(L to R) Joseph Jaquot, arguing for Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Anton Marino, arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union. Courtesy photos.

When Florida voters in November 2018 approved a constitutional amendment that would restore voting rights to certain convicted felons "upon completion of all terms and sentence including parole or probation," they likely didn't anticipate the ensuing bewilderment over how to implement it.

But with the 2020 election in sight, attorneys navigated the legislative minefield of Amendment 4 in the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing for and against an interpretation that would mean convicted felons would have to pay all legal financial obligations before they could vote again.

The oral arguments followed a request from Gov. Ron DeSantis that the state high court issue an advisory opinion for clarification.

The case has been magnetic, attracting national attention and multiple briefs from interested parties. The outcome will affect thousands of people, as the law applies to all Floridians convicted of crimes, other than murder or sexual offenses.

What does 'all terms' mean?

DeSantis' attorney Joe Jacquot argued the court should find that "completion of all terms" doesn't just mean a prison sentence or probation term, but also includes financial obligations such as fines, fees and restitution ordered by a judge.

That, he claimed, was evident in the plain language of the amendment.

"Whatever the judge hands down, those debts to society have to be repaid before one regains his voting rights," Jacquot said.

But maybe it wasn't that straightforward, the justices posited, pointing out that sentencing orders change from defendant to defendant and circuit to circuit, while some conditions of probation aren't implemented until probation happens.

Justice Robert Luck asked whether costs and fees are really the same thing as a sentence, and questioned why DeSantis needed this opinion, asking, "Why not rely on the governor's clemency powers, which the governor clearly has an interest in?"

What did voters want?

Anton Marino for the American Civil Liberties Union argued DeSantis' request was improper, because it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. But if the court does decide to take up Amendment 4, Marino urged it to find that "completion of all terms" doesn't stretch to financial obligations.

"Because doing so would leave every person [who's] unable to pay serving a life sentence," Marino said. "It cannot be that more than four out of five returning citizens is serving a life sentence."

That, Marino claimed, would contradict the chief purpose of the amendment that voters approved—the aim being to "end a lifetime of disenfranchisement."

But two letters the ACLU sent to the Florida secretary of state in December 2018 appeared to contradict the group's stance, as it acknowledged that "completion of all terms of sentence" included financial obligations imposed as part of an individual sentence.

Justice Barbara Lagoa also honed in on the ACLU's voter guide, and referenced opinion pieces circulating in Florida newspapers before the election that said Amendment 4 would return voting eligibility to Floridians who've completed terms of sentence, including probation, paroles, fines or restitution.

"This is what was told to the voters of Florida," Lagoa said.

Marino said the ACLU's  problem with that interpretation comes when a defendant is unable to pay the amount.

Molly Danahy appeared on behalf of other interested parties arguing against an advisory opinion. She argued that voters saw many different interpretations of what the amendment would mean, but that the actual information available in the ballot box—the amendment's title and summary—is what should count.

Mohammad Jazil, on behalf of the secretary of state, had a different take, claiming voter polls showed people understood the terms to mean everything that's included in a defendant's sentencing document.

"If we now find an ambiguity after the fact, after it's been included into the Constitution, then it creates a bit of a conundrum for us," Jazil said.

Jeremiah Hawkes for the Florida Senate denied any ambiguity in the amendment, and asked for "a great deal of weight and deference by the court because the Legislature is the representative body of the people."

Representing the Florida House of Representatives, Jonathan Williams argued the text is of course ambiguous if it's viewed without context.

"When read in context, particularly in context of Florida's law on sentencing that existed at the time that this amendment was adopted, that ambiguity disappears," Williams said.

The court is yet to rule.

Read more: 

Federal Judge Points to 'Administrative Nightmare' in Voting Law

Florida Lawyers Spar Over Fate of Judge Watson's Attorney, Who Faces Disbarment