11th Circuit: Florida Can't Bar Felons From Vote Over Unpaid Fines, Fees
The federal appeals court affirmed an injunction rejecting the enabling legislation passed to implement Amendment 4.
February 19, 2020 at 12:33 PM
3 minute read
Florida cannot bar felons who served their time from registering to vote simply because they have failed to pay all fines and fees stemming from their cases, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a Tallahassee federal judge's preliminary injunction that the implementation of Amendment 4 — approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 to allow most felons who served their time to regain the right to vote — amounted to an unfair poll tax that would disenfranchise many of them.
A spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will immediately ask the full court to reconsider the ruling. The Atlanta-based court
In addition, a full trial on the issue is set to begin in April.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision.
"This law is a modern-day poll tax. This ruling recognizes the gravity of elected officials trying to circumvent Amendment 4 to create roadblocks to voting based on wealth," said Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project.
The GOP-led Legislature and DeSantis last year approved an implementation law for the constitutional amendment stating that only felons who have completed all conditions of their sentences should be allowed to vote. He and GOP lawmakers say that to regain the right to vote, felons must not only serve their prison time but also pay all fines and other legal financial obligations.
That was challenged in federal court by voting rights groups representing 17 freed felons seeking to overturn the law and register to vote.
As many as 1.6 million Florida felons who completed their prison sentences could regain voting privileges under Amendment 4.
The 78-page unsigned opinion was issued by Senior Circuit Judges Lanier Anderson and Stanley Marcus and U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein, sitting by designation from the District of Columbia.
The court concluded the state system violates the equal protection clause. The financial requirement "punishes those who cannot pay more harshly than those who can — and does so by continuing to deny them access to the ballot box."
"Regardless of the political trend toward re-enfranchisement, there is nothing unconstitutional about unconstitutional about disenfranchising felons — even all felons, even for life," the panel wrote. But it found the enabling legislation prevented freed felons "from voting based solely on their genuine inability to pay legal financial obligations."
DeSantis' initial reaction to ask for a full-court review may be a function of math and partisan politics. The Eleventh Circuit flipped to a majority of judges nominated by Republican presidents in November. Marcus was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan to U.S. District Court in Miami and elevated to the circuit level by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Anderson and Rothstein were named to the bench by Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Read the opinion:
Related stories:
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 AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
- 2The Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
- 3November Court of Appeals Roundup
- 4Trellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
- 5How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
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