ACE

Tag: law

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • Perspectives on the California Privacy Rights Act: America’s Strictest Data Privacy Law

    Perspectives on the California Privacy Rights Act: America’s Strictest Data Privacy Law

    Background and Key Provisions

    The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), also known as Proposition 24, is a recently enacted law aimed at strengthening corporate regulations on data collection and processing in California. It acts as an addendum to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a voter-initiated measure designed to enhance oversight of corporate data practices. The CPRA seeks to increase public trust in corporations and improve transparency regarding targeted advertising and cookie usage. Cookies are small files containing user information that websites create and store on users’ devices to tailor their website experience. The CPRA aims to align California’s data privacy practices with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a European Union data privacy law regarded as the most comprehensive in the world. 

    The CPRA was introduced as a referendum by California voters for the November 2020 general election. It passed with the support of 56.2% of voters in 2020, but did not go into effect until January 1st, 2023. The law builds off of the preexisting CCPA’s protections for user data through the following key provisions:

    • Establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), a government agency responsible for investigating violations, imposing fines, and educating the public on digital privacy rights.
    • Clarifies CCPA definitions of personal data, creating specific categories for financial, biometric, and health data. Adds a new category of sensitive personal information, which will be regulated more heavily than personal information. 
    • Implements privacy protections for minors. Under the CPRA, companies must request permission to buy or sell data from minors, and can be fined for the intentional or unintentional misuse of minors’ data. Minors ages 13 to 16 must explicitly opt into data sharing, while minors ages 16 through 18 can opt out of data sharing. 
    • Expands consumer rights by prohibiting companies from charging fees or refusing services to users who opt out of data sharing. Building on the CCPA’s universal right to opt out of data sharing, the CPRA gives consumers a right to correct or limit the use of the data they share. Consumers can also sue companies that violate the CPRA, even if their personal data was not involved in a security breach. 
    • Modifies the CCPA’s definition of a covered business to exclude most small businesses and include any business that generates significant income from the sale of user data. 

    Perspectives on CPRA Data Collection Regulations

    One of the most contentious aspects of the CPRA is the regulation of personal data collection. Supporters contend that increased regulation will enhance consumer trust by preventing corporations from over-collecting and misusing personal data. Many California voters worry that businesses are gathering and selling personal information without consumers’ knowledge. Whether or not these fears are justified, they have driven strong public support for stricter data processing guidelines under both the CCPA and CPRA. Additionally, supporters of the CPRA argue that its impact on corporate data will be minimal, given that studies suggest less than 1% of Californians take advantage of opt-out options for data sharing.

    Opponents argue that restricting data collection could lead to inaccuracies if a large number of consumers choose to opt out. Without access to a broad dataset, companies may face higher costs to clean and verify the data they collect. Currently, many businesses rely on cookies and tracking technologies to analyze consumer behavior. If these methods become less effective, companies may need to invest in alternative, more expensive market research techniques or expand their workforce to ensure data accuracy.

    The opt-out mechanism has been a focal point of debate. Supporters view it as a balanced compromise, allowing Californians to protect their personal information without significantly disrupting corporate data operations. However, some argue that an opt-in model—requiring companies to obtain explicit consent before collecting data—would provide stronger privacy protections. Critics believe that many consumers simply accept default data collection policies because opting out can be confusing or time-consuming, ultimately limiting the effectiveness of the CPRA’s protections.

    Financial Considerations

    Beyond concerns about data collection, the financial impact of the CPRA has also been widely debated. While the CPRA exempts small businesses from its regulations, larger businesses had already invested heavily in CCPA compliance and were reluctant to incur additional costs to meet new, potentially stricter regulations under the CPRA. Additionally, implementing the CPRA was estimated to cost the State of California approximately $55 billion due to the creation of a new regulatory agency and the need for updated data practices. Critics argued that these funds could have been allocated more effectively, while supporters viewed the investment as essential for ensuring corporate accountability.

    Future Prospects for California’s Privacy Policy

    Since the CPRA is an addendum to the CCPA, California data privacy law remains open to further modifications. Future updates will likely center on three key areas: greater alignment with European Union standards, increased consumer education, and clearer guidelines on business-vendor responsibility.

    The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the European Union’s comprehensive data privacy law, already shares similarities with the CPRA, particularly in restricting data collection and processing. However, a major distinction is that the GDPR applies to all companies operating within its jurisdiction, regardless of revenue. Additionally, the GDPR requires companies to obtain explicit opt-in consent for data collection, while the CPRA relies on an opt-out system. Some supporters of the CPRA believe it does not go far enough, and may consider advocating for GDPR-style opt-in requirements in the future. 

