Could it be that Trump is upset about Michigan and Nevada promoting mail-in ballots because that will make it harder for his Russia allies to hack the technology associated with the voting?
ROFLMAO. No. He knows the Demonrats want to steal the election through voter fraud and not making people show up at the polls with proper identification will grease that wheel for them. Then they can go ballot harvesting to Skid Row, nursing homes, nuthouses, illegal alien homes, and cemeteries.
Do you think they already do that in the states that have mail-in ballots?
Is it true that ballots will only be mailed to vetted addresses drawn from registered voters lists that have returned their application for a mail-in ballot?
The five states with all mail in ballots have some of the lowest electoral fraud in the nation. WA, OR, Utah, CO and HI. Average score is 70 (out of 100). The lowest scores? In the south, average score in the 50s.
The Electoral Integrity Project PEI-US 2016 (1.0)
given the current pandemic, one would think the safest way to do voting is by mail, or maybe invent a way to do it online as well. However, it does seem like the media wants Trump to lose though which makes me think there might be a coercion taking place to try to get him out of office and maybe that's what Trump is scared of. I don't know. Not a trump supporter, but I do agree with him that there is a big bias in the media these days; especially when you consider the fact that China has invested billions into Hollywood so it's not hard to imagine why most celebrities and media don't say anything bad about China.
And here is some background on the lengths they went to in 2016:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top … -election/
Yes, that, and knowing that a good turnout will favor Biden and the down ballot races while suppressing the vote will favor him and Republicans.
Trump says that universal availability of mail in ballots guarantees that Republicans can't win an election.
Why is that?
How can so much of this virtually non existent fraud they say will result with absentee/mail in ballots be sufficient to insure universal GOP defeat?
Republicans are afraid of universal participation as they fear that they would lose?
Pretty pi$spoor to think that your success relies on fewer people voting rather than more.
Seems the very antithesis of a participatory democracy. What are Republicans advocating that they would be so afraid of greater participation by the wider electorate?
Whatever, I say that is just TOO BAD for them.
Well, that was certainly pointed. Too bad its conclusion demolished its foundation.
Oh, come on, GA! Everybody knows Trump and Putin are best buds, spending weeks together every year at popular brothels, like the remodeled Camp David (have you seen the new stripper poles installed there)?
By now we all know about Putin's trip as well - brought by Russian sub up the Potomac into Washington D.C., and unloaded in the underwater tunnel entrance to the Jefferson Memorial. Then flown in the cloaked, undetectable saucer brought in from Area 51 up to Camp David for the past 2 months of debauchery with Trump, just the two of them in the whole Camp.
You really need to keep up with the news, GA!
Which part of that conclusion do you dispute?
The part in 2016 where Trump broke campaign laws by using foundation funds on his campaign. The part where Cohen got sent to prison for violating campaign laws when he illegally reimbursed Daniels?
Or the part in 2020 where Trump has already been impeached for trying to blackmail Ukraine into creating a fake announcement of an investigation in the Bidens?
Just wondering where the conclusion missed you?
You mean the faux impeachment that was summarily "thrown out of court" as soon as it was presented to those judging it's merits? That impeachment?
(Do you find it odd or depressing that a certain segment of our society determines guilt, not by the a declaration of those tasked with determining guilt or innocence, but by popular opinion of other people just as biased as that segment is? It certainly appears that the "hanging mob" is alive and well in the land of liberals.)
It would have to be the 2020 part Valeant. I have to admit that when I read the "He cheated in 2016" part my thoughts skipped right past your valid 2016 points and went to the 'Russia' "cheating" thing.
It appears y'all only question one out of nine
We're getting somewhere.
Oh, probably not.
I find it irritating that our Governor DeSantis, here in Florida, has been so stubborn in his determination to defy the will of the electorate who decided that ex-felons would have their voting rights restored in Nov. 2018.
He and the loathsome GOP were going to neutralize that mandate by requiring that these individuals pay a plethora of fines and fees which most could not pay, and the GOP knows that, as a precondition to vote.
