What is SB 7066?
On June 28, 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law. Previously, convicted felons in Florida could only regain voting rights through a special appeal to the state’s clemency board. In 2018, Amendment 4 was passed, granting voting rights to most convicted felons, excluding those convicted of violent felonies like murder or sexual assault. SB 7066 was then enacted to clarify the terms of Amendment 4.
SB 7066 requires convicted felons to pay all legal and logistical fees, known as Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs), accumulated during trials or prison time before they can vote. While Amendment 4 allowed over 1.4 million non-violent felons the right to vote in Florida, SB 7066 mandates that all terms of their sentencing, including LFOs, must be completed before they can register to vote.
Arguments in favor of SB 7066
Proponents argue that SB 7066 is necessary to clarify the language of Amendment 4. Amendment 4 stated that individuals could vote after completing their imprisonment, probation, or parole. However, critics claimed that the amendment lacked clear language for restoring felon voting rights broadly, leading to unfair and inconsistent enforcement. Without SB 7066, each Florida county might interpret the amendment differently, causing statewide inconsistency.
Proponents of SB 7066 argue that the bill supports the principle that voting rights can be restricted for ex-felons who have broken the law. In the United States, a person’s right to vote can be legally revoked if they commit a crime, just as other freedoms can be restricted when they are jailed. Supporters believe that voting is a privilege and can be rightfully denied to those who have shown disregard for the law.
Arguments against SB 7066
Critics of SB 7066 highlight the confusion caused by its implementation. There is currently no uniform system to inform ex-felons if they have met all voting requirements. Consequently, ex-felons who attempt to vote but are ineligible under Amendment 4 or SB 7066 risk arrest, as state law makes it illegal to vote if one is not eligible. Critics cite the arrest of 20 individuals ineligible due to violent felony convictions as evidence of the bill’s ambiguity. Additionally, the uncertainty may discourage individuals from voting if they are unsure about their eligibility.
Critics argue that SB 7066 discriminates against individuals and restricts hundreds of thousands of voters. Since the bill requires the payment of all LFOs, many see this as a form of voter discrimination akin to a poll tax. They point out that SB 7066 effectively undoes Amendment 4, as only an estimated 360,000 of the 1.4 million restored voters are eligible due to unpaid LFOs. Additionally, critics contend that the bill disproportionately impacts Black people and people of color, who are convicted of felonies at higher rates than white individuals and tend to have lower incomes.
Constitutional Controversy over SB 7066
Following the passage of SB 7066, the bill faced court challenges on claims of unconstitutionality. Florida lawyers and voting rights groups filed lawsuits to block or eliminate SB 7066, arguing that requiring convicted felons to pay off their LFOs to vote violated their constitutional right to expression and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished poll taxes. In the case of Jones v. DeSantis, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it was constitutional to require payment of LFOs if the felons had the financial capacity to pay but that ex-felons who were “genuinely unable” to pay could not be denied the right to vote. However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Hinkle’s decision, ruling that there was no constitutional violation. As a result, SB 7066 remains part of Florida law.
Conclusion
Since the passage of Florida’s SB 7066, there has been controversy surrounding whether or not such a piece of legislation proves to be a positive or negative contribution to their democratic processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill clarifies the vague language of Amendment 4 while enforcing that felons must take responsibility for their actions before regaining their rights. On the opposing side, critics assert that SB 7066 creates mass confusion in determining voter eligibility and discriminates against individuals while significantly limiting the number of eligible voters.
