07-16-2020, 04:09 PM
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.
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.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
