(FLORIDA) Trial Is Ordered in Felon Voting Lawsuit

[DUreader]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3528823,00.html

MIAMI (AP) - A federal appeals court Friday ordered a trial in a lawsuit
that claims Florida's law barring felons from voting is unconstitutional
because it discriminates against blacks.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, reversing a lower court
ruling dismissing the case, decided there are enough relevant facts for the
case to go to trial.

``Our clients are going to get a full hearing on the evidence in court,'' said
attorney Jessie Allen, who represented the plaintiffs. ``We're just thrilled.''

Civil right groups argue that the law violates equal protection and voting
rights claims.

Roughly 600,000 Floridians are banned from voting because of felony
convictions, according to the Florida Equal Rights Voting Project. A
disproportionate number of them - more than a third - are black, according
to American Civil Liberties Union estimates.

[Eric J in MN]

1. This is huge in two ways.

This is huge, firstly because if actual felons can vote in Florida, it will affect the outcome of elections.

Secondly, because crooked election officials will have one less excuse for purging law abiding citizens from the voter rolls.

[Dr.Phool]

10. Funny thing

I'm a convicted felon from Ohio. My rights to vote, hold public office (unless I was convicted of political corruption) and serve on a jury were all restored the day I completed parole. I now live in Florida, and can vote and hold elective office, and serve on a jury in Florida. I was convicted on a drug charge 20 years ago. But now I'm a County DEC member, being urged to run for office (I won't) and have the respect and support of many politicians.

Why not lifelong Florida residents?

[lostnfound]

26. Better make sure your name is really on the voter rolls!

A felony record in another state was enough for Jeb & Katherine to take names off, even though a judge ruled otherwise.

[Myra]

2. Is the ACLU the plaintiff?

Thx.

[Zhade]

3. Would have been nice if this had been acted on before November 2000.

Say, when Greg Palast reported on the illegal voter scrub before the Selection.

Still, about damn time!

[prisonerseven]

20. Why would it be good for Democrats if felons could have voted?

Is there some reason to think that most felons are Democrats and therefore likely to vote Democrat? I don't think I like the assumptions here.

[mbperrin]

21. Because then the folks identified as felons but who weren't (by a Texas

company, imagine that!) couldn't have been scrubbed from the voting lists, and this just takes away one more way to rub out black voters from the lists (and black voters do tend to vote Democratic).

How's that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. The vast majority of people identified as "felons" on that list...

...were, in fact, NOT felons, and therefore unfairly disenfranchised by Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 elections. The list was provided to her by a Texas company that had been paid for producing a list of felons living in Florida prior to the 2000 elections. When Katherine Harris was given the original list, she asked that it be substantially expanded by to include names that were SIMILAR to those of the convicted felons

According to some sources, the estimated number of disenfranchised voters for the 2000 election was more than 50,000. That has NEVER been remedied and those voters continue to be unable to vote in Florida elections.

Do you like the "sound" of that better?

[gmoney]

4. Sadly...

It will never fly... the state can make the case that the state is discriminating against felons, not blacks... it not the state's fault that so many of the felons are black. But it sure is mighty convenient for them...

Another case where the right manages to turn "equal treatment" on its head to deliver unequal treatment. "Why yes, we're cutting taxes for all the BLACK multimillionaire CEOs, too."

"We can't choose a minority applicant for this job because it would be unfair to the white applicant."

[Eric J in MN]

7. the law is complicated regarding discrimination

If something has a racial impact, the state has to justify whether there is a good reason for doing it, anyway.

[depakid]

14. but not if it has a discriminatory intent

in which case the Court applies "strict scrutiny,' and standard of review that us rarely upheld. Since I haven't done the research into this or any of the other cases, I don'tknow whether that particular dictrine would apply- but I wouldn't be surspirsed to see some racially motivated statements floating about in Florida's legislative history (as has been found in other syates).

Needless to say, the law is complicated and convoluted, and racial intent may not even be required under the 1982 Amendments to the 1964 Civil Righs Act.

I sure hope they've shoppped a good test case, because a lot is riding on the outcome here.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. pattern and practice

And can make that argument, but in the end, the statistics will prove the case.

[leesa]

23. The issue is that many blacks were on the list but weren't felons

The state knew this, but allowed their names to remain on the excluded list for two elections (2000 and 2002)
I also wish they had not made a racism claim, not because it's not true, but because so many in America deny racism even when it is glaring.

[farmbo]

5. Urr...does anyone think it's weird that no AMERICAN press is carrying..

...this story?

:grr:

[fearnobush]

6. American Press Is Scared.

They are afraid that they will have to pull all nighters again to blast the public, (under the orders of the Neo-Cons)with dis-information all over again.

[TheWebHead]

8. they are.. it's The Associated Press

18 papers (online) so far:

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newsclusterurl=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-felons-voting,0,2618549.story%3Fcoll%3Dsns-ap-nation-headlines&filter=0

[sasquatch]

9. Well jeez!! Don't you want to know how many 12 year olds...

Micheal Jackson diddled. That's important not all of this political stuff:silly:

[buycitgo]

11. how in the world is this whole issue NOT something addressable........

at the Federal level?

how can the most basic of citizens' rights be determined at the state, as opposed to national, level?

makes absolutely no sense, especially when considered in light of the Ohio poster's experience.

you KNOW how our current EXCOTUS (extreme court) would rule on this one, though, favoring states' rights most of the time, except when it suits their political biases.

and just wait til they rule on the Guantanamo/Padilla fiasco. you know damn well what's going to happen there.

what bill of rights?

