WWTBAM Bored

Technically, the trial court held the law unconstitutional and a panel of the 11th Circuit upheld it. In 2018, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment restoring felons' rights to vote upon being released from prison. However, the legislature then passed a law conditioning the restoration of rights on paying all fines and costs related to their incarceration. As a practical matter, this would bar many of those felons from voting. The 11th Circuit agreed with the trial court that this was unconstitutional. This could affect 1.4 million felons. In 2016, Donald Trump carried Florida by approximately 100,000 votes. In 2018, the Senate and Governor's races were decided by 10,000 and 30,000 votes respectively.

It's possible that either the full panel of the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court could issue a stay before the presidential election, but there wouldn't be time for a Supreme Court decision on the merits by then.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... equirement

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:28 pm

Technically, the trial court held the law unconstitutional and a panel of the 11th Circuit upheld it. In 2018, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment restoring felons' rights to vote upon being released from prison. However, the legislature then passed a law conditioning the restoration of rights on paying all fines and costs related to their incarceration. As a practical matter, this would bar many of those felons from voting. The 11th Circuit agreed with the trial court that this was unconstitutional. This could affect 1.4 million felons. In 2016, Donald Trump carried Florida by approximately 100,000 votes. In 2018, the Senate and Governor's races were decided by 10,000 and 30,000 votes respectively.

It's possible that either the full panel of the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court could issue a stay before the presidential election, but there wouldn't be time for a Supreme Court decision on the merits by then.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... equirement

SSS. Rooting for ex felons to vote against trump. Because he knows who most of them would vote for.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:28 pm

Technically, the trial court held the law unconstitutional and a panel of the 11th Circuit upheld it. In 2018, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment restoring felons' rights to vote upon being released from prison. However, the legislature then passed a law conditioning the restoration of rights on paying all fines and costs related to their incarceration. As a practical matter, this would bar many of those felons from voting. The 11th Circuit agreed with the trial court that this was unconstitutional. This could affect 1.4 million felons. In 2016, Donald Trump carried Florida by approximately 100,000 votes. In 2018, the Senate and Governor's races were decided by 10,000 and 30,000 votes respectively.

It's possible that either the full panel of the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court could issue a stay before the presidential election, but there wouldn't be time for a Supreme Court decision on the merits by then.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... equirement

SSS. Rooting for ex felons to vote against trump. Because he knows who most of them would vote for.

Joe Arpaio, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dinesh D'Souza, Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Michael Milken, and Bernard Kerik will vote for him.

Well I think only those who have committed serious violent crimes should be allowed to vote.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:15 pm

Well I think only those who have committed serious violent crimes should be allowed to vote.

So I take it that you insist on enforcement of the Second Amendment but you're as willing to overlook the 24th Amendment as you are to ignore the Emoluments Clause. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:44 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:15 pm

Well I think only those who have committed serious violent crimes should be allowed to vote.

So I take it that you insist on enforcement of the Second Amendment but you're as willing to overlook the 24th Amendment as you are to ignore the Emoluments Clause. --Bob

Knowing you have no sense of humor at all, we will address your self righteous outrage.
I said nothing about the 2nd amendment. I assume you're castigating your straw man on that.
As for the 24th amendment, once again, you stretch the imagination with bogus interpretations.
I, for one, do not agree with the whole idea of allowing anyone who was convicted of a felony to vote, ever. But Floridians voted to let that happen, so it's the law. However, the felon must finish the sentence that was imposed on them to complete their debt to society. That includes and fines or restitution to their victims. I think that is only fair. I don't agree with the state adding 'fees' to that, but they should complete their imposed sentences. This is NOT a Poll Tax. This is completing their debt to society for the crime(s) they committed.
We all know why this push is on to get felons to vote. It is not out of any genuine concern for 'enfranchisement'. It is only because the dem party believes more of them will vote for them. They know that because they are the natural home political party of criminals.

Emoluments is bullshit. I know it and you know it. Just like Russian Collusion. Tell me, bobby: If these things were in any way not bullshit, why didn't Fulla include them in the Articles of Impeachment? Why didn't he reveal to us his incontrovertible proof that trump colluded with Putin? Why not? Because even he knows it is bullshit for in the tank people like you to consume and fume over.

The newest fake news that the dem msm is frothing over is some bogus report that russia is trying to get trump re-elected. With Bernie in the race? How stupid do they think we are? They know how stupid the in the tankers are, but the rest of us laugh at them, and the in the tankers.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:57 am

However, the felon must finish the sentence that was imposed on them to complete their debt to society.That includes and fines or restitution to their victims. I think that is only fair. I don't agree with the state adding 'fees' to that, but they should complete their imposed sentences. This is NOT a Poll Tax. This is completing their debt to society for the crime(s) they committed.

First, I'm going to apologize. I did something that Flock has accused me of many times, and for once he's right. I filed my initial post based on the reporting and not the actual decision.

The actual decision wasn't based on whether this Florida law was a poll tax, as some of the articles stated. Instead, the court based its decision on equal protection grounds. Anyone, whether Michael Bloomberg or a homeless person, can challenge a poll tax, regardless of whether they as individuals could pay the tax. But the named plaintiffs in this case alleged that they were indigent and could not pay these various costs. Since this was a decision on a preliminary injunction, the court accepted that contention. The court based its decision on equal protection grounds, namely that to discriminate between people's rights to have their votes restored on the basis of indigency violated the equal protection clause.

Left open is the possibility that the state could establish some system to grant indigency waivers. But the Florida system as it currently stood was flawed so the court granted a preliminary injunction. The decision applies only to the 17 named plaintiffs in the case, although I'm sure there will be additional legal proceedings on this law.

Here is the 78-page decision:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 02-19.html