Restoration of voting rights in FL might take longer than hoped.
Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether 2018’s Ballot initiative, Amendment 4 (relating to restoration of voting rights to some convicted felons), could tie financial obligations to voting rights. They seemed inclined to say the state could.
Last year, Florida citizens voted overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment that would automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons who have served their sentences. As the majority impacted by decades of disenfranchisement celebrated, the Florida legislature said ‘not so fast’. They wanted to include payment of all court costs and fees in the “completed their sentence” part and not restore voting rights to those who have been unable to cover those.
A study prepared for the case determined that 80 percent of felons who have completed their time behind bars have some sort of outstanding financial obligations associated with their crimes. Some will never be able to get out from under their obligation.
As we are all aware, Amendment 4, excluded persons convicted of murder or sex offenses. So why should our population care about the outcome of this case if Amendment 4 didn’t benefit us anyhow?
If the Supreme Court ties financial obligation to their voting rights, 80% of those who were slated to have their rights automatically restored go back into the queue to have to petition for clemency. Essentially a years (if not decades) long process in which you have to beg the Governor and clemency board for restoration and they can arbitrarily deny you.
According to the Florida Commission on Offender Review, Florida has a backlog of more than 10,000 cases to be reviewed. Had voting rights been automatically restored for 4/5th of those, our population would have moved up to the top of the list, now it seems we’re going back to the end of the line.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The right to bear arms. Nothing in the constitution gives the state the right to deprive any man or woman of the right to protect and defend himself/herself, especially if the incident did not involve arms. Just like in Venezuela and other nations, the intent is to disarm the American populace to effect total control over them. History does, in fact, repeat itself.
@TE, see my response to Debbie. Here it is again:
About 5 years ago, when I was still on probation, I did some extensive research on the U.S. Constitution after a conversation with my P.O. about owning firearms (for protection). I found a section of the U.S. Constitution that said the ONLY people not allowed to own firearms are those who committed “an act of treason or war” against the country.
A felony conviction is NOT an act of treason or war.
I am trying to find that section again but I find myself getting sidetracked and not putting in as much effort as I did when I first found it.