NewsA federal judge on Thursday struck down [order PDF] Florida’s process for restoring voter rights to former felons, finding that it was unconstitutional.
Florida citizens are automatically disenfranchised after being convicted of a felony under the Florida Constitution [text]. Former felons must wait a period of five to seven years from the completion of their sentence, including post-incarceration probation, and parole, to apply for restoration. The length of the waiting period depends on the severity of the crime. The Florida Constitution authorizes the Governor, with the approval of at least two members of the Executive Clemency Board [official website], to restore a convicted felon’s voting rights. In striking down this process, Judge Mark E. Walker found that the governor and the board members have the “the unfettered discretion to grant, at any time, for any reason; several types of clemency, including the restoration of voting rights”. They also have the ability to deny them for any reason.
The case was brought against the current Governor Rick Scott [official website] by a group of former felons in Florida. Governor Scott has argued that the restoration of voting rights of former felons can only occur on the state’s terms and is within the “interest of the state to limit the franchise to responsible voters” and to “gauge the progress and rehabilitation” of former felons. The former felons argue that the unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights violates the First Amendment [text].
Walker ultimately ruled that while Florida, and other states, may have a legitimate interest in limiting franchise “Florida’s vote-restoration scheme is crushingly restrictive. The scheme crumbles under strict scrutiny because it risks—if not covertly authorizes the practice of—arbitrary and discriminatory vote-restoration.” He further expressed concern about the motives the state officials would have for denying restoration, saying “State officials’ potential political, racial, or religious biases cannot poison the well of vote-restoration.” In addition to the First Amendment, Walker also found that this unfettered official discretion violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause [text].
Noting that “more than one-tenth of Florida’s voting population” have had their voting rights curtailed, Walker said
If any one of these citizens wishes to earn back their fundamental right to vote, they must plod through a gauntlet of constitutionally infirm hurdles. No more. When the risk of state-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination skulks near the franchise, it is the province and duty of this Court to excise such potential bias from infecting the clemency process.
Walker declined the opportunity to invalidate the waiting periods, finding that the regulations are applied uniformly and that, unlike the exercise of discretion in deciding on applications, they present little risk of promoting discrimination.
Finding that there had been inadequate briefing on appropriate remedies, Walker ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs “as to the contours of injunctive relief” by February 12.
A ballot measure [JURIST report] allowing for the automatic restoration of voting rights upon completion of a felony sentence will be before Florida voters in November.
