Here is an illustration of state control of suffrage.
Recall that the Constitution originally gave this to the fully to the states, and only began placing limits on the states in the 15th Amendment. Aside from what is specifically mentioned in the 15, 19, 24, and 16 Amendments, states can place limits on voting. The two used in Texas are mental incompetence, and felony convictions. In Texas a convicted felon can gain back the right to vote after the sentence has been served, including parole. Each state can set whatever rules it wishes.
Florida does not allow felons to gain the right to vote back at all. That is the issue in this case.
Notice that this is about the ability to pay court costs, fees, and fines, which raises poll tax issues. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, didn't see a constitutional problem with that.
A secondary issue was wealth discrimination.
- Click here for the story.
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request by Florida voters and civil rights groups to reinstate a ruling that would have cleared the way for thousands of Florida residents who have been convicted of a felony to vote in the state’s upcoming elections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the ruling, writing an opinion that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
At the heart of the dispute is a 2018 amendment to Florida’s constitution that permits people with prior felony convictions to vote once they complete “all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” In 2019, the state’s legislature passed a law that required residents who have been convicted of a felony to pay all court costs, fees and fines before they can become eligible to vote. Voters challenged the 2019 law, setting off a series of proceedings that culminated in Thursday’s order by the Supreme Court.
A federal district court in Florida initially blocked the state from enforcing the 2019 law on the ground that it discriminates on the basis of wealth. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld that ruling in February. In May, after a full trial, the district court issued a new ruling holding that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s 24th Amendment, which bars poll taxes. The district court also concluded that because it could take years for the state to figure out how much residents with past convictions must pay to be eligible to vote, the law will discourage voters from registering at all, because they will be afraid that they will be charged with fraud if they make a mistake.
