Judge Orders New System Of Restoring Felon Rights

March 28, 2018

A federal judge permanently blocked Florida’s “fatally flawed” process of restoring voting rights, giving Gov. Rick Scott and the Board of Executive Clemency a month to come up with a new system of providing ex-felons the right to vote.

In Tuesday’s order, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker repeatedly chided Scott and the state clemency board — comprised of Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi, state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam — for the current restoration process and for threatening to scrap the system altogether after the judge last month struck down the process as unconstitutional.

Walker, siding with the voting-rights group Fair Elections Legal Network, last month found that the state’s clemency system is arbitrary and violated First Amendment rights and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In his Feb. 1 order, Walker asked both sides to propose a new method to restore voting rights to ex-felons, who now must wait five or seven years after their sentences are complete to apply to have their rights restored in a process Walker said gives “unfettered discretion” to the board.

In a brief filed last month, attorneys for the state argued that Florida could permanently do away with the restoration of civil rights, sparking a rebuke from Walker in Tuesday’s order.

“This court is not the Vote-Restoration Czar. It does not pick and choose who may receive the right to vote and who may not,” Walker began Tuesday’s 22-page order.

Walker accused the state of choosing to “essentially repackage the current scheme” that would allow Scott and the clemency board “to do, as the governor described, ‘whatever we want’ in denying voting rights to hundreds of thousands of their constituents.”

“This will not do,” Walker wrote.

On the other side, the plaintiffs asked Walker to restore the right to vote to former felons who had completed their sentences and had already gone through a five- or seven-year waiting period.

“But such relief is beyond the scope of this court’s authority,” Walker wrote, adding that “any perceived policy weaknesses” regarding the restoration of voting rights can be cured through ballot initiatives or legislative acts.

While Walker did not lay out a new process or establish new time limits, the judge ordered the board to move forward with time constraints “that are meaningful, specific, and expeditious.”

“Absent extraordinary circumstances, this court cannot conceive of any reason why an applicant at any point must wait more than one election cycle after she becomes eligible to apply for restoration,” the judge wrote.

Scott was instrumental in establishing the more onerous restoration-of-rights process almost immediately after he took office in 2011.

Scott spokesman John Tupps said Tuesday it is up to “officials elected by Floridians, not judges … to determine Florida’s clemency process for convicted felons.”

“This is outlined in Florida’s Constitution and has been in place for more than a century and under multiple gubernatorial administrations,” Tupps said in a statement. “The governor continues to stand with victims of crime. He believes that people who have been convicted of felony offenses including crimes like murder, violence against children and domestic violence, should demonstrate that they can live a life free of crime while being accountable to our communities.”

Walker’s order found that the restoration-of-rights portion of Florida’s Constitution, along with the executive clemency rights-restoration process, run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Relying on a footnoted quote from legendary screen character Rocky Balboa, Walker mocked the defendants, writing that they claimed “the current scheme is all sunshine and rainbows.”

And Walker invoked history as a lesson in the significance of “free association and free expression to choose public officials” to represent people and advance public policy.

“These interests are why Americans launched a revolution against perceived unfettered discretion in the hands of one high-ranking official, King George III,” Walker wrote.

Walker also cautioned that there is a risk that the clemency board “may engage in viewpoint discrimination through seemingly neutral rationales” such as traffic citations or a “perceived lack of remorse” that “serve as impermissible” masks for censorship.

“Therefore, the board must promulgate specific standards and neutral criteria to direct its decision-making,” Walker ordered.

The standards and criteria “cannot be merely advisory, a Potemkin village for anyone closely reviewing the scheme,” the judge elaborated, instructing the board not to rely “on whims, passing emotions or perceptions.”

“Establishing safeguards against viewpoint discrimination should be the board’s paramount goal following this order,” Walker instructed.

Scott and the clemency board “balk at injunctive relief” partly because of “a presumption of regularity,” Walker wrote.

“This argument boils down to ‘trust us — we got this,’ ” he wrote.

Walker also took note of “problems of potential abuse,” especially when clemency board members — who are statewide elected officials and who may be running for re-election or another office — “have a personal stake in shaping the electorate to their perceived benefit.”

“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people,” Walker wrote, quoting from a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

“Florida’s current scheme inverts that important democratic mechanism. It cannot do so anymore,” the judge wrote.

Walker ordered the clemency board to devise a constitutionally sound program with “specific, neutral criteria that excise the risk — and, of course, the actual practice of — any impermissible discrimination, such as race, gender, religion or viewpoint.”

Walker did not specify any particular process or criteria, but ordered that “Florida’s corrected scheme cannot be byzantine or burdensome.”

Walker also rejected arguments that the clemency board can’t handle what could be hundreds of thousands of applications for rights restoration.

“It is no excuse that the board lacks resources to abide by the federal Constitution’s requirements. If the board pursues policies that sever hundreds of thousands of Floridians from the franchise and, at the appropriate time, hundreds of thousands of Floridians want their voting rights back, the board must shoulder the burden of its policies’ consequences,” Walker wrote. “They cannot continue to shrug off restoration applications indefinitely.”

