Tallahassee, Fla. – Today, Judge Robert Hinkle for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued an opinion ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny individuals with past convictions the right to vote based on their inability to pay fines and fees. The decision restores the right to vote to plaintiffs who are otherwise eligible to vote but are unable to pay off their outstanding fines, fees and restitution.

The court likened SB 7066’s failure to account for inability to pay to a statute that automatically restored the right to vote only to people with a net worth of $100,000: “Would anyone contend this was constitutional? One hopes not. An official who adopts a constitutional theory that would approve such a statute needs a new constitutional theory.”

“We are pleased that the court’s decision today affirms our position that lack of wealth cannot be a barrier to one’s ability to vote,” said Mark Gaber, director, trial litigation at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The court has recognized that Florida can’t deny people the right to vote based on their ability to pay.”

CLC filed a lawsuit challenging SB 7066 the same day it was signed, and currently represents three individual plaintiffs who would otherwise be denied the right to vote under SB 7066 because they are unable to off their fines and fees: Bonnie Raysor of Boynton Beach, Diane Sherrill of St. Petersburg and Lee Hoffman of Plant City.

The case is called Jones v. DeSantis.

WASHINGTON – The White House announced Thursday that they intend to hold the G-7 summit at the Trump Doral golf resort, a property which President Trump owns and is currently operated by the Trump Organization.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) President Trevor Potter released the following statement:

“Trump’s decision to hold the G-7 conference at his own resort raises serious questions about the use of public office for personal profit. This has been the concern from the start of the Trump Administration – that the president would use his public service to promote his personal brand, and line his and his family’s pockets because he failed to divest ownership of his businesses.

For the past 40 years, every president has placed his personal investments and assets in a blind trust while in the White House, or has sold everything and held cash equivalents. We are now seeing the natural and very serious consequences of his decision to maintain ownership of his various business enterprises. The G-7 decision fits a pattern of this White House being unable to distinguish between operating the functions of government – like foreign policy – from President Trump’s personal interests. This massive contract, which President Trump awarded to his businesses, means that both U.S. taxpayer money and foreign government funds will flow into the Trump family bank accounts.

Foreign leaders already routinely decide to spend money at Trump properties, seemingly as a way to curry favor with the president, but this is the first time Trump will effectively force foreign leaders to do so. President Trump is currently involved in lawsuits alleging violations of the constitutional ban on receiving emoluments from foreign governments. His decision to host the G-7 at his resort adds to the specter of those violations.”

During the presidential transition, Potter authored an op-ed in The Washington Post, warning about the consequences of a failure to divest: ‘How President Trump could use the White House to enrich himself and his family.’