In the 2018 midterm elections, Florida voters approved Amendment Four, which restores voting rights for people convicted of felonies (excluding murder and felony sex offenses) as long as they complete their sentences.
But when Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis subsequently signed legislation to that effect, it required that to “complete their sentences,” felons must pay all fines, fees, and restitution to victims before having their voting rights restored.
As expected, various voting and civil rights groups strongly opposed this law and filed suit in federal court. They alleged that the “payment” requirement unconstitutionally prevented prior felons from voting solely based on their inability to pay such fines. They also asserted that Amendment Four provided for the automatic restoration of voting rights and did not mandate any payments.
Given the sharply divided opinions on this issue, DeSantis asked the Florida Supreme Court to provide an advisory opinion as to whether the phrase “completion of all terms of sentence” in Amendment Four encompassed fines, fees, restitution, and other financial obligations imposed in a sentencing order. He did not ask the court to rule on the constitutionality of the new law.
On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court issued its long-awaited advisory opinion, in which it sided with DeSantis. As set forth in the majority opinion:
In other words, the Supreme Court opined that legal financial obligations are part of a sentence and must be paid before voting rights can be restored under Amendment Four.
“Beginning with restitution, this Court has referred to that obligation as part of a ‘sentence,’ and even as ‘punishment,'” the majority said. “An analysis of fines looks remarkably similar. Indeed, this Court has referred to fines as part of a ‘sentence.’”
“Although fees and costs can reasonably be said to differ in many respects from restitution and fines, various court pronouncements and statutory provisions similarly support including them within the scope of Amendment 4’s phrase ‘all terms of sentence,’” the court added.
This opinion is advisory and nonbinding in nature. But it dashes the hopes of Democrats, who were expecting approximately 1.4 million people to gain eligibility to vote in Florida elections suddenly and to vote Democratic. Given the court’s recent advisory opinion, that suddenly seems unlikely.
Of course, the Florida Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the new law. As a matter of fact, there is at least one pending federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, as some claim it to be an unconstitutional form of wealth discrimination, or even an unconstitutional poll tax.
But for now, the state Supreme Court’s advisory opinion stands, and it could prove very important come November.
Elad Hakim is a political writer and commentator and an attorney.
