Item: Florida Limits Recently Restored Voting Rights to Ex-Felons, Drawing Lawsuit

On November 6, 2018 Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment automatically restoring the right to vote to 1.4 million individuals with felony convictions in their past. The amendment restores the right to vote for people with felony convictions, except individuals convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses, once they have completed the terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. The amendment went into effect on January 8, 2019.

Over the years, one issue that I have been paying attention to is denial of voting rights because of conviction of a crime. Given the system in place, this in practice has a racial cast as well as one that burdens on class as well.  This would seem to have constitutional concerns, but except when blatantly so intended, the Supreme Court has not seen to deem it so.  An exception to a never used penalty in the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment ("other crime") was cited.  The dissent to me was correct, more so as applied in various cases.  See, e.g., John Oliver's piece on the arbitrariness of the process to restore voting rights in Florida.

A question posed to some Democratic presidential candidates at town halls referenced people still in prison.  Maine, Vermont and Puerto Rico (as well as many countries, international practice of interest to Justice Alito, as seen in his census opinion)  do allow that.  And, that would be fine with me, especially if there was some exception (crimes like public corruption to me is more suitable here really than violent felonies).  But, it is more realistic and of immediate concern to address those who served their time.  And, a period of "probation and parole" again adds a sort of compromise there.  A person might think once you are out of prison or after a year's time might be more appropriate.  And, if the probation period is too long, especially.

Advancement in this area is likely to come as in many ways via compromises. The Fifteenth Amendment was itself a compromise, some wanting to include other things (such as literacy or property) that have a discriminatory character. A federal poll tax amendment was eventually ratified with state poll taxes deemed unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Backdoor poll taxes continued, including what is cited in the first link -- Florida Republicans (with the governor in his signing statement deeming the popular referendum as "wrong" for going too far) required full payment of fines and court costs. Again, John Oliver had a segment on the breadth of such things, including arising from traffic offenses.  Race and class issues blatantly involved.

Voter identification laws in practice often have been shown to have this character given the costs involved.  It is conceivable to think of (though their necessity for electoral security would remain dubious) a system of free id that would net be beneficial, including an extended rollout with generous exceptions and workarounds (on site photo ids come to mind).  But, in practice, these things tend to be inequitable. It is especially problematic when elections are often close. Florida went Republican in 2000 by a minuscule fraction and something like one percent in 2016. 

The governor's signing statement is interesting (among other things).  It notes the "curious" fact that the measure only applied to voting, not to other civil rights such as  jury service or running for office (I might add RKBA).  But, that is understandable -- again, it was a compromise measure aimed to receive the most support, and voting rights should be the basic floor here.  Jury service itself is a form of voting, but the ballot box is the core.  And, even with the exceptions (overbroad ones as seen by looking at some sexual offender measures alone) left open various violent crimes. Yes. They too, after they serve their time, re-enter society as full citizens.  So said a supermajority by their vote.

The statement also notes that voting rights are restored without regard to the wishes of the victims.  That's an outrageous statement on a basic level. First off, how does one judge who "the victims" are in these cases?  The people who directly were harmed?  What of the spouses and children etc.?  And, what if the crime affects a broad range of people such as let's say poisoning a river, resulting in possibly thousands getting sick?  Do such people ever get some direct say (as compared to be representing by some parole board or such in charge of making the call) in restoration of civil liberties in these case?  No. It doesn't work that way.  The government prosecutes and the government determines the breadth of the penalty.

The statement also says that he will think about restoring other civil rights to offenders here. Which is fine (ha) -- the problem at issue is broad and the amendment (like multiple amendments to the federal Constitution) addressed a particularly blatant issue, leaving open other actions with more nuanced action.  As with state poll taxes, perhaps the Florida Constitution itself can be used to address other matters. For instance, the RKBA might wrongly be denied if a person serves their time for a bar fight or whatever and ten years later, though they have shown themselves as a good citizen, they are still denied the right to possess a firearm.  Not knowing the rules here, I cite this as a possibility. 

The interests here are not merely of a partisan nature. Florida is known generally to be a state full of (ahem) eccentrics who break the law, sometimes in serious ways.  But, once they serve their time, all should recognize the justice of allowing them to vote. And, the measure was supported by over sixty percent of the vote.  The current Republican controlled government might think this too generous.  They would be wrong.