SCOTUS keeps hold on decision: FL exfelons cant vote unless they pay their fees

[BmorePat87]

I saw this on facebook and TPM was the only link I could find

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/supreme-court-florida-ex-felons-voter-restrictaions

After FL voters approved an amendment giving voting rights back to ex-felons, state Republicans passed a law requiring those ex-felons to pay back all fines and fees before voting.

A trial judge ruled it unconstitutional, but an appellate court put a hold on that decision, keeping the law in place for the upcoming primary until they could hear the case.

That hold was challenged and SCOTUS weighed in, keeping the hold in place, essentially barring up to 1m ex felons from voting next month.

Sotomayor, joined by the 2 other liberal justices, ripped the decision and choice to ignore established precedent on partisan grounds, stating in her dissent: “Ironically, this Court has wielded Purcell as a reason to forbid courts to make voting safer during a pandemic, overriding two federal courts because any safety-related changes supposedly came too close to election day. Now, faced with an appellate court stay that disrupts a legal status quo and risks immense disfranchisement—a situation that Purcell sought to avoid—the Court balks.”

The Purcell precedents states that the courts should be hesitant in making decisions on rules that would cause major issues or confusion with voting right before an election. In this case, the trial judge first overturned the law in October of 2019 and recently laid out instructions for how the state could ensure its ex-felons can vote as the state pushed back. Last month, DeSantis requests that an appellate court put a hold on the decision and they agreed.

[fredtoast]

I disagree with this ruling, but based on the rule of law a sentence is not "complete" until costs and fines are paid.

If you are on probation or parole and you don't pay your costs and fines then you either go back to jail or have your supervision extended.

I don't know how it works in other states, but many times a judge will waive remaining costs an fines if the person has done everything else he was supposed to do and paid as much as he can. But if a judge waives the costs and fines the sentence is "complete" and the felon would be entitled to get his voting rights restored. And getting your right to vote restored does not happen automatically. You have to petition the court.

[fredtoast]

I've told this story before, but when I worked in Blount County there was a judge that would just automatically put people back in jail for non-payment instead of allowing them a hearing on their ability to pay like most judges do. So the Blount County jail had a lot of inmates in there for being poor instead of committing additional crimes.

The jail became over crowded and they wanted to build a bigger one. The county paid for a private firm to analyze at the addition costs of building and running a larger jail to see if it would be worth while. The firm came back with a report that the County could save a lot of money by not running a "debtors prison". The county commission shelved the report for over a year until someone finally asked what happened to the money they spent for the report. When it came out they didn't even ask for funding for a new jail, but the judge did not change his practices.

People should not go to jail for being poor. Most counties have a program where indigent people on probation can can earn credit for community service if they don't have the money to pay, but Blount County would not even do anything like that.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2020, 04:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree with this ruling, but based on the rule of law a sentence is not "complete" until costs and fines are paid.

If you are on probation or parole and you don't pay your costs and fines then you either go back to jail or have your supervision extended.

I don't know how it works in other states, but many times a judge will waive remaining costs an fines if the person has done everything else he was supposed to do and paid as much as he can.  But if a judge waives the costs and fines the sentence is "complete" and the felon would be entitled to get his voting rights restored.  And getting your right to vote restored does not happen automatically.  You have to petition the court.

The judge who overturned it had stated that only those who were found unable to pay (those with appointed attorneys and whose fees were converted into liens) could not have those fees held against them, and that's a big part of what DeSantis was challenging as the majority of the ex felons fell under that category. His administration's argument was that the whole amendment needs to be thrown out since voters would not agree with the judge and would not want that many felons to have their fees waived before voting. 

The Amendment came in response to Rick Scott ending a rule implemented by Charlie Crist which automatically gave voting rights back to all non violent offenders, so it's safe to say that DeSantis' argument lacked some merit behind it. 

FL law requires 60% to pass amendments. After this passed with 64%, the GOP tried to change it to 66%.

[*bfine32*]

Have to pay your debt to society.

[*michaelsean*]

I’ve never been for lifetime bans against voting, but I do think you should serve your sentence, but a guy who just served ten years is never going big to be able to pay off some giant fine.

Fred’s story about that judge is ridiculous. He’s just costing everyone money.

[*bfine32*]

Figured I'd put this hear since it's related to SCOTUS and my thread got locked.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ginsburg-says-cancer-returned-161540820.html

Quote:Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer, but has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

The 87-year-old Ginsburg, who has had four earlier bouts with cancer, said her treatment so far has succeeded in reducing lesions on her liver and she will continue chemotherapy sessions every two weeks “to keep my cancer at bay.”

I will say I disagree with her interpretation on many issues; but she has my utmost respect. I remember when Scaltio passed and many liberals rejoiced; she said "he was my friend".

Keep up your fight RGB.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2020, 10:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I’ve never been for lifetime bans against voting, but I do think you should serve your sentence, but a guy who just served ten years is never going big to be able to pay off some giant fine.

Fred’s story about that judge is ridiculous. He’s just costing everyone money.

Which is why they fine them.  Gives the state control over the person forever.

About two years ago (and I may have shared this on the board then too) I was at an event chaperoning for the high school.  I was talking to one boy about police and the legal system because he had an idea that if we just executed half the prison population we could solve the problem of prison overcrowding and unemployment.

Now I chalked this up to 16 year old male under-developed brain (although have 15 years on this board I see some don't ever develop  ) and one of the other chaperones chimed in because he worked at a prison.

(I'm doing this from memory so it's not an exact conversation.)

Basically we tried to explain how once you get in the prison system it is very hard to get out when you are poor.  You get a ticket for no having your car inspected.  You get a fine.  But you have to get to to work to make the money to pay the fine.  So you drive the car to work and get another ticket.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Or you are put in jail, just for a day or two over the weekend while they straighten things out, and lose your job and can't pa the fine so you are put back in jail.  

The list goes on an on and it is primarily the poor and working class.  

Just like the argument is made that we are all one medical emergency away from losing everything so are we one error like speeding or one overzealous officer who says you "resisted" from being locked into a system designed to take your money and your freedom.