Latest Headlines
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
- Still Time To Sign Up! Let The Miracle League Fry Your Thanksgiving Turkey
- Tate Aggies Beat Atmore Blue Devils 71-68 In Nailbiter Home Opener (With Gallery)
- FDLE Charges Escambia Man With Child Porn Possession
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road
Justices Approve Felon Rights, Gambling Initiatives
April 24, 2017
In a pair of high-profile issues that could go on the ballot next year, the Florida Supreme Court has approved proposed constitutional amendments that would restore felons’ voting rights and restrict the expansion of gambling in the state.
The court’s approval of the measures is a critical initial step, but supporters still face the task of collecting hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to get the proposals on the November 2018 ballot.
Groups backing both initiatives quickly said they will move forward with collecting and submitting the required 766,200 signatures to reach the ballot. Supporters of the gambling measure had submitted 74,626 signatures as of last week, while backers of the felon-voting initiative had submitted 71,209, according to the state Division of Elections.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has approved the language of this amendment and we can move forward with our efforts to ensure that Florida voters — not gambling industry influence and deal making — are the ultimate authority when it comes to deciding whether or not to expand gambling in our state,” said John Sowinski, chairman of Voters In Charge, a group spearheading the gambling measure.
The Supreme Court does not rule on the merits of proposed constitutional amendments but looks at issues such as whether ballot titles and summaries would be clear to voters and whether initiatives comply with a single-subject requirement.
The court unanimously signed off on the proposal that would automatically restore the voting rights of many felons after they have completed the terms of their sentences. The amendment would not apply to people convicted of murder and felony sexual offenses.
The issue of restoring felon rights has long been controversial in Florida, with critics of the state’s process comparing it to post-Civil War Jim Crow policies designed to keep blacks from casting ballots. A system approved in 2011 by Gov. Rick Scott and the Cabinet required felons convicted of nonviolent crimes to wait a minimum of five years to have their rights restored, while others could wait up to 10 years before being eligible to apply.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and other supporters of the process have argued that the restoration of voting rights for felons should be earned and only after a sufficient waiting period.
But the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which is helping lead efforts to pass the ballot initiative next year, said the proposal would bring Florida in line with other states.
“Now the work of gathering signatures and mounting a successful campaign to change the Florida Constitution begins in earnest,” Kirk Bailey, ACLU of Florida political director, said in a prepared statement. “We look forward to Florida voters being given a chance to bring our state’s voting rules out of the 19th century and into the 21st.”
The Supreme Court was more divided about whether the gambling-related initiative should move forward. The measure was approved in a 4-2 decision, with Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Charles Canady in the majority and justices Ricky Polston and R. Fred Lewis dissenting. Justice Alan Lawson, who joined the court at end of December, did not take part.
If the amendment is approved in November 2018, it would give voters the “exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling” in the state. It would require voter approval of casino-style games.
Polston, in a dissenting opinion joined by Lewis, argued the proposal is misleading and violates the single-subject requirement. He contended, in part, that the proposal would not fully inform voters about its possible effects on a constitutional amendment passed in 2004 that authorized slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Under that amendment, local voters also had to approve the slot machines.
“The initiative is placing voters in the position of deciding between a preference for controlling the expansion of full-fledged casino gambling and Florida’s current legal gaming landscape,” Polston wrote.
But the majority rejected arguments that it should block the measure from going on the ballot.
“The opponents primarily argue that the initiative should not be placed on the ballot because it is unclear whether, if passed, the amendment would apply retroactively and what effect, if any, the amendment would have on gambling that is currently legal in Florida — including gambling that was previously authorized by general law rather than by citizens’ initiative,” the majority wrote. “However, as the sponsor points out, the opponents’ arguments concern the ambiguous legal effect of the amendment’s text rather than the clarity of the ballot title and summary.”
by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
Comments
10 Responses to “Justices Approve Felon Rights, Gambling Initiatives”
CONTEMPLATING:
“If they’ve done their time, then their debt to “society” has been paid.”
Nah, that is just a fiction. They have been punished as law and juries determined but there was no payment, just a cost. In fact they even cost society while in prison.
Just let them vote throughout, no matter what they’ve done, who they killed or raped or robbed. That can never be paid. So don’t bother to pretend it’s paid, therefor let them vote all along; don’t wait until they’re out of prison.
David for better people
How many drivers loose their privilege to drive after receiving a ticket? How many banned from the library after turning in a book late? How many loose their right to speak after uttering slander?
If they’ve done their time, then their debt to “society” has been paid. They may have a debt to pay to the victim, but their general, basic rights should be restored. Having to pay taxes and not getting a say in government…sounds familiar. I believe a war was fought over the same issue. *sarcasm off*.
There is no real reason to take away convicted felons’ voting rights in the first place.
(Just like their right to keep and bear arms. They might need them. Rumor has it that there are some dangerous people in prison. Would YOU want to face them unarmed?)
Sure, they might vote wrongly while in prison, but nearly everybody agrees nearly half voted wrongly last time — winning side and losing side, they figure the folks who voted for the other candidate must be crazy, criminal or both.
And what about those who were such bad citizens that they didn’t vote despite not yet having been convicted of a felony? Who’s worse? a person who doesn’t care enough to vote or a cold-blooded murderer? Hmm, that didn’t sound right.
Last I heard, people in prison expressed basically the same attitude toward issues as those outside of prison — other than being a bit more of what many call “conservative” than the general population. Sure, there were some minor differences such as those which led to their “unfortunate incarceration” but not enough to matter.
And while I’m not the other David addressed in “@David, Please?????? Someone could very easily feed you oatmeal and call it grits,” I would like to point out that oatmeal and grits are both gooood.
David for better voters
by any means necessary
There is no justification whatsoever to withhold the rights of a felon who has completed his or her sentence. How an ex-felon votes is immaterial to this issue. This is about basic humanity and fairness. By withholding the right to vote from someone who has paid their debt to society, we are telling them that they will never complete their sentence and will continue to pay for their crime until they die. Sorry Chris, but this centrist liberal thinks your viewpoint is way out of line with the foundations of our justice system. If you want to take the true conservative position on this issue, then you’ll be supporting the immediate restoration of voting rights upon completion of a sentence. Only 9 of the 50 states take the position that Florida does. 41 of the 50 states either never suspend voting rights, suspend them only while a felon is incarcerated, or automatically restore voting rights after time served. Why should Florida be so outside the mainstream (and be so fundamentally unfair)? See: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx
When people have a limited vocabulary and intelligence to add…they resort to name calling. Seek professional please.
@Chris in Molino: I agree. But, could not there be a 10 year clean requirement?
Also, I want more gambling not less. I mean, it’s been SO terrible for Biloxi… eye roll.
@David, Please?????? Someone could very easily feed you oatmeal and call it grits.
Then I suppose we ought to let anyone vote regardless of what they’ve done or who they are. Even illegal immigrants. Hell, as much as our govt pays more attention to the rest of the world than its own citizens, may as well let them vote also. Idiot.
How a person votes is no ones business, that would be of low moral standards along with poor character values to have assessed that issue
If not, a dictator would soon follow as put forth in respect
While I am a felon myself, being convicted of numerous felonies as a teen, I am against felons having rights restored. In today’s world of instant gratification and high percentage of people thinking others owe them something, most felons will no doubt vote for idiot liberals who have already broken down the morals, character, values, even freedoms of America. We do not need any more programs to give more of our country away. I’m sorry liberals but my head isn’t stuck in the sand. You can’t feed me oatmeal and tell me it’s grits.