback from Governors
Trump Wants Country ‘Opened Up,’ Prompting Blowback from Governors

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and some of the nation’s most prominent governors plunged into heated debate Tuesday over how much death they’re willing to risk in order to get the economy running again during the coronavirus pandemic. Public health experts warn that they don’t yet... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top