home

11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an 1868 Florida law that refuses to allow those with felony convictions to vote, even after they have served their sentences.

Tuesday's 10-2 ruling widens an existing split of opinion on the issue among the federal appellate courts across the country and could set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. The decision affirmed a 2002 summary judgment by Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

During the 2000 Bush - Gore election campaign, six former offenders had sued the Clemency board seeking the restoration of their right to vote. They based their claim on Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the federal Voting Rights Act.

A disproportionate percentage of felons in Florida are African-Americans, and blacks vote heavily Democratic. In a state where 7.6 million Floridians cast ballots in last year's presidential election, the possible inclusion of 600,000 felon voters could swing close races. But the appeals court, in an opinion noting that about 70 percent of the plaintiff class is white, tossed the case out of court in a 79-page ruling.

Eleven judges rejected the first prong of the plaintiffs' attack -- that Florida's current felon disenfranchisement law was motivated by intentional discrimination. Ten judges also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act extended to considering claims of racial discrimination regarding the disenfranchisement of felons.

Jeb Bush, of course, "hailed the ruling." Of course he does. But for felon disenfranchisement in 2000, Al Gore would have been declared President. It's time for the Florida legislature to act and restore these voting rights. It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment, a law repealing the 1868 law and enacting a new one should be sufficient.

Here's more on the racial discrimination in felon disenfranchisement laws; and on the laws in general.

The right to vote should not be a criminal matter. Check out this Human Rights Watch report, Losing the Right to Vote.

< Federal Judge Enjoins Feds from Ending Shock Incarceration | Withheld Evidence Leads to New Sentencing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    I just hate this. Why won't this country undersatnd that voting is everything? If we can't vote or have them counted the whole system is a terrible lie, a delusional fantasy of Democracy. It all rests upon that, yet our "leaders" seem more than happy to strip our most precious rights from us. [shrugs helplessly] My country's gone. Voting doesn't matter to the ruling party.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    florida is to the united states what rust is to metal.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    This is a states rights issue. I personally think when a Felon has finished his sentence and Parole, than they should be allowed back on the rolls to vote, as their debt to society is supposedly paid. However, if some states see things different, than so be it.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    There has been studies by civil rights groups that show that the disenfranchiement of minorities (pro-Democratic voting groups) is disportionate to their share in the population. Don't be surprised if Republican states seek to 'protect' their citizens from felon voting.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    I haven't read the ruling yet because it doesn't appear to be posted. However, I understand that it was argued on the basis that it is discriminatory. The majority, apparently, didn't buy it. The law may have that affect only if one group commits more crimes and is convicted based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. (By the way, under FL law, there is a process through which a felon can have his or her rights restored. The process is not as easy as it is in other states.) I believe that the question of felons being allowed to vote was not a major issue in this case. Therefore, it may not make a good case to raise the issue to the Supreme Court. (However, I haven't read it yet.) The idea has been around for a long time, possibly as long as the Republic itself. A person who commits a felony violates the contract between the individual and the society. A person who commits a felony chooses to step outside of the society: he or she cannot assume that admission back into society is a given. Society has the right to respond to the threat and punish the offender. That punishment includes death or imprisonment. After a period of imprisonment, the society may decide what rights the felon has within that society. The counter argument is that after imprisonment, the person has "paid their debt to society." I don't see that that concept exists -- legally. Felons are not allowed to own firearms, have certain jobs, or have any right to privacy under Megan's Law. The other counter argument is that voting is a basic right. Well, so is the right to privacy. Sex offenders have their names, addresses, personal description, criminal history, and, in many cases, photographs, displayed in public. The law, written by our representatives, considers some criminal acts to be so serious that the people that choose to commit these crimes cannot be trusted. I agree up to a point. However, there should be a process to have voting rights restored. It would appear that the law in the state of FL is restrictive.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#6)
    by wishful on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    Isn't there some question that lawyers are fond of asking, that goes like this: Who benefits? In the case of disfranchisement (or the more recent-"disenfranchisement"), that question is answered in the post.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    I live in Florida and the majority of us are very satisfied with this decision. There's been quite a bit of lobbying and discussion about it. I'm glad it turned out the way it did. And no, I'm not a white male with no criminal record! I'm a Hispanic man with 2 felony convictions who thinks felons should NOT have the right to vote.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    If we say that an individual "steps outside society" or violates some portion of the "social contract" then it is logical to ask how can we tell when someone has indeed done this? I would argue that given the arbitrary nature of the criminal justice system, it is an imperfect device for detecting who has "stepped outside" the bounds. Given that the advocates of disenfranchisement seek to essentially de-citizenize all convicted felons, is relaince on an imperfect sysytem morally justifiable? If we believe that someone is no longer deserving of basic fundamental rights such as privacy and the right to vote, then why would we ever let them out of prison in the first place. Instead of making them psuedo-citizens, shouldn't we just say...exile them?

