14 ms·
Restoring felon voting rights a 'mess' in battleground Florida
- jimbob45 7y agoOn the bright side, there is no governorship or senate seat up for grabs, so the stakes are considerably lower.
- r00fus 7y agoYup, 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.
- ch4s3 7y agoWow, 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.
- jandrese 7y agoIt's pretty clearly the state government attempting to undermine the voter mandate via red tape.
- throwaway5752 7y agoIf 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_Commission_on_Election_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commissi... (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 7y agoThis isn't something to blame on one party. Maryland is not a Republican majority state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional... Illinois is also not a Republican majority state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...
- throwaway5752 7y agoI'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/777/634/2259862/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/7... From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional... "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"
- s1artibartfast 7y agoDatabase 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.
- ch4s3 7y agoIt seems like the legislature and Governor tried to skirt the intention of the electorate and in practice prevent people with convictions from voting.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoI'm not sure how the law is actually skirting the constitutional amendment. It seems to actively conflicting with it. I updated my post to be more clear.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoIt's using a technicality (fees which are not tracked are "part of the parole") that is BS on its face, but taking it to court would take so long and be so not worth it, that the desired effect would occur anyways- which is continuing to deny felons who finish their sentences voting rights.
- crooked-v 7y agoA factor here most people aren't aware of is that it's common for probation and parole to include 'supervision fees' charged to the probationer or parolee. These can supposedly be waived in the case of someone not being able to afford them, but it's not unusual for judges to decide that any living situation short of literally living on the street (and sometimes even then) means the fees are 'affordable'.
- JoshuaMulliken 7y agoI 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 7y agoNot 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.)
- gowld 7y agoJust another poll tax. wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States
- tehjoker 7y agoIf 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 7y agoAt 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 7y agoA 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.
- rtkwe 7y agoThis 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.
- js2 7y agoFWIW, Buttigieg has been saying the same thing since the beginning of his campaign. https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105 https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105
- dublinben 7y agoSo did Lawrence Lessig in his ill-fated campaign in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_president...
- bilbo0s 7y agoI don't know about the rest of it, but gerrymandering definitely needs to go. Getting rid of gerrymandering is nothing but a "win" for every American voter regardless of political affiliation.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI don't know how it will ever go away with the Supreme Court ruling the way it did.
- Frondo 7y agoAt the state level, like North Carolina is doing now. A federal ruling would've been nice, but if it must happen in statehouses, then that is where voting rights activists must concentrate their efforts.
- 7y ago
- geggam 7y agoI 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 ?
- the_narrator 7y agoWhy is that surprising? If you kill somebody, you will obviously have some of your rights taken away.
- geggam 7y agoDepends on why you kill them. Q: If the govt tells you to kill someone is it wrong ? A : it depends :)
- ceejayoz 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez
- rpmcmurdo 7y agoBecause the government can. Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany how "rights" worked for them. Prior to Hitler coming to power, Germany was the most advanced and liberalized society of its time.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoMaybe the actual rights have clauses on them that go, "provided that you haven't stolen, defrauded, or assaulted anyone," and you're just reading the abridged version.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt's actually that the Constitution doesn't really define who can vote. It forbids certain sorts of discrimination - gender, race, age (past a point), but leaves the rest up to the states. California could, as far as I can tell, forbid voting by blondes, or by people who need glasses, or ban anyone who's had ice cream in the last month from the polls.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoI 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 7y agoThe 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.
- duxup 7y ago>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 7y agoWhy 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.
- duxup 7y agoOh I think that is the intent for sure.
- TremendousJudge 7y agoyou literally just answered yourself?
- japhyr 7y agoYes, exactly, it's a modern day poll tax and many people in power want such a thing.
- abawany 7y agoRegrettably, it is not just people in power - the HP newsgroups had plenty of individual contributors that favored things like poll taxes, voting for property owners only, etc.
- quickthrower2 7y agoThis 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
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y agoThis 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 7y agoYea - 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 7y ago> 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.
- Someone1234 7y agoOr Utah with its Medicaid expansion/medical marijuana ballot measures. The state government simply ignored the results and did whatever they wanted.
- chooseaname 7y agoIt 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.
- erobbins 7y ago"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.
- yardie 7y agoFor 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.