The Rightwinger takes it the bread basket this time with the recent judicial ruling saying that the Republicans are using illegal poll tax tactics prohibited in the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. Am I prohibited from voting because I have an unpaid traffic ticket?
And DeSantis is still to get around complying with the court orders.
Damn, they must be some bad-ass traffic tickets down there in Florida—if an unpaid one can turn you into a felon.
I don't know as traffic tickets make a felon - this just appears more like loathsome leftwing judges legislating from the bench by declaring that fines assessed for illegal activities are to be called a "poll tax" and thus give liberals new votes with which to control the population. It takes a special kind of political activism and dishonesty to turn a fine assessed to a few into a "poll tax" when such taxes were assessed to all.
yeah, wellll . . . I don't agree. I am all for felons getting their voting Rights back.
Considering my perception of a typical felon leaving prison—that they probably barely have bus fare, I think the insistence that they pay the monetary costs associated with their crime before getting their voting Rights back sounds exactly like a poll tax.
A quick look around found that there could be multiple sources of state monetary charges incurred on the way to prison; public defender costs, (yes, unless you meet poverty guidelines there is a cost), court costs, fines, institutional costs, parole compliance costs, etc. etc.
In short, to me, the requirement that all these costs be satisfied—after you have served the time, before you can vote is exactly in the spirit of Poll taxes.
As a side note; in my 'brief' look-around I found no mention of financial accommodations like payment plans or income-level abatements to help ex-inmates satisfy their obligations. Once more, the spirit of a Poll tax; if you have property or money you are home free. if not; too bad, so sad.
Actually, I am too. Give them their voting rights - they have paid their debt to society.
Except that they haven't, have they? But I would certainly call it "paid" for purposes of voting if there were payments being made. Income level abatements I don't know about, but payment plans are usually available. It would take a real idiot to assume that a multi year felon just released from a life denying any income would have thousands in their wallet.
But a poll tax? I'm unaware of any such tax that was not applied to everyone wanting to vote. Not just felons - everyone. And those fines are NOT assessed that way, making them something other than a poll tax. As I said, just a not-so-clever method of legislating from the bench to change the definition and application of a poll tax to include money owed to the state or others.
Of course, I don't know the wording of laws prohibiting a poll tax, so perhaps it does include any money owed to anyone at all, including the state.
Finally, I agree that unpaid fines and fees are not a reason to deny voting. I just don't like judges legislating from the bench, and I see this ploy as exactly that.
Maybe this slight disagreement ios just a matter of perception.
Without any links or 'expert' interpretations, my perception of the concept of a "Poll tax" is simply the disenfranchisement of voters based on economic parameters.
If that is incorrect then my comment has no footing. But if it does capture the essence of Poll Taxes, ( as multiple Court rulings seem to confirm), then I stand with my comment—to demand a monetary settlement in exchange for the Right to vote does seem to fit the original concept of Poll Taxes.
They, (poll taxes), were wrong in our early history and they are just as wrong now. I can't agree that this is a case of liberal courts legislating from the bench—it seems like the court upholding a just Right to me.
I fully agree that poll taxes were wrong; any requirement intended to require money in return for the right to vote is wrong.
Is a speeding ticket intended to require money in return for the right to vote? Court fees? Victim compensation? These are all court ordered payments to the court or victim to compensate for the financial cost of a crime - they are not there as a requirement for voting. At the same time we don't allow inmates to vote...because a court sentenced them to prison, sometimes even long after they get out. I'm not seeing the difference between unpaid fines and prison time as both are court ordered for other purposes than voting. Easy to violate the intent, though, by merely assessing fines for the (hidden) purpose of limiting voter franchise...just like it would be easy to jail people for a week over the voting day.
Well, hell Wilderness. This is another example of why 'some folks' have such a problem with you.
I can't deny that your logic is sound—the prison time is, (or can be), only part of society's demanded cost of the crime. Which means I also can't deny the technical correctness of your resistance to the comparison of those crime financial punishments to Poll taxes.
