Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Court will not block 17 state felons from voting
TALLAHASSEE — Siding with plaintiffs, a federal appeals court has refused to put on hold a decision that bans the state from denying the right to vote to felons who are unable to pay court-ordered fees and fines.
Monday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows the 17 plaintiffs in the case, felons who claim they are unable to pay “legal financial obligations” required by a state law, to cast ballots in the March 17 presidential primary election.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration had asked the Atlanta-based court to put the Feb. 19 panel decision on hold, as the state seeks what is known as an “en banc,” or full court, review.
But in a three-page order Monday, the panel refused, saying “we remain unpersuaded” because the state’s lawyers “have not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits” of its appeal of an October ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle that imposed a preliminary injunction against the state law.
“Moreover, as we discussed at length in our opinion, the balance of equities lies in favor of these 17 appellees,” appeals-court judges Lanier Anderson III, Stanley Marcus and Barbara Rothstein wrote. “In urging us to stay enforcement of the district court’s preliminary injunction, appellants raise the same arguments they have raised throughout this litigation, which we discussed and rejected in our decision of Feb. 19, 2020.”
Hinkle ruled that the state cannot deny the right to vote to felons who are “genuinely unable to pay” court-ordered fees and fines.
The district judge issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited the state from taking any action to prevent the 17 plaintiffs in the case from registering to vote. But the judge agreed to a state request to put on hold part of the injunction that would allow felons to vote if they can show they are unable to pay fines or fees.
That hold expired on Feb. 11, and the appellate court has refused the state’s requests to extend it until the underlying appeal has been decided.
The 17 plaintiffs in the case became eligible to vote on Feb. 11, and Monday’s ruling keeps their eligibility intact.