Read on Twitter
Strong start: this more or less sums up our lawsuit:
Early on, Judge Hinkle points out that the law of the land is that states can disenfranchise people with felony convictions, but he makes sure to remind us that the reasoning of that 1973 opinion is "not obvious."
Although Judge Hinkle uses the term "felon" in places -- he notes in footnote seven that where the context is clear, he uses citizens or individuals instead. Making obvious that he wants people with past convictions to know he aims to treat them with respect.
On our procedural due process (i.e. is their a fair process in place) claim, I think this about sums it up.
Or maybe this: "If this is the best the state's attorneys could do, one wonders how Mr. Gruver or the Division of elections could be expected to do better."
Judge Hinkle rules that this law lacks rational basis. Indeed, the State "has shown a staggering inability to administer the system and has adopted a bizarre position on the amount that must be paid."
Judge Hinkle finds that people with past convictions, by and large, cannot afford to pay the staggering sums imposed on them: "The record now shows that the mine-run of felons affected by the pay-to-vote requirement are genuinely unable to pay."
Here's some common sense. The State can garnish your wages, send collections agencies on you, suspend your driver's license and more because of unpaid fines and fees. If you can afford to pay, you do.
Florida was making the right to vote hinge on navigating a maze of conflicting information. I seem to remember some literacy tests that had a similar function.
Hard to say it better than this. But I'd add a friendly amendment: rarely easy.
I have nothing to add here:
The State tried to change course in its process right before trial:
The Court makes clear what was obvious to everyone, this new "system" was adopted "entirely as a litigation strategy."
But it wasn't a good one:
Just adding this here because I really like it: "On voting issues, the old British maxim holds true: in for a penny, in for a pound."
This is a hidden failure of the legislature. They passed SB7066 and knowingly failed to fund the cumbersome process it created. Who gets hurt by this? Eligible voters that can't get through the process.
During closing, I pointed out that at a generous processing rate of 57 reg/day, the State would need 4 yrs to complete its current backlog of apps related to felony convictions. The judge pointed out that people don't work 365 days/yr - so its more like 6 yrs. Thx for the assist.
And this assist: "With a flood of additional registrations expected in this presidential election year, the anticipated completion date might well be pushed into the 2030s."
The judge wrote his own takeaway to this section: "The takeaway: 18 months after Amendment 4 was adopted, the Division is not reasonably administering the pay-to-vote system and has not been given the resources needed to do so."
It's almost like he knew this opinion -- which enfranchises hundreds of thousands -- needed to be publicly digestible and not written in legalese.
Some important points on the fear of prosecution caused by this law: 1. "The deterrent effect is surely strong on individuals who have served their time, gone straight, and wish to avoid entanglement with the criminal-justice system."
2. "In Florida, where any voter can challenge any other voter’s eligibility, and where a mistake can lead to a prosecution, it is hardly surprising that a felon who is newly eligible to vote but unsure of the rules would decide not to risk it."
3. The SOS has previously scolded local election officials for telling people to apply to register if they are uncertain about their eligibility.
And again, the takeaway from Judge Hinkle: "The takeaway: it is certain that some eligible voters will choose not to vote because of the manner in which the State has administered—and failed to administer—the pay-to-vote system." Friendly amendment from me: many eligible voters.
A fun variation on the blood from a stone adage! "But one cannot get blood from a turnip or money from a person unable to pay."
Also: "one might well question the legitimacy of the State’s interest in leveraging its control over eligibility to vote to improve the State’s financial position." I do, indeed, question that.
On the 24th Amendment, the court reiterated what the state has said: words matter.
The court holds that the fees imposed to fund the State's programs are taxes: "A tax by any other name."
Here's the key analysis (I think):
And on the new registration form? "The form is indefensible, provides no opportunity for some eligible felons to register at all, and is sure to discourage others."
And this: "It is so obviously deficient that its adoption can only be described as strange, as was the Legislature’s failure to correct it after the State was unable to defend it in any meaningful way in this litigation and actively sought a legislative cure."
Again, the Court calls attention the Legislature's complete failure to fund a system to implement their new law:
On due process, the State argued that people could ask for advisory opinions. But there was no easy way to do that, no timeline for responses & no guarantee of an answer. Judge Hinkle took the State up on its offer & required an opinion process that complies w/ the Constitution.
And we've reached the part where the court must deal with the state's "breathtaking attack on the will of the Florida voters who adopted Amendment 4."
Judge Hinkle is clear on his findings: the will of the voters in Amendment 4 was to restore the right to vote to their fellow citizens not punish the poor.
"The voters’ primary motivation plainly was to restore the vote to deserving felons at the appropriate time—to show a measure of forgiveness and to welcome even felons back into the electorate. The sentiment is hardly surprising."