    Others argue that many individuals are unaware of how their data is collected, processed, and sold, no matter how many regulations the state implements. This lack of knowledge can lead to passive compliance rather than informed consent under laws like the CPRA. In the future, advocacy organizations may push for California privacy law to include stronger provisions for community education programs on data collection and privacy options.  

    Another area for potential reform is business-vendor responsibility. Currently, both website operators and third-party vendors are responsible for complying with CPRA regulations, which some argue leads to redundancy and confusion. If accountability is not clearly assigned, businesses may assume that the other party is handling compliance, increasing the risk of regulatory lapses. Clarifying these responsibilities might be a target for legislators or voters who are concerned about streamlining the enforcement of privacy law. 

    Conclusion

    With laws like the CCPA and the CPRA, California maintains the strongest data privacy protections in the nation. Some view these strict regulations as necessary safeguards against the misuse of consumer data that align the state with global privacy norms. Others see laws like CPRA as excessive impositions on business resources. Still, others argue that California law does not go far enough, advocating for a universal opt-in standard rather than an opt-out standard for data sharing. As debates around CPRA continue, California is likely to provide a model for other state and federal data privacy regulations across the U.S.

  • Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Background Information

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the patent landscape, creating an influx of patent applications that mirrors a rise in modern-day innovation. However, the discussion of patentable inventions under U.S. law lags behind. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) aims to address this by reversing court rulings that have narrowed the scope of patent eligibility in emerging fields like AI. Ultimately, PERA stands at the intersection of technology, law, and political ideology, shaping the role of government in maintaining intellectual property (IP).

    Supreme Court decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS are widely recognized as turning points in patent law. The cases, which restricted patent eligibility for abstract ideas and natural laws, marked the first narrowing of patent eligibility since the 1950s. PERA would “eliminate all judicial exceptions” to patent law in an attempt to remedy the confusion caused by the Mayo and Alice rulings. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) in 2023. Its House companion was introduced by Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA) Kevin Kiley (R-CA) in 2024. While it received bipartisan support and a hearing in the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, PERA ultimately died in committee at the end of the 118th Congress. 

    PERA presents three key advantages: 

    1. Economic and Innovation Benefits: Boosts innovation and economic growth.
    2. International Competitiveness:  Secures U.S. innovation against global competitors.
    3. Expansion of AI and other emerging technologies:  Clarifies AI patent eligibility to strengthen U.S. leadership on the global stage.

    In terms of economic and innovative benefits, the United States Patent and Trademark Office advocates for PERA as a catalyst for innovation. It specifically states that small to medium-sized firms “need clear intellectual property laws that incentivize innovation…[as it’s] critical for job creation, economic prosperity,” in addition to several extended impacts. Furthermore, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), argues that PERA enacts clearer policies that will generate efficient product development and innovation, improving both industry standards and marginal utility for the consumer. Wilson Sonsini, a nonpartisan outlet that conducts the legal analysis, finds that the bill would in fact reverse the stagnation of innovation. In a written testimony submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, law professor Adam Mossoff argued that PERA is essential for restoring American dominance in global innovation and patent sectors.

    PERA not only aims to improve U.S. innovation and investment, but also clarifies AI patentability to bolster America’s edge on the global stage. According to Republican Representative Kevin Kiley, the U.S. must expand patentability to compete with China, emphasizing PERA as a key to gaining a competitive edge through clearer patent laws. In an interview with Representative Kiley, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that China’s approach to intellectual property poses a significant threat to American innovation and prosperity, strengthening the case for PERA. Senator Coons, a PERA co-sponsor, believes that the bill is necessary to help the U.S. catch up to Europe and China in the realm of AI patent law. 

    Other supporters argue that PERA’s expansion of patentability will open the door to advancement in domestic AI technology. A multinational law firm argues that expanding patent eligibility to AI models and business methods is crucial for the development of the U.S. technology industry. By broadening patentability, PERA can reduce the backlog of unsuccessful patents, sparing inventors from having to revalidate their claims. To reinforce this, the global law firm McDermott Will & Emery contends that PERA reduces ambiguity in patent eligibility by defining AI-related patents and human involvement in AI inventions.

    However, while PERA offers significant benefits for innovation, global competitiveness, and emerging technologies, it also raises concerns about potential drawbacks, including the risk of overly broad patents and unintended legal complexities. 

    PERA presents three key disadvantages:

    1. Overbroad Patentability: Risks limiting access to life-saving technologies.
    2. Hurting Small Inventors: Creates an ambiguous legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate.
    3. Ethical and Global Concerns: Conflicts with global patent norms, risking international relations. 

    The NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law highlights concerns that broadening patent eligibility could negatively impact the life sciences sector by creating barriers between consumers and newly-patented technologies. It argues that PERA undermines the balance between rewards gained from innovation and public accessibility to products they depend on. Another critique from the Center for Innovation Promotion finds that PERA disrupts established legal standards, creating uncertainty in the patent system. Its broad eligibility could stifle innovation by exacerbating patent disruptions instead of encouraging progress and innovation. 