But, that doesn't yet change my perception that the requirement for full payment of those costs before returning voting Rights is, in essence, fulfilling the "spirit" of a Poll tax.
Sooo. . . I guess I need to look at the actual law to decide whether the court's actions, (even though I currently agree with them), are actually a case of legislating from the bench as you claim.
The plot thickens. An interesting read on the topic: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendme … nitiative_(2018)
" Hinkle said that felons (a) who could not afford an attorney and were therefore appointed one and (b) who had their legal financial obligations converted to civil liens could register to vote. Other felons who are unable to pay their financial obligations could request a determination from Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee (R), who must issue the determination within 21 days and must include information such as how much money is owed and how the state calculated the amount. If the Secretary of State does not issue the determination within 21 days of receipt, the felon would be allowed to register to vote."
As I read it, the poor may vote without having to pay the fines, but those that are able, at any personal cost, must pay before voting. Certainly a fair decision by a judge treating all the same, right?!?
(That decision also splits you and I right down the middle, right? Some get to vote, some do not, all based on unpaid fines, fees and restitution included in a sentence.)
Ha! I read this after completing a reply to you, in which I included the same link and the same inference to you. Must be that Great minds . . . " thing ;-)
However, I am not sure it does "split you and I down the middle." I think the "civil liens" part is important. The question of why some fines and fees are almost automatically converted to liens and others aren't, seems an important distinction.
It appears the court is playing Soloman in deciding—right off the bat, who is indigent and who isn't. Since a civil lien is a discharge of an obligation to the court and would not hinder restoring voting Rights, I think that only reinforces my position that this requirement, (the argument of fines and fees being paid as a prerequisite), is an arbitrary action that results in an effect similar to that of a poll tax. As you imply, not exactly a shining example of fairness.
As I read more about this I have come to believe my original thoughts were on track. Maybe not so much as a comparison to an actual Poll tax, (the court opinion agreed it was not equitable to a Poll tax), but firmly on track in that it placed the restoration of the Right to vote firmly in the light of financial ability—the spirit of a Poll tax, and I think that is wrong.
To restate what I stated in my mentioned reply to you, I think this court got it right. It wasn't legislating from the bench, it was a court doing what it is supposed to do.
If there is any 'slap' to be made it should be to the Florida legislature for the ambiguity of its efforts. Why didn't they stop with "completion of sentence," instead of opening the door to this problem with their inclusion of "parole or probation" which seems to just naturally define "sentence" as a 'time served' thing?
Well, I've about come over to your side...except for the bit about the poor getting to vote while people with some assets of money have to give it to the court in order to vote. Not reasonable IMO.
But no, it was not decided it was a poll tax - that came purely out of the reporter, whether posting here or simply taking what someone else said. The court never made that distinction and so did not legislate from the bench. Although the Constitution very definitely DOES mention a "tax", and the court went further in declaring that ANY requirement for money paid to be unacceptable. I believe that IS in their job description, and although the expansion is debatable in a court of law, I also think the SCOTUS will side with the circuit court if it comes to that.
So I took a look at the questioned provision of the law:
"Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation."
. . . with the controversial part bolded.
The argument, both here and in the courts was whether the financial aspects of the sentence were, first; intended to be included, and if so; was that inclusion constitutional, (relative to the restriction being implemented due to an inability to pay). In short, well-off felons could pay and vote, indigent felons could not vote.
I will leave a couple of links for anyone interested, but my conclusion is that the court was right to issue an injunction until either the legislature clarified the law and addressed the "indigent" aspects of it, or a higher court, (the Supreme Court) ruled on the constitutionality of the law as written. And my thought that you were "technically" correct is now dependent on legislative clarification.
The judge's decision addresses, in detail, the different financial tools considered in the law; restitution, fines, and fees. Curiously there was a strong argument that restitution, although generally included in the sentencing document, was not assessed to be a penalty of the sentencing—in essence, exempt from the "completion" requirement.
