Appeals Court Sides With Florida on Ex-Felons' Voting Rights
A split Eleventh Circuit panel decision allows Florida to back away from immediate changes.
April 26, 2018 at 12:12 PM
4 minute read
With time running out, a federal appeals court sided with Florida in an escalating battle over the state's process for restoring voting rights to former prisoners.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee gave Florida until Thursday to create a new process after ruling in February that the state's current system is unconstitutional and arbitrary, with decisions possibly swayed by politics and racial factors.
But a split three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit blocked Walker's ruling from taking effect while it considers an appeal from Gov. Rick Scott and other Florida Republican officials.”We are glad that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the lower court's reckless ruling,” said John Tupps, a spokesman for Scott. “Judges should interpret the law, not create it. Gov. Scott will never stop fighting for victims of crime and their families.”
The decision by the appellate court came less than two hours before Scott and GOP officials were scheduled to hold an extraordinary late-night meeting of the state's clemency board Wednesday where they were poised to adopt new rules. The meeting was scrapped after the panel sided with Florida 2-1.
Judge Stanley Marcus wrote the opinion, with Judge William Pryor concurring. Judge Beverly Martin wrote a dissent.
Florida's clash over voting rights comes as Scott campaigns for the U.S. Senate seat of Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson in a state where as many as 1.5 million felons remain disenfranchised by the state's ban in the Florida Constitution.
Walker's ruling kept the ban intact, but he challenged the current system that requires a former prisoner to wait five to seven years before they can even ask to have their voting rights back. The governor and the three elected Cabinet members decide each request individually, subject to the governor's unilateral veto, and the waiting list has grown long.
It wasn't always this way. Shortly after taking office in 2007, then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist persuaded two of the state's three Cabinet members to approve rules allowing the parole commission to restore voting rights for nonviolent felons without hearings, and ultimately more than 100,000 felons were allowed to vote again.
Scott and state officials changed the process in 2011, and since then fewer than 3,000 have had their rights restored. The governor has defended the change, saying former prisoners should have to demonstrate they can remain out of trouble before their voting rights are returned.
Last year, however, a group of former prisoners whose applications were turned down sued the state.
In its split ruling, the federal appeals court concluded Florida has a good chance of prevailing in its appeal and questioned Walker's decision to order a new process. Marcus wrote there should not be a “rushed decision-making process created on an artificial deadline.”
“There is wisdom in preserving the status quo ante until a panel of this court, on an expedited basis, has had an opportunity on full briefing to come to grips with the many constitutional and equitable issues that have been raised,” Marcus wrote.
Walker first ruled in February the process was unconstitutional and then in late March ordered changes must be put in place by this week.
The clemency board — without holding a public meeting to discuss the ruling — appealed.
While the governor's office has said the decision to appeal was handled properly, Barbara Petersen of the First Amendment Foundation has questioned whether Scott and GOP officials sidestepped the state's open meetings law. She said it “doesn't pass the sniff test to my way of thinking.”
Scott and the Cabinet were sued for open meeting violations in 2015 and ultimately settled the case without admitting wrongdoing.
The legal battle over voting rights for former prisoners is occurring just months before Florida voters will be asked to alter the current ban. Backers of a constitutional amendment won a place on the November ballot. If 60 percent of voters approve, most former prisoners would have their rights automatically restored when they are released.
Gary Fineout reports for the Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Big Weakness of Legal AI
- 2Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 3Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 4Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 5READ THE DOC: NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250