    Other critics worry that PERA could negatively impact small businesses. U.S. Inventor, an inventor’s rights advocacy group, critiques the bill for creating a complex legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate. It argues that PERA lacks definitions for most of its crucial terms will only create more confusion, stating, “Investment into anything that risks falling into PERA’s undefined ineligibility exclusions will be hobbled.”

    PERA also raises ethical concerns, particularly in its treatment of genetic material, which may conflict with international patent standards. According to the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, these discrepancies could lead to tensions between U.S. patent law and global practices, disrupting international collaborations and agreements. The BIOSECURE Report emphasizes PERA’s potential for significant harm to global patent standardization, as countries may struggle to reconcile U.S. policies with their own systems. These challenges could strain international relations, as nations may view PERA’s approach as a threat to their sovereignty and global patent harmony.

    The Status Quo and Future of PERA

    PERA was proposed in a time of heightened awareness and discussion of IP policy. With regard to national security concerns, the Foreign Affairs House Report finds Chinese IP theft against U.S. companies, emphasizing China’s competitive threat in innovation. Similarly, Reuters reports on Tesla’s IP theft case, showcasing ongoing challenges in protecting American technology. These challenges in protecting American innovation set the stage for potential policy shifts under a Trump presidency. According to IP Watchdog, changes in IP law could influence public trust and perceptions of America’s stance on innovation and patent protection. However, as Wolf Greenfield Think Tank notes, broader geopolitical implications, especially regarding competition with China in biotech and AI patents, may not fully align with Trump’s campaign vision. Additionally, Senate Judiciary reports highlight how bipartisan concerns over innovation could shape the future prospects of bills like PERA, with legislative gridlock potentially influencing amendments throughout the current presidential term and beyond. This gridlock could ultimately lead to a slower passing of patent-related legislation.

    Conclusion

    While PERA aims to expand patent eligibility and boost economic growth, critics are wary of overbroad patents, harm to small inventors and businesses, and geopolitical conflicts. Striking a balance between innovation, equity, and competition remains essential to ensuring a patent system that fosters progress without preventing accessibility.

  • Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    In another significant development in Washington, Tulsi Gabbard—once a Democratic congresswoman, later an outspoken critic of her party, and now a key ally of President Donald Trump—has been confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

    Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but conventional. Born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, she became the youngest person elected to the Hawaii state legislature at 21. After serving in the Hawaii National Guard and deploying to Iraq, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012, becoming the first American Samoan and Hindu member of Congress.

    Her tenure in Congress was marked by independent positions on foreign policy, including a 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which drew bipartisan criticism. In 2022, she announced her departure from the Democratic Party, claiming it was under the control of an “elitist cabal of warmongers.” 

    A Contentious Confirmation Process

    During her confirmation hearings, Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once called a “brave whistleblower.” When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she responded: “Edward Snowden broke the law.” 

    Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked classified information in 2013 about the U.S. government’s mass surveillance programs, including the bulk collection of American phone records under the Patriot Act. His revelations exposed the extent of the NSA’s global surveillance operations and sparked a worldwide debate on privacy, national security, and government overreach. While some view Snowden as a whistleblower who revealed unconstitutional surveillance, others, including U.S. officials, see him as a criminal who endangered national security.

    Gabbard had previously argued that Snowden deserved a fair trial rather than immediate prosecution under the Espionage Act, which does not allow whistleblowers to defend their actions in court. However, her confirmation hearing remarks signaled a shift, suggesting she would take a harder stance on intelligence leaks now that she leads the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

    Reversal on Surveillance Policies

    During her confirmation hearings, Tulsi Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once praised for exposing illegal government activities. When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she acknowledged that he broke the law but refrained from using the term “traitor.” 

    Regarding government surveillance, Gabbard had been a vocal critic of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), expressing concerns that citizens’ communications could be incidentally collected when targeting foreign nationals. 

    However, during the hearings, she indicated a shift in her stance, suggesting that with appropriate reforms, Section 702 could be a valuable tool for national security. This change led some Democrats to accuse her of political opportunism, while Republicans viewed it as a necessary evolution given her prospective role.

    Despite strong Democratic opposition, Gabbard’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate with a vote largely along party lines. 

    As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard now oversees all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Her appointment raises pressing questions about the future of U.S. intelligence policy. Will she uphold her past calls for transparency and civil liberties protections, or will she adopt a more traditional intelligence posture now that she’s at the helm?

    With rising global threats, cybersecurity challenges, and intense domestic political divisions, Tulsi Gabbard faces an uphill battle. The question is no longer whether she could get here. It’s whether she can succeed.

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.

  • Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    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.