Senate Panel Takes Up Meaning of 'Murder' in Felons' Voting Rights
Senate Criminal Justice Chairman Keith Perry vowed not to have “any kind of hindrance or roadblocks” in implementing Amendment 4, approved by nearly 65 percent of voters in November.
January 24, 2019 at 01:14 PM
6 minute read
A key Senate panel began grappling with how to carry out a constitutional amendment that “automatically” restores the right to vote to felons who've completed their sentences.
At the outset of the meeting, Senate Criminal Justice Chairman Keith Perry vowed not to have “any kind of hindrance or roadblocks” in implementing Amendment 4, approved by nearly 65 percent of voters in November.
At the top of the to-do list for the committee: figure out the definition of “murder.”
The amendment granted “automatic” restoration of voting rights to felons “who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation.” The amendment excluded people “convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense.”
But a 90-minute Criminal Justice Committee panel discussion Tuesday revealed confusion about the “murder” exception.
“It's an important point that we have to wrestle with here,” said Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican who is on the committee and chairs the Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Subcommittee.
County elections officials, who use a variety of databases to verify voters' eligibility, are relying on the state to flag people who are ineligible to vote after they've registered.
But state Division of Elections Director Maria Matthews said her office needs the Legislature to clarify what types of convictions the murder exclusion captures, noting that the homicide statute includes a broad swath of crimes.
“It is a question about, do you include partial birth abortion is in there, attempted murder is in there,” Matthews said. “We have gotten questions from supervisors as to what these terms mean.”
Matthews said state officials “wish to apply the law uniformly and consistently” regarding the murder and felony sexual offense exclusions.
“I don't believe we are comfortable defining that universe. I think that is something that we sincerely seek guidance from whoever is more authorized or more experienced, as well as you all, to give us that necessary guidance,” she said.
Proponents of Amendment 4, as the measure appeared on the November ballot, maintain that voters intended for the exclusion to apply only to felons convicted of first-degree murder.
“Murder means murder,” Neil Voltz, political director of the Florida Restoration of Rights Coalition, told the committee. The coalition played a major role in the amendment's passage. “We believe the text of the language matters.”
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Brandes, who will carry the implementation legislation, indicated lawmakers aren't likely to go that far.
“I think the Legislature, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, believe that that is not what the voters intended,” said Brandes, calling the murder definition “the only major point of contention” between proponents of the amendment and lawmakers. “I have to believe that, if we have this broad swath of people who are [excluded because of] felony sexual offenses, that there should probably be an equally broad swath of individuals under the definition of murder.”
But Desmond Meade, the president of the coalition, said focus groups and polls conducted for years before the proposal went on the ballot found voters “have a problem with a person that was convicted of first-degree murder, people that commit rape, people that commit sexual offenses against children.”
“That was what the voters throughout the state of Florida have consistently said, and they're the ones that guided the drafting of the language,” Meade said after the meeting. “So it's not our opinion. It's what the voters said they wanted.”
Exactly what the amendment means about felons' completion of their terms of sentence is also up for debate.
“We thought of that as a definition that would be determined by the policymakers,” Martin County Clerk of Court Carolyn Timmans said.
Some proponents believe the amendment does not require full payment of restitution, because it is not specifically mentioned in the amendment. Others maintain restitution should be considered a component of a sentence if it is included in a judge's sentencing order.
But finding out whether felons have paid restitution can be difficult, particularly with new privacy protections for victims included in another amendment, known as “Marsy's Law,” that also passed in November, according to Timmans.
The clerks do not have information about whether people have paid restitution in full, Timmans said.
“That's a gap, as individuals are trying to search for that full record,” she said.
But Reggie Garcia, a clemency lawyer who has written books on the subject, said finding out about whether a felon's restitution has been paid may not be so problematic.
“Restitution is almost always a condition of probation and explicitly listed on the judgment and sentence. If there is prison and no probation and restitution is a component of that and it is unpaid, I would argue you've not completed your sentence because that's a term of your sentence,” Garcia told The News Service of Florida.
Okaloosa County Supervisor of Elections Paul Lux, who is president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections, said lawmakers could consider creating a clearinghouse that could help elections officials and people seeking to find out if they've completed all the terms of their sentences and are therefore eligible to vote.
It is estimated that up to 800,000 Floridians could be eligible to have their voting rights restored under the amendment, and another 50,000 convicted felons are released from prison each year.
Florida Commission on Offender Review Chairwoman Melinda Coonrod said her agency, which already conducts similar screenings for clemency cases, could provide such a service.
She said it would take about 48 minutes to process each application.
The commission would have to hire more staff to process the voter registrations, she said.
As of October, the commission had a backlog of more than 10,000 cases. An arduous restoration-of-rights process, as well as the backlog and the yearslong wait for a review by the commission, prompted the amendment.
Perry said his committee will consider establishing a clearinghouse and that whoever assumes that role needs to have the money to handle the reviews.
“We don't want to make that backlog even longer,” Perry, R-Gainesville, told reporters after the meeting. “We're in this position because of the delay that's done through the processes now. So we don't want to make that worse.”
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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