Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Folks, some of you have asked if we were trimming our forums since there are no sports at the moment. We’re going to keep everything open on the forums to provide a sense of normalcy here. It’s our hope Gator Country can be a place of comfort for you during these crazy times. Be safe my friends and take care. -Ray and the GC staff. GO GATORS IN AL KINDS OF WEATHER!

    PS. If you happen to find yourself in tight financial circumstances with regards to renewing here please reach out to us. We’d be happy to help sort it out.

11th Cir. Invalidates Legislatures implementation of Prop 4

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by tampagtr, Feb 19, 2020.

  1. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,740
    552
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    32,627
    1,405
    1,893
    Apr 8, 2007
    MERGED THREADS ...

    After Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to allow most ex-felons to get their right to vote back, Republicans in Tallahassee decided they wouldn't make it easy. They added a bunch of fines and fees.
    Court: Florida Can’t Bar Felons From Vote Over Fines, Fees
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,781
    467
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    Interesting tidbit. The panel was two senior judges, Anderson and Marcus, with a district judge sitting by designation. So none will be there if it goes en banc (which is only active judges on the court).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,740
    552
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    Yep. And the Eleventh Circuit as a whole is pretty conservative
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    5,786
    1,429
    548
    Sep 20, 2014
    Florida/North Carolina
    There's a legitimate question there, caused by the inartful wording of the amendmemt. What's a "sentence"? The amendment could and should have said it excludes fines, court costs and restitution.
     
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,740
    552
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    There is. I think going pure canons of construction is a loser against a hostile tribunal, because its close. But if you argue it in terms of you cant put a financial burden on voting, i.e., burden on the state to prove ability to pay, similar to jurisprudence on contempt or other areas - you have to prove ability to pay if someone is to be sanctioned for failure to pay.

    That is at least what I argued in a ConLaw presentation months ago, and we all think our own ideas are the "only" way to think
     
  7. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,781
    467
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    The problem is the amendment advocates said it included that. And then so did the FLSC. That’s accepted by the 11th. The issue is whether it prohibits a person from registering who legitimately lacks the ability to pay them due to indigence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    5,786
    1,429
    548
    Sep 20, 2014
    Florida/North Carolina
    T
    That is an excellent argument! Your post also highlights how personal philosophy tiptoes on cat paws into the process of judging. One has to be as careful as possible to factor personal "bias" out of the analytical process - in the courtroom and chatrooms! One never completely succeeds
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  9. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    5,786
    1,429
    548
    Sep 20, 2014
    Florida/North Carolina
    You're right. I guess I should have read the article first. I was going off the debate several months ago about what constitutes a sentence. BTW, how'd the case get to the 11th and where does it go from here?
     
  10. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,781
    467
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    The case was filed as a federal question in federal district court. The plaintiffs are alleging that the Florida court construction of the amendment violates their equal protection rights under the 14th amendment. The district court granted a temporary injunction from enforcement of the legislation for the reason I outlined. The government appealed to the 11th. That’s the opinion you see now.

    The government can either immediately seek SCOTUS review (and the panel does identify a conflict with another circuit and a state court of last resort) or seek rehearing en banc. I believe they will seek en banc rehearing (before all active judges on the 11th). Then it is off to the SCOTUS we go. Once this whole process ends we go back to the trial court to address whether a permanent injunction is appropriate.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    12,804
    523
    638
    Apr 8, 2007
    Which one takes longer? That is the one they will choose. That way, even if they lose, they can still keep all those people from voting in November.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,781
    467
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    Request for rehearing is 15 days (I believe. I’m going off memory, it could be 30), then you have 90 days to file for certiorari after a denial.
     
  13. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    5,786
    1,429
    548
    Sep 20, 2014
    Florida/North Carolina
    So it’ll slog along for awhile. Thanks for the recap. In the meantime, plaintiffs will be allowed to vote?
     
  14. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,781
    467
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    Yep. At 17 of them can register.
     
  15. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,346
    370
    343
    Jun 14, 2014
    The preliminary injunction means all ex felons can register for the time being. So, all other things equal, the State would want a quicker resolution so that it can suppress the vote for the November election.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    12,804
    523
    638
    Apr 8, 2007
    Ah, that's much better, I was reading it the other way around.
     
  17. FutureGatorMom

    FutureGatorMom Premium Member

    5,438
    110
    293
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    Another way for our wonderful state senate to NOT do the voters bidding.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    9,411
    2,910
    1,123
    Nov 25, 2017
    Based in that blurb. Did not read the decision. But, seems to require a system for hearings on ability to pay or the felon cannot be denied reinstatement for not paying. And , if can’t pay, can’t deny
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    7,340
    2,114
    1,128
    Oct 30, 2017
    Senior judges can sit on the en banc panel if they sat on the original panel.

    Unless SCOTUS is going to overrule Bearden, I'm not sure how you get around that case.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1