Amendment 4 forcing felony defendants to buy back voting rights
In a civil rights victory, Florida overwhelmingly voted this November to restore voting rights to more than 1 million people with a felony record once they complete their sentence.
But with every felony sentence carrying heavy legal financial obligations, the constitutional amendment is at risk of becoming a sweeping poll tax.
In a debt trap, each beneficiary of the ballot initiative may be forced to buy back their vote, and with the vast majority of felony defendants indigent, many won’t be able to. Average annual income of a formerly incarcerated person in the U.S. is $9,000 and a Florida state probationer, $1,800.
A poll tax was not the intent of voters, and it could devastate voter restoration. When our organization looked at court records in South Florida for 100 people who received a disenfranchising sentence in 1998 — 20 years ago — at least 92 still owed an average of roughly $500.
Statewide, as a performance measure, court clerks anticipate collecting only 9 percent of felony debt. For those living paycheck to paycheck, these debts are prohibitively high.
It’s troubling. Disenfranchisement by debt puts a wealthy person convicted of a heinous crime in a better position to cast a ballot than a poor person convicted of a minor one. It also will likely disproportionately harm black people and LGBTQ individuals, who are three times more likely than heterosexuals to be incarcerated.
In the lead up to November, this was overlooked.
When counsel for sponsors of the amendment told Florida’s supreme court that voter restoration was predicated on payment of court debt, a judge said, “I’m thinking maybe this would actually help the state... For those that want to vote, there’s a big motivation to pay unpaid costs, fines and restitution.”
But votes shouldn’t be held hostage to payment.
The state already and counterproductively suspends driver’s licenses for nonpayment of court debt — nearly 2 million drivers in Florida can’t drive because of suspensions; to work, the doctor or anywhere else.
By common sense and constitutional law, voter qualification has nothing to do with the amount of money in someone’s pocket. The U.S. Supreme Court held as much in 1966, writing: “Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.”
Statewide, nearly twothirds of voters supported Amendment 4 and in the counties where 99.5% of state voters live, it won the majority of votes. It was a resounding vote for redemption, not a poll tax.
State government and the judiciary need to honor this. The legislative and executive branches should use their powers to mitigate the potential damage of ubiquitous, hidden court debt, which they regrettably made law in the first place. Court costs, which are levied on top of fees, fines and restitution, are at least $293 and imposed in every felony and misdemeanor case, regardless of ability to pay. They fund government programs unrelated to the crime, which could be panhandling, sleeping on the street — or armed robbery.
Conditioning the vote on their payment, particularly of general levies like court costs, is a dubious practice similar to those in Jim Crow America. It’s a foul thing and exacerbates the inequity of a system that already gives the rich and guilty the advantage over the poor and innocent. It may also be unconstitutional.
Disenfranchisement by debt puts a wealthy person convicted of a heinous crime in a better position to cast a ballot than a poor person convicted of a minor one.