[Lexingtonian]

12. many of the details of Johnson v. Bush here:

the lead counselor (lawyers):
http://www.brennancenter.org/

yesterday's press release:
http://www.brennancenter.org/presscenter/pressrelease_2003_1219.html

litigation history and downloadable briefs:
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/dem_vr_lit_johnson.html

The story is that the intial trial judge (the infamous Lawrence King of Florida 2000 election fame) REALLY screwed up in a painfully biased way with experts, discoverable materials, etc in favor of the defendants, then dismissed the case in favor of defendants (the state of Florida in the person of Jeb Bush and some others). It's all in the "Plaintiff's Brief on Appeal".

I'll have to see the verdict but I think the key experts and materials are ruled in. The case turns on whether the 1968 revision of the 1868 Florida Constitution to meet the requirements of the 1964 federal VRA actually complies with the VRA.

How I understand the case works:
It is documented that the 1868 constitutional amendment disenfranchising felons and ex-felons was intended to disenfranchise blacks; crimes more commonly committed by indigent former slaves, e.g. stealing of grain from fields, were elevated to felonies very soon after ratification of that Constitution and there was a plea-out system that prosecutors could offer with great leeway (in practice, to whites only) to those who committed felonies that did not register them as convicted felons per se.

The ex-felon disenfranchisement amendment was retained practically intact in 1968. The plaintiffs in Johnson v Bush were unable to get more than a trivial scraps of information about the proceedings at the 1968 constitutional convention out of the state archives in Tallahassee due to obstructions by state laws and state employees before the Judge closed discovery, despite court orders and other compulsions. Exactly what (if anything) is being hidden in Tallahassee, or whether any good records of the 1968 proceedings were ever made, remains to be determined by the plaintiffs.

The inference that is apparently clear from voting and judicial system evidence is that nothing much changed between 1964 (when Jim Crow effects in Florida were obvious) until recently if not the present. So far the case that there was racially selective prosecution resulting in a non-accidental rate of racially selective felony convictions and disenfranchisement is circumstantial and many parts seemingly arguable, though reasonable people would probably agree that the evidence shows a pattern that is racially discriminatory.

VRA Section 2 demands (under a 14th Amendment based logic) that if Jim Crow era laws are kept there must be a remedy preventing discriminatory state conduct (in this case in policing, prosecution). If the plaintiffs can demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory policing and prosecution the law is obviously in violation of Section 2. If the plaintiffs can demonstrate that the law has racial or other interests that the state of Florida should not be engaged in by intent, that too is a violation of the VRA.

Ex-felons in other states have a voting rate of ~10% and tend, like voters in general, to vote at increasing rates with age (coincident with time elapsed since the end of sentence/parole). Most ex-felons, some say almost all, vote Democratic.

[Gman]

13. Thank you for the analysis

I'm bookmarking this one to read later.

[teryang]

15. Dismissed?

A dismissal is hard to uphold, even on appeal. All the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to see if it stands as a matter of law. The issue is decided de novo and no deference is due to the court's determination below. Even if the case is reversed and remanded that will not affect the ultimate determination on the facts, nor will that occur in time for the next election. IMHO.

Thanks for your summary. No time to read the links now but I'm saving them for later.

[teryang]

24. Standard for review of summary judgment

...not much higher. Also de novo. This is from defendant's brief:


<This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same legal standards that bound the district court, see Loren v. Sasser, No. 02-11090, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21685, *13 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2002), and may affirm the District Court’s judgment on any ground that finds support in the record, see Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). To survive a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must provide “significant probative evidence.” LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, 146 F.3d 832, 835 (11th Cir. 1998).>

On edit:

The defendant's losing point may be on putting as a precondition to voting a requirement to pay restitution.

[LizW]

16. Thanks

This is very interesting.

I wasn't aware of the Florida case, although I did a lot of reading on felon voting rights after the debacle in Alabama over the issue.

Here, restoring voting rights to felons had long been an issue pursued by the black members of the state legislature, and blocked by Republicans (and some conservative Democrats). It had never really had a chance to pass. One the other had, Republicans had long been pushing for voter id, which was resisted by the Democrats.

Last spring, the two groups got together and worked out a compromise. They each agreed not to filibuster the other's bill and allow both to pass. Restoration of felon voting rights (a rather limited version) and voter id (not a bad version) passed on the same day and went to the Republican governor, Bob Riley (he of magic overnight changing vote totals fame). Riley double-crossed the black legislators and said he knew of no agreement between Republicans and Democrats to let both bills become law, and he signed voter id and vetoed felon voting rights.

States like Alabama and Florida, which completely bar the resotration of felon voting rights forever are in the minority. EVERYONE knows the impact is clearly discriminatory. Certainly in Alabama, this is intentional. This Florida case sounds like it can make a difference and set a good precedent.

[velocity]

17. In Florida there is a way to get your voting rights back

and that will show that some people are blocking this for politicial reasons.

You have to submit a request for getting your rights back to the governor. BUT first it has to go through a process to check things like have you served your sentence and have you committed any more crimes.

The committee that does this has been cut (because of budget reasons) and the paperwork on file is hugh.

If the ACLU etc can prove that the way to get your rights back does not work for politicial reason, then the case will win.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Or if you're name is Chuck Colson

then Jeb will grant you a pardon which would also restore your right to vote.

[jeanmarc]

22. I don't get this at all

I have no problem at all restricting felons from the right to vote. What I do have problems with are the methods they use to identify them. In Florida, they do a lousy job of telling felons from nonfelons. And disproportionately affect nonfelon black voters.

Why isn't the lawsuit about that? Or how come no one has sued Florida for being denied the right to vote when they weren't felons? That sort of lawsuit has more merit.

[lostnfound]

27. The NAACP did sue & got a big out-of-court settlement on it..

from what I've read.

[schultzee]

28. What they need are criminal charges and not a settlement!

[clspector]

29. kick n/t