Also, several of the court fees were standardized fees that are unrelated to the actual sentence passed, (they were merely assessed due to being in court), and they were charged whether a defendant was judged guilty or not. (as in an Alfred, or No Contest plea).
The bottom line, for me. The law is unconstitutional because its application does serve the same disenfranchisement as a Poll tax—no pay, no play. The court was not legislating from the bench, it was doing what courts are supposed to do.
My bet: the Supreme Court will say the same thing and side with the judge.
Ballootpedia - a general summary of the case
The Judge's Injunction Ruling and Explanation* This reading is very informative concerning the reasoning of the ruling and strongly influenced my "bottom-line".
Bone up on the 24th Amendment, Wilderness, which will tell you what poll taxes are, its history, and the nature of their illegality. Calling Florida out for violations of the Constitution and its provisions is not "legislating from the bench".
And, yes, the Rightwinger has had his A$$ handed to him this time which may very well take Florida out of the GOP column this fall. So, excuse me if I retire to my glass of bubbly......
:-) Enjoy this good thing. We need good things right now.
Perhaps you should do so as well:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress (citizens have the right to elect their representatives in national, state, local and primary elections) shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
A fine for illegal activity, court fees, victim compensation, etc. are NOT a "poll tax or other tax". Until, that is, a liberal court redefines "fine" or "fee" to mean "tax", changing the meaning of the amendment. It's called "legislating from the bench" as far as I can see; the stretch to call victims compensation a "tax" is beyond reasonable. Don't pay your income tax; vote anyway. Don't pay your FICA tax; vote anyway. Don't pay sales tax; vote anyway. Don't pay my irrigation tax; vote anyway. Don't pay your property tax; vote anyway. Cheat on your gasoline tax (call it for farm use, maybe): vote anyway. Don't pay court ordered fines or fees that are part of a criminal sentence; well, it is not a tax to anyone not trying to increase the liberal voting base and, along with inmates sentenced to prison as part of their sentence, you don't get to vote.
(Question: do prison inmates there for tax evasion get to vote? Don't know the answer, but I doubt they do.)
The answer to your question is if they are incarcerated currently, they do not vote.
But if they have been released and since they have been involved with neither homicide nor sex related crimes, their voting rights have been restored.
That what it was we, the people of Florida, voted in favor of a year and a half ago. We said in that plebiscite that all felons once their sentences have been served with the exceptions above will have their voting rights restored. The Republican legislature had no right to further qualify the conditions of restored suffrage, nothing in the ballot initiative said anything about felons having to pay fines prior to being given the franchise. The ELECTORATE said what those conditions were and the legislative branch had no right to attempt to nullify the will of the electorate in this case with its unwarranted and restrictive provisions.
I don't care if the Republicans fear a rush of Democratic voters, that's too bad, for the people have spoken.
The judge slapped DeSantis and the Republicans down and they deserved it.
"But if they have been released and since they have been involved with neither homicide nor sex related crimes, their voting rights have been restored."
This is not always true. Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky and Mississippi require individual attention by the governor to restore voting rights.
But you claim the citizens of Florida decided to give the right to ex felons. According to Wikipedia, the amendment is as follows: "No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis."
Not only did the constituency decide that not all felons get to vote, but they required that felons "complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Nowhere in there does it say "all terms of their sentence except fees, fines, restitution and other court imposed penalties".
But the liberal court didn't like that - they wanted ex-felons to vote so declared that those "fees, fines, restitution and other court imposed penalties" are "poll taxes". They obviously are not, thus the term "legislating from the bench"
Will you actually argue that court imposed fines, fees and other penalties are actually taxes as the court did? Taxes the legislator did not enact, did not approve and do not carry the governor's signature but are still valid taxes?
*edit* see my answer and link to GA: the judge actually allowed the poor to vote, but anyone able to pay the money that does not do so, at any personal cost at all, may not vote. A fine interpretation of the Constitution!
