(C) ProPublica
This story was originally published by ProPublica and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Florida Supreme Court Advisory Opinion on Amendment 4 [1]

[]

Date: 2022-07

On Novem­ber 6, 2018, nearly 65 percent of Flor­ida voters approved Amend­ment 4, a consti­tu­tional amend­ment that auto­mat­ic­ally restored voting rights to as many as 1.4 million Flor­idi­ans, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, who had completed the terms of their sentence includ­ing parole or proba­tion. Amend­ment 4 went into effect on Janu­ary 8, 2019.

Eight months later, on August 9, 2019, Flor­ida Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the Flor­ida Supreme Court to issue an advis­ory opin­ion as to “whether ‘com­ple­tion of all terms of sentence’” under Amend­ment 4 “includes the satis­fac­tion of all legal finan­cial oblig­a­tion­s—­namely fees, fines and resti­tu­tion ordered by the court as part of a felony sentence that would other­wise render a convicted felon ineligible to vote.”

Essen­tially, Gov. DeSantis sought an advis­ory opin­ion about the propri­ety of SB7066, a bill he signed into law on June 28, 2019, under the Flor­ida Consti­tu­tion. SB7066 prohib­its people with felony convic­tions from regis­ter­ing to vote unless they pay off all legal finan­cial oblig­a­tions (“LFOs”) imposed by a court pursu­ant to a felony convic­tion, includ­ing those LFOs conver­ted to civil oblig­a­tions, even if they cannot afford to pay.

Through his request, DeSantis initi­ated a paral­lel proceed­ing to Gruver v. Barton, a lawsuit filed by the Bren­nan Center, the ACLU, the ACLU of Flor­ida, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­tion Fund chal­len­ging SB7066 under the U.S. Consti­tu­tion. In that case, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dan Smith, has estim­ated that as many as 740,000 of those re-enfran­chised by Amend­ment 4 could be disen­fran­chised once again by SB7066. For more inform­a­tion on the lawsuit, click here.

On August 29, 2019, the Flor­ida Supreme Court agreed to issue an advis­ory opin­ion and sched­uled oral argu­ment for Novem­ber 6, 2019.

On Septem­ber 18, 2019, the Bren­nan Center, the ACLU, the ACLU of Flor­ida, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Flor­ida NAACP, Orange County Branch of the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters of Flor­ida filed a brief as inter­ested parties. The Center’s brief argues: (1) the Flor­ida Supreme Court should decline the Governor’s request for an advis­ory opin­ion because it is improper; and (2) if the Flor­ida Supreme Court decides to issue an advis­ory opin­ion, a plain read­ing of Amend­ment 4 demon­strates that “comple­tion of all terms of sentence” cannot mandate inclu­sion of legal finan­cial oblig­a­tions that extend beyond the terms of impris­on­ment, parole, or proba­tion.

On Novem­ber 6, 2019, the Flor­ida Supreme Court heard oral argu­ments from attor­neys repres­ent­ing Flor­ida lawmakers and advoc­ates.

On Janu­ary 16, 2020, the Flor­ida Supreme Court issued its advis­ory opin­ion, which concluded that “all terms of sentence” includes LFOs imposed in conjunc­tion with a felony convic­tion.

The state court’s ruling does not change the Bren­nan Center’s posi­tion in ongo­ing federal litig­a­tion chal­len­ging SB7066 under the U.S. Consti­tu­tion. The state court did not inter­pret the U.S. Consti­tu­tion or federal law. It answers a narrow ques­tion of state law and does not alter the Flor­ida legis­lature’s oblig­a­tions to abide by the U.S. Consti­tu­tion.

Docu­ments

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/florida-supreme-court-advisory-opinion-amendment-4

Published and (C) by ProPublica
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/propublica/