Critics Blast House Felons' Voting Rights Restoration Proposal
In a strict party-line vote following heated testimony, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee signed off on the measure aimed at clarifying parts of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.
March 20, 2019 at 01:26 PM
6 minute read
Felons would have to clear up any financial obligations, including court costs, fees and fines, before having their voting rights restored, under a House proposal castigated by critics as a modern take on Jim Crow-era poll taxes designed to keep black voters from participating in elections.
In a strict party-line vote following heated testimony, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee signed off on the measure aimed at clarifying parts of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.
The amendment, which appeared on the ballot as Amendment 4, 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.”
While some proponents maintain the measure does not require any legislative action, state and local elections officials, clerks of courts, prosecutors and others have asked the Legislature for guidance in interpreting what specific crimes qualify as exceptions and what is required for felons to have completed their sentences.
Under the House plan, felons convicted of first- or second-degree murder or about three dozen sex-related crimes, including cyberstalking, would be excluded from the automatic restoration of rights.
But an even-more controversial part of the House bill (PCB CRJ 19-03) dealing with felons' financial obligations drew rebukes from civil rights advocates, Democrats and others who claim the plan disenfranchises voters.
“It's a nonstarter for me,” Rep. Michael Grieco, a Miami Beach Democrat who is a lawyer, said, adding he believes “there are efforts being made to purposely misinterpret” the Constitution.
“An overwhelming” number of states deal with restoration of voting rights “with no problem, but we seem to be fumbling around with a basic issue,” Grieco said.
Under the House plan approved by a 10-6 vote, felons would have to pay off all restitution, court fines and fees, including those that have been continued through civil judgments, such as liens. “Returning citizens,” the term used by backers of the constitutional amendment, would also have to pay “any cost of supervision.”
And before inmates are released, the proposal would require the Department of Corrections or county jail staff members to provide “an accounting of all outstanding financial obligations imposed by a court, the department, or the Florida Commission on Offender Review” for each felony conviction.
House Criminal Justice Chairman James Grant, R-Tampa, defended the legislation, saying it follows the language in the amendment.
“When a petition process leads to a constitutional amendment, we as legislators do not have the luxury, the latitude or the freedom to play the 'what if' game, to play the 'edit the language' game,” Grant, a lawyer, said.
But Neil Volz, political director of a committee that backed the amendment, said the Florida Commission on \Offender Review currently does not take into consideration court costs, fees or fines when considering applications for clemency.
“It does not include costs outside of what the sentence was given by the judge,” Volz told the panel.
The House proposal would “move the line” of what completion of sentence means and “will restrict the ability to vote for thousands of Floridians, especially people who are poor, especially people of color,” he argued.
Kara Gross, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, argued that the bill is “contrary to the voters' will” expressed in the amendment because it “maintains lifetime disenfranchisement for non-violent, relatively low-level offenses.”
But, saying the amendment's own lawyer told the Florida Supreme Court that court costs and fees could be considered as part of sentences, an angry Grant riffed on one opponent's use of the words “near arrogance” to describe the House's stance on financial obligations.
“Near arrogance is ignoring testimony in front of the Supreme Court and pretending it doesn't matter,” he said.
“Near arrogance is suggesting this is a poll tax,” which “inherently diminishes … what a poll tax actually was,” Grant added.
“To compare that to this is a slap in the face to every single person who was a free citizen told it would cost a dollar or more to vote. All we're doing is following statute. All we're doing is following the testimony that (was) presented before the Florida Supreme Court explicitly acknowledging that fines and court costs are part of a sentence,” he said.
Dave Ramba, a lobbyist who represents the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections, praised the Legislature for providing clear direction to county officials, who work at the level “where the rubber hits the road.”
The definitions in the measure “are extremely helpful,” Ramba said.
“The bill specifies what offenses are included, and that was really our main goal,” he added. “Having something in law will allow us to be able to register the right folks.”
Supporters of Amendment 4, including the ACLU, pushed the constitutional amendment as an alternative to the state's lengthy restoration of rights process, which spurred years of political and legal disputes.
Shortly after he took office in 2011, former Gov. Rick Scott and the Cabinet put in place a process that made it harder for felons to get rights, including the right to vote, restored. Under the process, the state required felons to wait five or seven years to apply for rights restoration — and years after that to complete the process.
Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Naples, acknowledged that “there's a lack of trust” in how the Legislature is going to implement the amendment.
“Let's be clear. … The clemency process as it existed in the state of Florida has been a joke,” said Donalds, who is black.
But, he added, the state needs to interpret the amendment in a uniform way.
“We want to make sure that the next election … that our state operates on the same wavelength in all 67 counties. That is what we should be striving for. None of us want to be on CNN talking about, 'Oh man look, at what they did in Florida. Again,' ” Donalds said.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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