Well, we here in Florida have decided that once the debt to society has been paid, the prior felon is free to access the franchise, the policies of other states are for other states.
"All terms" basically means "no terms", and the ballot initiative was a waste of the electorates' time.
The judge has said that the extent of this "restitution" remains in a bureaucratic thicket that the state is slow to entangle making the process just as onerous as those of the states you mentioned earlier.
We, the people wanted ex-felons to vote, that is what we said unanimously in Nov. 2019. I don't care what Republicans want.
The Judge found the requirements for restitution before accessing a ballot as onerous and so do I. It is just an excuse for the GOP to suppress votes as they always attempt to do. But, there is ever increasing light on this issue here and it will expose the GOP as a sworn enemy of Black people, if they continue down this path.
But, to bring clarity to my point, I offer this article.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05 … orida.html
"We, the people wanted ex-felons to vote, that is what we said unanimously in Nov. 2019."
No, you voted to allow ex-felons to vote [i]after their sentence was commuted". Specifically including ALL portions of the sentence, including parole, early release and any payments decreed by the court.
If you didn't want that you should not have voted for the amendment.
The judge in the case also addressed this aspect Cred—the Legislature's intended meaning vs. the electorate's understood meaning. It appears the best he could come up with was maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
" A critical question—even more important—is what a reasonable voter
would have understood the amendment’s language to mean. But the Florida Supreme Court has said that in construing amendments, the framers’ views are relevant. "
. . .
"In any event, voters might well have understood the amendment to require felons to meet all components of their sentence—whatever they might be—before automatically becoming eligible to vote. The plaintiffs say the voters’ intent was to restore the right of felons to vote and that all doubts should be resolved accordingly—that is, in favor of otherwise-disenfranchised felons. But that goes too far. The theory of most voters might well have been that felons should be allowed to vote only when their punishment was complete—when they “paid their debt to society.”
. . .
"The analysis of voters’ intent for restitution is similar, though on at least one view, restitution is imposed not so much as punishment as to provide just compensation to a victim. If voters intended “all terms of sentence” to mean punishment, restitution is not as clearly covered as fines. But voters might still have deemed restitution part of a felon’s “debt to society.”
. . .
". . . knew that a substantial number of Florida sentences include fines and restitution, knew that all Florida sentences include other financial obligations, or knew that most felons who have finished their time in prison and under supervision have not paid all these financial obligations. The erroneous estimate of the effect of the amendment, even if widely accepted, does not show that most voters thought the right to vote would be restored to those whose sentences included unpaid fines or restitution"
So it might not be so much a case of " . . . the Republican legislature had no right to further qualify the conditions of restored suffrage" as it is a case of misunderstanding—on both sides.
You could very well be correct in your view of the misunderstanding.
Most of us here in Florida intended in the ballot initiative to return the franchise to felons having done their time. To create a bureaucratic minefield to actually having that right to vote is probably why the GOP did not kick more dust about it before the Amendment was included as part of the ballot.
It turns out that as much of 20 percent of voting age African Americans in Florida are prohibited from voting as part of this felon thing. Generally voting Democratic, and with Florida being a swing state, the GOP must find a way to suppress that number of potential voters. The outcome of so many "blue" votes means that Florida could well turn blue. That has got to terrify Republicans. No one is fooled regarding their true intent
It's interesting that you think a good majority of ex-felons (and therefore incarcerated felons) are of the liberal persuasion. Why do you think that is? Why do liberals execute illegal activities more than the law abiding conservatives?
Maybe it's because he has educated himself to note that there are racial inequities in our justice system that disproportionately affect minorities instead of just making stupid statements. And that minorities tend to lean Democratic.
Wilderness, conservatives are not law abiding, just crooked in a different manner.
You are not going to find a great deal of wealthy in prison, so it is composed of the poor and disadvantaged for the most part. Poor and disadvantaged people usually don't vote Republican.
Why would these ex-felons vote for people that prefer to have them remain disenfranchised?
Minorities disproportionately fill our prisons, do we believe that there is not any bias as to how so many get there?
GOP is associated with the wealthy and oligarchy, while the Dems are not as slavish in that devotion. Who do you think the poor and disadvantaged are going to support?
Poor people are desperate people and tend to commit more crimes. It is just that crimes committed on the other end of the economic scale are not seen or treated in the same way. The system gives the "white collar" criminal an attaboy until they are caught.
Sounds like you're saying liberals are in prison more because they are poor and disadvantaged.
This doesn't fit with the accepted fact that poor, rural states are the ones voting Republican; the Democrat votes come from rich city dwellers. It is true, I think, that the poor urban people vote liberal; does that fit with liberals filling prisons? Only the city poor are criminals (relatively and statistically speaking of course - it's obvious that people country wide commit crimes), while rural poor are law abiding citizens on the conservative side of the political spectrum?
Why would that be? Because rich liberals refuse to share their wealth with the poor, making the difference so much more apparent in cities and giving rise to crime among liberal urban poor?
We already share our wealth, blue states relative to red states, when tax money collected is redistributed.
"Sounds like you're saying liberals are in prison more because they are poor and disadvantaged."
That is not what I said, I said that the poor and disadvantaged generally tend to vote democratic and lean left.
This is about race as much as it is about social class. Rural blacks in the South are certainly not voting Republican, why is that? For example, Alabama, Mississippi has a clear racial divide as to party affiliation and loyalty, that goes beyond social class.
Protection of the "white identity" (Trump and the Republicans) is more important to the rural white poor than supporting those that might actually address their grievances. Such must be the case because all rural poor do not vote the same way.
All blacks, rich or poor, within the last few election cycles have never given the GOP more than 10 percent of its vote. That statistic may not be as stark if you just generalized for the "poor" solely.
"Rural blacks in the South are certainly not voting Republican, why is that?"
I would have to disagree with that; when southern states, with a very high percentage of black voters, go solidly Republican it isn't coming from just white votes.
"Protection of the "white identity" (Trump and the Republicans) is more important to the rural white poor than supporting those that might actually address their grievances."
That's a big chunk of crock and you know it. It is statements like this that cause me to apply the "racist" label, even if silently.
But it now sounds like you're saying that, per capita, more blacks are in prison (or out as an ex-felon) than other races. That blacks are more likely to commit crimes, get caught and go to prison. Are you sure you want to go there?
"I would have to disagree with that; when southern states, with a very high percentage of black voters, go solidly Republican it isn't coming from just white votes."
Oh, yes it is..... this is an example of exit polls from the Alabama senate race in 2018 between Roy Moore(R) and Doug Jones (D)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … xit-polls/
the only reason Republicans win in Alabama is that there are more whites there than blacks.
"That's a big chunk of crock and you know it. It is statements like this that cause me to apply the "racist" label, even if silently."
No more outrageous than your claim that liberals are the most likely felons, I should think. This link might be a little hard for you to digest but just keep chewing...… sorry it is a little long, the last 2 or three paragraphs make it relevant to what is happening today.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ory-216200
yes, I say that per capita there are more blacks in prison than whites, I can't speak about Hispanics, etc. While they are more likely to commit crimes due to why it is that poorer and disadvantaged people always tend to commit more crime. They are also subjected to a law enforcement and legal environment that often times discriminates against them, we all know that except for you, of course. What does it take to get your boot from off of my neck, ask the deceased young man in the Twin Cities? So, I do go there, but for reasons that differ your pat explanations.
I agree with your thought that to Florida voters "terms of their sentence" was clearly understood to mean time—prison, parole, and probation, with no general thought that it also included the other stuff. That's is how I would have seen the initiative when voting on it.
And I also agree with you that I am right about the "misunderstanding" part, because when the ballot initiative was presented to the Florida Supreme court for approval to be put on the ballot—the state, (referred to as "The Secratary"), clearly answered the judges that fines and fees were included in the state's meaning of 'completion of their terms of sentence'.