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    Sebastianguy99: If you don't mind, point out in the constitution where the "right to vote" is mentioned.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Johnny on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:06:16 AM EST
    Also Wile, point out where a felon is denied the vote. Or where a woman has no right to choose. Or where an unregulated gun owner is within his rights. Do not throw the constitution into this.

    Sebastianguy99: These are not "arbitrary" decisions: the legal standard for conviction is very high. Specifically, the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is based on the idea that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to convict one innocent man. If the system is, as you say, "morally unjustifiable," then loss of voting rights is the least of the problem. After all, we deny these people almost every basic right when we put them behind bars. You ask the question: "Why do we ever let them out?" Society has decided that they are willing to accept a certain amount of risk. However, many states have also decided that habitual offenders or individuals who commit very serious crimes aren't worth the risk, and they never let them out -- period. Johnny: The Constitution does not define the rights of felons -- either those behind bars or those on parol or those who have been released. The Constitution also doesn't define the rights of children, the mentally ill, resident aliens, and illegal aliens, just to name a few.

    Wiley, the right to vote "is mentioned" implicitedly in Article 4 Sec. IV and Amendment XII,and directly in Amendment XIV, Amendment XV,Amendment XVII,Amendment XIX,Amendment XXIV, and Amendment XXVI! However, the reasons raised for denying felons were not constitutionally based, they were in fact based on ideology/philosophy. That the Constitution mentions the right to vote extensively would seem to make it clear that voting is fundamental to full citizenship. If this is so, then disenfranchisment beyond the term of punishment is an indirect method of creating a certain lower caste of "citizens". My point was simply, if someone has broken the "social contract" in such a way that would make them permenantly defective, and as a consequence of this defect they should no longer be full citizens, then they should never be returned into society. A punishment that lasts a life-time,but doesn't require a coterminous incarceration, but does render the individual all but a non-citizen, is beyond cruel and unusual.

    ...sorry, but I failed to properly address the above post...

    "oK...SURE...": RE: "However, the reasons raised for denying felons were not constitutionally based, they were in fact based on ideology/philosophy." I hope you're not advocating strict constructionism because, if you are, most of what liberals have added to Constitutional law over the years would go away. RE: "That the Constitution mentions the right to vote extensively would seem to make it clear that voting is fundamental to full citizenship." Yes, and as long as due process is observed, basic rights can be denied/revoked. That's why the society has the constitutional authority to put people behind bars -- among other things. RE: "If this is so, then disenfranchisment beyond the term of punishment is an indirect method of creating a certain lower caste of "citizens"." There is no "disenfranchisment beyond the term of punishment." The disenfanchisment and the loss of other rights is part of the punishment. RE: "My point was simply, if someone has broken the "social contract" in such a way that would make them permenantly defective, and as a consequence of this defect they should no longer be full citizens, then they should never be returned into society." It has nothing to do with being "defective". One of the many reasons is that the individual has demonstrated that he or she is not to be trusted. If I have demonstrated to you that I don't intend to obey the Law, why would you want to give me the right to help elect officials that write or enforce the Law. Won't I select individuals who will undermine the portions of the Law that I intend to break? RE: "A punishment that lasts a life-time,but doesn't require a coterminous incarceration, but does render the individual all but a non-citizen, is beyond cruel and unusual." The argument has been made and repeatedly rejected. Also, please re-read some of the case law or even what is written here: states have different methods for re-acquiring the right to vote. That means it is not a lifetime sentence. Also, I hope that you aren't one of these people who never worried about this while the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Congress wrote the 1993 Violent Crime Control Act. That legislation created huge numbers of new felons and denied them the right to vote. Numerous articles have been written that if that one law had not been signed, thousands of people in FL would have voted for Vice President Gore in 2000, and Gore would have won the election. I don't recall much of a debate in 1993 about this back then. I can't help but notice that since 1993 the DNC has become a minority party and is looking to acquire a new constituency. Funny how the disenfranchisment is suddenly a serious issue for many Democrats.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mike on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    Bill of Rights, Article 15, Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to VOTE shall NOT be DENIED or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE. Bill of Rights, Article 13, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Seems to explain the question. And if a person is denied rights due to a previous condition of servitude, and is paying taxes, isn't that "taxation without representation? And, if Congress cannot pass a law against these rights, where do these black robed usurpers get their jurisdiction to hear a case without a law being passed to establish juridiction? But of course these are just words on paper that don't mean what they say.

