Stop playing political games with real people. Fix Amendment 4, Florida.
TALLAHASSEE — On the first anniversary of Florida’s passage of Amendment 4, the lawyers were back in court, arguing over what it meant and how to implement it.
Here we are, a year after 5.1 million voters made history by restoring the right to vote to most felons who’ve served their time. Yet the fight drags on over what voters intended and what Tallahassee politicians — largely Republicans who did not support the long-overdue reform — think voters meant.
The people have spoken. Republicans should quit trying to undo the results. Yet with the 2020 election fast approaching, they’ve sentenced about 1.4 million exconvicts to voting limbo. The uncertainty must end.
The latest chapter in this legal standoff played out Wednesday before the Florida Supreme Court, where justices poked and prodded attorneys for Gov. Ron DeSantis, both houses of the state Legislature, the American Civil Liberties Union and Campaign Legal Center, a voting rights group.
All were there because DeSantis had asked the seven justices, three of whom he appointed, for informal guidance on whether Amendment 4 — which makes voting contingent on “completion of all
terms of sentence” — includes payment of all costs, including court fees, fines and victim restitution.
As the governor well knows, a good number of people who get out of prison have a tough enough time paying the rent, let alone paying all overdue court costs
that, with interest, can run into the thousands of dollars.
Still, last spring he signed Senate Bill 7066 into law, requiring ex-convicts to pay all court costs before they can vote. However, a federal judge in Tallahassee recently granted an injunction that temporarily halts the law’s enforcement pending a trial in April.
Back in state court, it appeared from the pointed questions by the justices, especially Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa, that they have decided payment is required before
felons can vote.
Lagoa read from pro-Amendment 4 voter guides and opinion columns that said payment was required. She chose not to read from those that said otherwise. An ACLU lawyer dismissed the literature as irrelevant and said if payment of all fees is a condition of voting, disenfranchisement is a life sentence.
A federal appeals court has said that making voting subject to someone’s ability to pay is a “poll tax,” which is unconstitutional.
One analysis found that four out of five felons have unpaid legal obligations and they are disproportionately poor and black. If they could vote, it’s believed they are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.
In other words, the fight over payment of fees and fines isn’t academic. It is political, with very high stakes in a state where elections are often decided by less than one percentage point.
The rest of Florida should consider what’s happening in Palm Beach County, where the state prosecutor will help exfelons separate financial obligations from their sentences so they can register to vote.
Now DeSantis is seeking an advisory opinion in the state court. It’s not binding, not even on the court that issues it. So what’s the point? It looks like a stunt to get the answer he wants from a friendlier bench than a more skeptical federal judge a few blocks away.
Here’s another way to clear up any confusion and serve the people: Pass a bill already filed for the 2020 legislative session that eliminates financial conditions to voting. Make felons pay what they owe if ordered as part of a sentence. But don’t make payment a requirement to get access to the ballot box.
Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O’Hara, Sergio Bustos, Steve Bousquet and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson.