Trump Executive Order on Census Would Create Moment of Truth for Rule of Law

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), released the following statement:

“American presidents have obeyed controversial court decisions, even if they did not agree with them, based on an understanding that to do otherwise would undermine the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. By announcing plans to take unilateral “executive action” to add a citizenship question to the census, President Trump is disregarding that tradition. The right course for the administration would be to respect the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court and abandon its plans to impose a citizenship question on the census. It would be a historic mistake to merely replace the dishonest rationale the administration used to defend the addition of the question with another improvised one, over the objections of census officials who have found that adding the question will decrease the accuracy of the census. If President Trump really intends to go forward with the citizenship question on his own authority, then the consequences of undermining our constitutional order will go far beyond the serious harms of a deliberately distorted Census.”

Issues
Redistricting

CLC Files Suit Urging Court to Strike Down Florida Poll Tax

Date
Body

Plaintiff Bonnie Raysor says: “I won’t be able to vote for 12 more years, unless I win the lottery”

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two individual Floridians and many others like them against Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee for denying them their constitutional right to vote by requiring them to pay fines and fees ordered by the court before casting a ballot again.

SB 7066, signed yesterday by Florida Governor Ron Desantis, discriminates on the basis of wealth, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and constitutes a modern-day poll tax, in violation of the 24th Amendment. SB 7066 is unconstitutionally vague and denies voter procedural due process by making it impossible for potential voters to know whether they are eligible. It was passed in response to Amendment 4, which restored voting rights automatically to citizens that have completed their sentence. In his signing statement, Governor DeSantis called Amendment 4 a “mistake.”

SB 7066 unconstitutionally prevents people like CLC’s plaintiff, Bonnie Raysor, of Boynton Beach, Fla., from voting solely based on their financial status. Raysor, for example, cannot vote because she will be paying off over $4,000 in court fees over the next twelve years out of her minimum wage earnings. Under Florida’s new law, Raysor will not be able to vote until 2031.

“Voters went to the ballot box in November and voted, overwhelmingly, for second chances for the 1.4 million Florida citizens with past convictions,” said Danielle Lang, co-director, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “SB 7066 undercuts that promise and will permanently disenfranchise many minor offenders. Florida Governor DeSantis and the Florida Legislature have shamefully turned their backs on both current and future voters.”

“Restricting one’s ability to vote based on the size of their bank account creates two separate classes of citizens, and perpetuates an ugly form of inequality,” said Mark Gaber, director, trial litigation at CLC. “The act of voting integrates people into their community after their release from incarceration. That’s something we should all want, and undoubtedly that is why Floridians voted for rights restoration. But even if the legislature and Governor DeSantis disagree, the Constitution does not permit them to withhold the right to vote from someone because they are poor.”

“This is personal,” said plaintiff Bonnie Raysor. “For me, it’s a poll tax plain and simple. I served my time and am working to pay off my fees, and I don’t think that should prevent me from voting. Now I won’t be able to vote for 12 more years, unless I win the lottery.”

After completing her sentence, Raysor earned a college degree in Finance and Accounting at age 56. She now works a job as an office manager in Pompano Beach, Fla. and has taught Sunday school at her local church for 17 years. 

Read Bonnie’s story.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Jones v. DeSantis

At a Glance

In 2018, Florida voters restored the right to vote to individuals with felony convictions. The legislature then enacted a law conditioning rights restoration on payment of restitution, fines, and fees. CLC represents Floridians Bonnie Raysor, Diane Sherrill and Lee Hoffman in challenging the constitutionality of the law.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

On November 6, 2018, voters in Florida passed a constitutional amendment automatically restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions. The measure, known as Amendment 4, restored voting rights “upon completion of all terms of sentence, including parole or probation.” It passed by an almost two-thirds margin.

In response to Amendment 4, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 7066 (“SB 7066”), which redefined “all terms of sentence” to include the payment of restitution, fines, and fees (also known as “legal financial obligations” or “LFOs”). Specifically, SB 7066 requires the payment of all LFOs ordered by the court “as a part of the sentence or that are ordered by the court as a condition of any form of supervision.” 

SB 7066 was signed into law by the governor on June 28, 2019. CLC filed a lawsuit challenging the statute the same day.

The new law erects an array of unconstitutional barriers to the right to vote. SB 7066 conditions the right to vote on the basis of wealth—people with the financial means to pay their LFOs have their rights restored, while those without means remain disenfranchised. Discriminating between voters on the basis of wealth violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and  conditioning the right to vote on payment of fines and fees constitutes a poll tax, in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, the law makes it extraordinarily difficult for people with past convictions to determine their eligibility to vote. First, the law is unclear about which LFOs incurred must be paid before a person regains their right to vote. Second, the statute provides no mechanism for individuals to separate out their disqualifying and non-disqualifying LFOs so that they can determine their eligibility to vote (for instance, if someone has fees connected to both felony and misdemeanor convictions). Nor does it provide Floridians with access to the records they would need to determine their eligibility to vote. Third, SB 7066 provides for an updated state voter registration form that fails to specify the eligibility requirements created by the new law. And yet, the statute subjects individuals who err in determining their eligibility to vote to the threat of criminal prosecution. The vagueness and ambiguity of the law, coupled with the threat of criminal liability, plainly violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

CLC has challenged the law in court on behalf of plaintiff Bonnie Raysor, a citizen of Boynton Beach, Florida, with past felony convictions. Ms. Raysor thought she had regained her right to vote when Amendment 4 passed and reached out for help to understand her rights under the new constitutional amendment. Now, however, under SB 7066, Ms. Raysor is barred from registering to vote in Florida because she has $4,260 in outstanding fines and fees related to her felony convictions and past misdemeanor charges.

CLC is challenging the law on behalf of Ms. Raysor and all those who would otherwise be eligible to register to vote in Florida but are denied the right to vote under SB 7066 because they have outstanding fines, fees, or restitution.

Our case, Raysor v. Lee, was consolidated with three other cases in June of 2019 under the name Jones v. DeSantis. 

Plaintiffs

Bonnie Raysor

Diane Sherrill

Lee Hoffman

Defendant

Laurel M. Lee in her official capacity as Secretary of State

Associated Cases & Actions

Thompson v. Alabama

The U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Intervene, Leaves Gerrymandered Maps in Place

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may not intervene to block partisan election maps, no matter how unfair they may be. In its decision not to strike down North Carolina or Maryland’s maps, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to set a standard by which states must limit their practice of partisan gerrymandering.  

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), and University of Chicago Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and 12 individual North Carolina plaintiffs. 

“Today’s decision is a setback in the fight for fair maps around the country,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC, and counsel of record in Rucho v. League of Women Voters of NC. “While we are disappointed that North Carolina voters will continue to vote in districts that were shown at trial to be severely biased, the fight is far from over. We must redouble our efforts outside the courtroom to keep advancing efforts that put the voices of voters first. Independent citizen-led commissions, such as those passed in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah in 2018, have been highly successful in ensuring that district maps fairly represent the population. Reformers from other states should follow this lead and continue to fight back against gerrymandering.” 

A video released by CLC on March 7 highlights the stories of voters whose voices were silenced in North Carolina by self-interested politicians. 

CLC will continue to support efforts to mitigate the harms of partisan gerrymandering through a more independent map drawing process. Learn more about the movement to establish citizen-led redistricting commissions in the states. 

Issues
Redistricting
Subscribe to