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

Supreme Court Affirms Finding that Trump Administration's 2020 Citizenship Question Cannot be Justified by False Rationale

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a January 15 opinion by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman finding that Secretary Ross lied about his reasons for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The Court held that there was a “strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior” by the Administration, justifying a closer look at its motives. The Court could “not ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given” and held that “agencies must pursue their goals reasonably.” Secretary Ross did not do that here. The Court has remanded the case for further proceedings. Unless the Secretary can provide a truthful and legitimate rationale for the question—which he cannot—the question will not be permitted. Based on the government’s deadline of July 1 for printing, it seems unlikely it can proffer a newly minted explanation that can pass muster.

“We applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for stopping the citizenship question in its tracks. An addition of the Census question would have chilled minority participation in the 2020 Census and made it less accurate,” said Paul Smith, vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The quality of the census has been protected today from the hasty addition of a politically-motivated question. It is of the utmost importance that the census reflect all communities living in the country.”

CLC obtained documents through a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2018 that demonstrated that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross approached the Department of Justice (DOJ) and asked them to formally request that the 2020 census include a question about citizenship. Despite initial resistance, DOJ complied, but only after Secretary Ross sought the intervention of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

CLC, along with more than 130 civil rights organizations, signed onto an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs at the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing not only that the citizenship question was unnecessary, but that it would also severely undermine efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and cause substantial harm to the communities VRA is designed to protect.

Read about the actions CLC has taken to oppose the citizenship question.

Issues
Redistricting
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to