    Mike: These individuals are not being deprived of rights based on race nor involuntary servitude. They are being deprived of rights based on their criminal convictions. As the 13th Amendment states, "the party shall have been duly convicted". They have. If you believe that that is wrong, then please expain the rational basis for the State having the right to put them in prison. By the way, "taxation without representation" was a rallying cry of the American Revolution (not in the Constitution), but I don't think that the individual who made that remark had felons in mind. I would imagine that he was thinking about the rights of people who have done nothing wrong and still weren't treated as citizens.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mike on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    Involuntary servitude..."except as punishment for a crime"............ No punishment for crime=no conviction. When you have served your "involuntary servitude" your time is up and rights are restored. Or do we only have some rights after a conviction?...Show me that in the Bill of Rights. It isn't there.

    Re: 11th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ex- Felon Voting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mike on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    See Las Vegas review Journal Dec. 29, 2002 Page 2d. Vin Suprynowicz editorial, "What's this business about restoring rights?"

    Mike: RE: "When you have served your 'involuntary servitude' your time is up and rights are restored." It says no such thing. It says that involuntary servitude is allowed under these conditions. It does not specify that other rights are restored, and it cannot be implied. RE: "Or do we only have some rights after a conviction?..." Yes. Take a look at what the law says concerned Megan's Law, just as an example. These people have served their time, and every legal trick has been pulled by some of the best legal minds around to get their fundamental rights restored. It didn't work. Read some case law on the subject. And like I said before, I wouldn't try saying that if the Bill of Rights doesn't have it, it doesn't exist. There are a lot of things that liberals love about modern Constitutional Law that aren't in the Bill of Rights that would go right out the window.

    "Wake up and smell ..." RE: Death penalty argument Correlation doesn't show cause-an-effect. RE: "Only a moron thinks permanent disenfranchisment will not lead to the creation of a permenent class of dissaffected--and dangerous--sub-citizens. " This is an interesting idea but weak for several reasons: 1. Don't lead with an insult: it turns people off. 2. "Permanent disenfranchisement" isn't the issue in this case. 3. The key point is that disaffected individuals are likely to be repeat offenders. That's an interesting idea -- and one that is rarely heard, but it is overshadowed by the fact that (a) Convictions are public records, and they follow the person around wherever they go, greatly impacting the person's ability to get a job. (b) The environment currently in prisons does not create citizens. It is a brutal environment that hardens criminals, creates an atmosphere of despiration, and teaches criminal methods. (By the way, that comes from years of experience, particularly from my first wife and her friends at the DOC.) The rest of this is just a rant at the criminal justice system. If that's what you really believe then please consider: 1. Loss of voting rights is not the problem. 2. It ain't "your crappy justice system"; it's yours, too. Try to help fix it. For one thing, next time the summons for jury duty comes in the mail, actually serve. Most people don't. 3. Do mistakes happen? Sure. This is a man-made system administered by human beings. It's still the best system we have, and it is argueably better than any other country's. 4. The people I know who work within the system are good people. They really work for justice and what to do the right thing. God knows they'd make more money in the private sector. The biggest single cause of problems (in my experience) is lack of resources. The system is overwhelmed.

    Just checking back to see if there is a response... I'd like to add one more item to my list of things to do if you think that the judicial system is broken: 5. Stop advocating new laws, and start tearing down existing laws. Not far from where I live there is a state run by liberal Democrats. Every year, their state legislature takes it upon themselves the terrible burden of telling their citizens what they can and cannot do. And every year they add more and more laws to the books, making more and more activities illegal or more illegal than it was before. There are those who believe that in such states it is already difficult for an honest person to live without breaking some law.

    Why bother to vote anyway. Being dragged to be a Jurior is inferior, to be exempt is a Honorable Status. No one in Florida Running for election would help an ex-felon anyway. They all hate them. It's like worrying which cop should arrest them. I think the ex-felon should keep fighting them though. It's the best way for the state to keep on it's P and Q. No body I know wants the KKK criminals elected or the Drug Cartel. The fight is the only American Way.....War what is it good for?....THIS

    But the appeals court, in an opinion noting that about 70 percent of the plaintiff class is white,(Aryan, KKK etc.. Costra Nostra...The Giovanni Family; The Angelo Family; The Corleone Family) tossed the case out of court in a 79-page ruling.