Walker also chastised Scott and the board for threatening to put an end to the rights-restoration process.

Even though he found that the state’s “arbitrary slow drip” of restoring rights violates the U.S. Constitution, “that does not mean defendants can shut off the spigot of voting rights with a wrench, yank it from the plumbing, and throw the whole apparatus into the Gulf of Mexico,” Walker wrote.

“Having lost their ability to re-enfranchise citizens at a snail’s pace guided by absolutely nothing, Defendants threats to arbitrarily and completely end the vote-restoration scheme is tantamount to picking up one’s marbles and going home,” he scolded.

by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida

Comments

9 Responses to “Judge Orders New System Of Restoring Felon Rights”

  1. David Huie Green on March 29th, 2018 12:23 am

    REGARDING:
    “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”

    Notice none of those reasons listed in the 15th Amendment are cited under denial due to felonies. Just trying to keep matters straight.

    David for living straight
    and voting regardless

  2. jerry on March 28th, 2018 10:30 pm

    “The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: “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”

    No one should be able to take away someones right to vote . Just like the gun guys quote the constitution about being able to own guns . It doesnt say ” you can vote unless we dont feel like letting you “

  3. Same-O-Same-O on March 28th, 2018 10:12 pm

    My parents were devoted Democrats…Dixiecrats. The party of FDR and the old southern politicians helped them out of the depression ( with the help of WWII.) I am a registered Republican. The fight continues, and will not be settled in my lifetime. I am also a retired LEO, and I feel the in- your- face attitude of a majority of the “ex-felons” will cause them to seek the party, or vice versa, that will give them the most benefits, earned, or not. This will be a real catch-22 for the future of our nation and grandchildren.

  4. David Huie Green on March 28th, 2018 1:17 pm

    REGARDING:
    “The whole point of incarceration is supposed to be rehabilitation/restitution to society. If this wasn’t true then why do we have life sentences/death penalty?”

    The whole point of incarceration is not supposed to be rehabilitation/restitution to society — although that CAN be part of it. In fact the fact that we DO have life sentences and the death penalty shows that fact. Locking a man up forever is pointedly NOT worrying about restoring him to society. Killing a killer is NOT rehabilitating him. They are removing a threat to society.

    The idea that you might get people to repent of evil and turn to good is a relatively recent addition to the thinking and it has not worked as well as was hoped.

    That said, the simplest solution to restoring voting rights is to not take them away in the first place. Let the murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thieves vote. Shoot, let them serve on juries. They would bring a unique perspective to the matter.

    There is no such thing as an ex-felon since a felon is “a person who has been convicted of a felony” whether that felon has been incarcerated or not, is on probation or not, was convicted yesterday or 80 years ago. They may vote unwisely or not, but so do the rest of us.

    Besides, Governor Scott may need his civil rights someday too.

    David for treating as we would like to be treated

  5. c on March 28th, 2018 10:05 am

    Not sure I follow you there Tabby. The whole point of incarceration is supposed to be rehabilitation/restitution to society. If this wasn’t true then why do we have life sentences/death penalty? Those people did something so bad that society cannot forgive and they must never return. To force these people who have served their time for lesser crimes to wait even longer, just to vote, is hateful, as well as unconstitutional. When they walk out of prison they should get their rights back, otherwise, just don’t let them out. It doesn’t have to be complicated

  6. retired on March 28th, 2018 9:44 am

    they knew the consequences if they committed the crime. NO RESTORE OF VOTING RIGHTS, CAN’T TRUST THEIR JUDGEMENT

  7. Grand Locust on March 28th, 2018 8:13 am

    The bill of rights protected each of us from government and monarchy. The British systematically exploited the American public with courts and convictions able to at will convict colonist with felonies.

    Do they take the right of a felon to speak under the 1st? Do they take the right of a felon to buy property under the fifth? Does the military now get to house troops in a felon’s house under the 3rd? Can the British troops just arrest a citizen without due process under the 4th where no longer they need probable cause or a warrant to enter a felon’s home? Do we now allow the British troops to take a felon out to the public whipping pole and give out cruel punishment under the 8th?

    Nope. We take their vote and guns which are protected rights under the bill of rights, Why have a bill of rights? Where in our constitution does it say a felon lose their citizenship? Quite the contrary the 8th amendment forbids what we are doing to our citizens.

  8. Tabby on March 28th, 2018 6:58 am

    While I appreciate Judge Walkers views and partly agree that once a convicted felon finishes their sentence, they should have rights restored, it’s not that simple. There shouldn’t be an automatic reset button. The sentence for their crime and the responsibility to society are two separate animals altogether. They violated the trust of a law abiding society who had no constraints on them to start with. To get back that trust, it MUST BE earned. That is the only way society as a whole can trust a felon again. If the felon was true to his plight, he would appreciate that fact.

  9. No Sympathy Here on March 28th, 2018 6:16 am

    These convicted felons can always move to another state that will restore their voting rights quickly – how about California!