Just a further thought Cred. I wonder what the reasoning is for the assumption that all those felons would be Democrat voters? (not picking on your assertions), just noting that seems to be a 'talking' point against restoring a felon's voting Rights.
Yes, your point about restitution as a requirement is a part is noted.
However, the GOP is aware that that requirement can allow them to drag on these restitution requirements over months and years, basically nullifying the intent of the Amendment 4.
Judge Hinkle has compromised with the corrupt GOP gang here in Florida. The burden of determining the restitution and the ability of the former felon to pay rests on the state as that information is lost as a bureaucratic thicket that it has been often said to be Undefined.
Well NOW, it WILL be determined within a specified period of time by the state with the burden of proof on the state or the former felon will not be prohibited from voting.
That is my take on it.
no, you missed it.
It is not about the "felon", it about anyone having to pay as a precondition to vote.
No amount of rational thought will ever sway Wilderness. It's best to ignore his comments like I have begun doing.
Since Florida is not saying that anyone who owes a fee to the state cannot vote, but just felons, then the case can be made that it would fall under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That this is a 'poll tax' specifically for this group of otherwise eligible voters.
Not seeing how a case can be made that a court imposed restitution is a "poll tax". It isn't paid to any part of the government, it is specific to just one individual and it has not been set by the state congress. All of which is required for a tax of any kind.
In this case, Florida is willing to overlook all other 'court imposed restitution' cases such as unpaid parking tickets or speeding tickets. If you are going to make payment of a fee a requirement to vote, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution grants equal protection under the laws.
So the case could easily be made, that any voter in Florida who has an outstanding fee, no matter the size, owed to state is thereby ineligible to vote until that fee is paid.
I don't think so Valeant. Primarily because the monies are directly tied to the "sentence terms."
Further; (and this based simply on my overview of the ruling, not an analysis)
The ruling referenced multiple cases with 14th Amendment applications and in the ones where he cited it as possibly applicable, they were dismissed because the plaintiff's case lacked merit to reach that applicability. (the merits of those dismissed cases were similar to the case in discussion)
On the one case cited as applicable, and, with merit, the claims of the plaintiffs were not of the nature as the case being discussed, so the citation did not note the case to be precedent for the case at hand.
In short, it appears to me that the judge is saying that (in his words), in a "rational-basis scrutiny" the 14th isn't applicable here because there are other state functions and mechanisms that could be used for the restoration of their voting Rights. *shrug I could be as wrong as I think I am right.
And finally, I don't think the "case" of your last statement could easily be made, because the entire argument hinges on the association of monies, (whether called restitution, fines, fees, or de facto taxes), with the specific issue of "terms of sentence." If I remember correctly, some folks here might toss in a charge of this being a 'false equivalency,' or, if I were feeling especially scholarly I might even toss in a claim of it being an error of 'logical fallacy'. ;-)
by Jack Lee 5 months ago
This election has been thrown into chaos and delayed due to mass main-in ballots...Is this a good idea going forward?
by Credence2 8 months ago
It is just dumb, why would the President even open this can of worms? It if were me, I would have asked privately about the possibility of postponing elections, before revealing to the entire world how ignorant I was about the nature and content of this nation's guiding document. Stupid stuff,...
by crankalicious 6 months ago
Reports from Georgia and Texas reveal people waiting in line to vote for up to 8 hours. This should simply not occur in our country. It is flat-out voter suppression and intimidation to make somebody wait 8 hours to vote.Where I live, I received my ballot in the mail. I filled it out the same day....
by Jack Lee 5 months ago
This election has been thrown into chaos and delayed due to mass main-in ballots...Is this a good idea going forward?
by Readmikenow 6 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 months ago
When you try to find evidence on the internet today, it is very hard to prove the election was rigged. Yet there are those who are very convinced.To isolate the difficulty: the pandemic enabled the rigging of the election by allowing and encouraging mail-in voting. Maybe next time around we will...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|