The Supreme Court Just Stopped 1 Million Floridians From Voting in November

Politics
1

“The Supreme Court all but guaranteed that nearly 1 million Floridians will be unable to vote in the 2020 election because of unpaid court debts in a shattering order handed down on Thursday. Its decision will throw Florida’s voter registration into chaos, placing a huge number of would-be voters in legal limbo and even opening them up to prosecution for casting a ballot. The justices have effectively permitted Florida Republicans to impose a poll tax in November.”

I suppose this is legal, mostly because SCOTUS has ruled as such.

But it sure seems both unfair and rather poorly timed.

1 Like
2

Apologies if posted already. Didn’t see the topic anywhere.

3

That us just a flat out stupid interpretation. We approved them to vote when they had satisfied their sentence. The fines are part of their sentence. Boo ■■■■■■■ hoo

1 Like
4

Were they imposed with an eye to limiting franchise?

5

the gop will do anything to prevent minorities form voting. its the only way they will even have a prayer of winning.

2 Likes
6

What the ■■■■ does that even mean? If it means were the fines imposed to limit voting the answer is “not a ■■■■■■■ chance”. The fines were imposed in place way before the motion felons should be able to vote movement was started.

7

I understand why the left would be upset at the ruling. Why are those of us on the right not so unhappy about it?

8

The people voted to restore voting rights to ex-felons in 2018. Republicans passed a law that added this extra condition in 2019.

It was absolutely meant to limit franchise.

1 Like
9

Do they get to vote again when they have completed their punishment?

10

It may be time for a Pay-The-Fines PAC. Doesn’t seem to matter who pays them as long as they are paid.

6 Likes
11

Going to suck for all the people who legally signed up to vote who are now ineligible because of this ruling. I hope none of them accidentally illegally vote because they are uninformed of this change.

1 Like
12

So this was, as was argued in the original article, a deliberate, post ho effort to establish a poll tax?

13

Is it part of their ‘punishment’ if the condition was added after their franchise was restored?

14

Article VI, Section 4. Disqualifications.—
(a) No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or
any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to
vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of
disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section,
any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction
shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon
completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.
(b) No person convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense
shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil rights.

The bolded material was added by the voters to the existing text of the Florida Constitution. Note the text approved by the voters says ALL TERMS OF SENTENCE, which would include all fines, costs and restitution. The Florida Legislature did not deviate in any manner from the Amendment.

Also, this “poll tax” diarrhea is just that. A poll tax is a head tax or other tax levied WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT to disenfranchise poor people.

Criminal fines, costs and restitution are levied in the name of justice.

You don’t have to like or approve of what the Florida Legislature did. But it clearly comports with the text of the Florida Constitution.

1 Like
15

All while overriding the will of the people. A super-majority in every sense.

image

1 Like
16

They are of course an informed part of the electorate. They will know about the ruling.

18

But if the fines condition/restriction was added after the initiative approved franchise restoration, how is this not a pay-to-vote scheme?

1 Like
19

Because it might have turned Florida blue. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

20

There were smokers aged 19 when they were told they legally had to quit again.

21

Could you show how a privelege (right or wrong, as such) compares to what the courts have understood to be a right?