HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » SCOTUS Allows FL Ex-Felon...

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 01:46 PM

 

SCOTUS Allows FL Ex-Felon Voter Restrictions Struck Down By Judge To Be Reinstated

Source: TPM

Floridaís restrictions on ex-felon voting will likely remain in place at least for Augustís primary, after the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to remove a hold on a trial judgeís ruling that those restrictions are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Courtís action in the case, where the voting rights of hundreds of thousands ex-felons could be at stake in the swing state, is the latest example of the conservative majority siding with restrictive laws.

Though the Florida case is not technically linked to the pandemic, in several other recent disputes where voter access in the outbreak was in play, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with keeping in place the more restrictive voter regimes.

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



The case involves a law Florida Republicans passed in 2019, after the stateís voters in 2018 approved a constitutional amendment giving certain ex-felons the right to vote. The 2019 law requires that those ex-felons pay back all remaining court fees before they regain the franchise. The lawís challengers say that the mandate amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax.

14 replies, 2725 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply SCOTUS Allows FL Ex-Felon Voter Restrictions Struck Down By Judge To Be Reinstated (Original post)
ChiTownDenny Jul 2020 OP
Desert grandma Jul 2020 #1
Jose Garcia Jul 2020 #3
not_the_one Jul 2020 #10
Phoenix61 Jul 2020 #2
atreides1 Jul 2020 #4
BumRushDaShow Jul 2020 #7
EleanorR Jul 2020 #5
LymphocyteLover Jul 2020 #6
NoRWNJ Jul 2020 #8
JudyM Jul 2020 #9
appalachiablue Jul 2020 #12
Polybius Jul 2020 #11
sl8 Jul 2020 #13
MissMillie Jul 2020 #14

Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 01:49 PM

1. This is SO FRUSTRATING!

Some Democratic billionaires need to get together and pay these fines to allow these Floridians to vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Desert grandma (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 01:55 PM

3. It's not just fines. It's also restitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Desert grandma (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 07:25 PM

10. The repub legislature could just say that was a work around, and did not meet the standard

 

of requiring the felon to pay the fine, or restitution.

And they would do just that. And appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 01:53 PM

2. Judges can commute those fines to community

service. The really big issue is finding the fine. They are sold to collection agencies who can then resell them over and over and over. Trying to trace one that is 10 years old becomes impossible. That was the biggest gripe. Itís not just a poll tax itís a poll tax itís next to possible to find so how can you possibly pay it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 03:35 PM

4. Roberts made up for his decisions...

...about Trumps taxes!

So much for the court not being political!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 04:41 PM

7. Roberts has a thing for eliminating voting rights

He did it with the Wisconsin absentee ballot extension case during the height of the pandemic in April and he did his coup de grace with the VRA ruling in 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 03:54 PM

5. 64.5% of Florida voters voted to have these rights restored

Lets hope this judicial activism negating their votes pisses them off and brings them out to vote in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 03:57 PM

6. this is fucked up-- more voting suppression from the rightwing

they really do hate democracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LymphocyteLover (Reply #6)


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 05:50 PM

9. This would be a good application of Bloomberg's offer to help Dems win. Pay em all off.

... or just those with Dem voting records

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 17, 2020, 12:09 AM

12. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Thu Jul 16, 2020, 11:12 PM

11. Why don't any articles say what the vote was?

This article says three liberals descended, but doesn't even say which three except that one is Sotomayor. That means one liberal sided with the majority. Who? Kagan? Breyer? Certainly not RGB.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-felons-in-florida-seeking-to-regain-the-right-to-vote/2020/07/16/2ede827c-c5dd-11ea-a99f-3bbdffb1af38_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 17, 2020, 04:21 AM

13. From the OP article:

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2020, 06:09 AM - Edit history (2)


[...]
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined Sotomayorís dissent, but itís possible that another justice may have dissented privately.
[...]



Also, the article includes a copy of the dissent, which identifies the three justices.


Regarding the actual vote, they don't publicly announce that for orders like this. Keep in mind that this wasn't a case they heard argued. This was the court declining a request to vacate a stay from a lower court. in an unsigned order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiTownDenny (Original post)

Fri Jul 17, 2020, 09:20 AM

14. Then they shouldn't have to pay taxes

No taxation without representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread