US High Court Deals Setback to Florida Felon Voting Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court's order came just four days before Monday's deadline to register for the August primary, when voters will choose candidates for Congress, the state Legislature and local races.
July 16, 2020 at 04:16 PM
4 minute read
A divided U.S Supreme Court upheld an appellate court's decision to temporarily block hundreds of thousands of Florida felons from voting, making it unlikely that they will be allowed to cast a ballot in the state's primary next month — and possibly in November's crucial presidential election.
The high court's order came just four days before Monday's deadline to register for the August primary, when voters will choose candidates for Congress, the state Legislature and local races.
The ruling lets stand a stay issued by the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing a ruling by a Tallahassee federal district court judge that ordered the state to give felons access to the ballot box under a voter-approved initiative known as Amendment 4.
As is usually customary, the Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning for denying a request from voting rights advocates to lift the stay.
However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan joined in a written dissent, saying the high court's order "prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Florida's primary election simply because they are poor."
Writing for the dissenters, Sotomayor said the order "allows the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to disrupt Florida's election process just days before the July 20 voter-registration deadline for the August primary."
She noted that a preliminary injunction had been in place for nearly a year and that a federal district court judge had found Florida's "pay-to-vote scheme" unconstitutional after an eight-day trial in Tallahassee.
In his ruling in May, District Court Judge Robert Hinkle ordered the state to allow most Florida felons to vote, regardless of any outstanding legal debts. Amendment 4 permanently bars convicted murderers and rapists from voting, regardless of financial debts.
Hinkle's ruling said state elections officials couldn't possibly review the hundreds of thousands of voter registration applications that could arrive ahead of the state's August primary and the November presidential vote. During earlier court proceedings, he called it an "administrative nightmare."
DeSantis appealed Hinkle's ruling, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its entirety agreed to hear the governor's appeal and to stay the lower court ruling.
The court of appeals has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Aug. 18, the same day as Florida's primary. The deadline to register for that election is July 20, and the deadline to register for the Nov. 3 presidential election is Oct. 5.
Florida officials had argued that "all Floridians will be irreparably harmed if the district court's patently erroneous injunction is reinstated, enabling hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters to take part in the upcoming elections, one of which is only a month away."
The case could have broad implications in a state that is expected to play a pivotal role in the presidential race. An estimated 774,000 disenfranchised felons represent a significant bloc of voters, should they be allowed to cast ballots.
"This is only a stay while the state's appeal is ongoing. It's disappointing because many people won't be able to vote in the primary next month, but we're still hopeful that they will be able to do so in November," said Julie Ebenstein, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups representing felons seeking to regain their right to vote.
In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment 4, which returned voting rights to most Florida felons who had completed their sentences. But it quickly became unclear who could actually vote after DeSantis signed a Republican-backed bill last year stipulating that, in addition to serving their time, felons would have to pay all unpaid fines and restitution before being eligible to vote.
Voter rights advocates immediately sued the governor and the state.
Bobby Caina Calvan 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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond 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
Trending Stories
- 1Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 2Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 3European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 4UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 5For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
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