Federal court blocks overhaul of Florida system restoring voting rights

A federal appeals court blocked a lower court ruling that mandated Florida create a new process for restoring voting rights to former prisoners. The lower court ruled in February that the state's current system is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

John Raoux/AP
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) announces his candidacy for the US Senate at a news conference in Orlando, Fla., on April 9. Governor Scott organized an late-night meeting for state officials on April 25 to determine new rules for restoring voting rights to former prisoners. The meeting was cancelled after a federal court blocked a lower court's ruling to rewrite the state's rules by April 26.

With time running out, a federal appeals court late Wednesday sided with Florida in an escalating battle over the state's process for restoring voting rights for former prisoners.

US district Judge Mark Walker had given Florida until Thursday to create a new process after ruling in February that the state's current system is unconstitutional and arbitrary, with decisions possibly swayed by politics and racial factors.

But a three judge panel of the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Walker's ruling while it considers an appeal from Gov. Rick Scott (R) and other Florida Republican officials.

"We are glad that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the lower court's reckless ruling," said John Tupps, a spokesman for the governor. "Judges should interpret the law, not create it. Governor Scott will never stop fighting for victims of crime and their families."

The decision by the court came less than two hours before Scott and GOP officials were scheduled to hold an extraordinary late-night meeting of the state's clemency board where they were poised to adopt new rules. The meeting was scrapped after the appeals court sided with Florida in a split decision.

Florida's clash over voting rights comes as Scott campaigns for the US Senate seat of Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in a state where as many as 1.5 million felons remain disenfranchised by the state's ban that is included in Florida's constitution.

Judge Walker's ruling had kept the ban intact, but he had challenged the current system that requires a former prisoner to wait between five and seven years before they can even ask to have their voting rights back. The governor and the three elected Cabinet members then decide each request individually, subject to the governor's unilateral veto.

It wasn't always this way. Shortly after taking office in 2007, then-Gov. Charlie Crist (R) convinced two of the state's three Cabinet members to approve rules allowing the parole commission to restore voting rights for nonviolent felons without hearings, and ultimately more than 100,000 felons were allowed to vote again.

Scott and state officials changed the process in 2011, and since then fewer than 3,000 have had their rights restored. The governor has defended the change, saying that former prisoners should have to demonstrate they can remain out of trouble before their voting rights are returned.

Last year, however, a group of former prisoners who had their applications turned down sued the state.

In its split ruling, the federal appeals court concluded that Florida has a good chance of prevailing in its appeal and questioned Walker's decision to order the state put in place a new process. US district Judge Stanley Marcus wrote that there should not be a "rushed decisionmaking process created on an artificial deadline."

"There is wisdom in preserving the status quo ante until a panel of this court, on an expedited basis, has had an opportunity on full briefing to come to grips with the many constitutional and equitable issues that have been raised," Judge Marcus wrote.

Walker first ruled in February the process was unconstitutional and then in late March ordered that changes be put in place by this week.

The clemency board – without holding a public meeting to discuss the ruling – appealed.

While the governor's office has said the decision to appeal was handled properly, Barbara Petersen of the First Amendment Foundation has questioned whether Scott and GOP officials sidestepped the state's open meetings law. She said it "doesn't pass the sniff test to my way of thinking."

Scott and the cabinet were sued for open meeting violations back in 2015 and ultimately settled the case without admitting wrongdoing.

The legal battle over voting rights for former prisoners is occurring just months before Florida voters will be asked to alter the current ban. Backers of a constitutional amendment won a place on the November 2018 ballot. If 60 percent of voters approve, most former prisoners would have their rights automatically restored.

This article was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Federal court blocks overhaul of Florida system restoring voting rights
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today