Justices decline to intervene in Florida voting dispute

on Jul 16, 2020 at 3:33 pm

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 stateβs 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 Floridaβs constitution that permits people with prior felony convictions to vote once they complete βall terms of their sentence including parole or probation.β In 2019, the stateβs 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 Thursdayβs 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. Constitutionβs 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. Florida returned to the 11th Circuit; this time the court of appeals granted the stateβs request to have the full court weigh in, and it put the district courtβs ruling on hold until it could rule on the stateβs appeal.
The votersΒ went to the Supreme CourtΒ on July 8, asking the justices to lift the 11th Circuitβs stay and reinstate the district courtβs ruling. Because the deadline to register for the stateβs August primary election is July 20, the voters stressed, the 11th Circuitβs order putting the trial courtβs ruling on hold has created βchaos and confusion about who can and cannot vote, where a wrong guess creates the risk of criminal prosecution.β
InΒ a filing on Tuesday, the state urged the justices to leave the stay in place. It was the district courtβs May order barring the state from enforcing the 2019 law, rather than the 11th Circuitβs July 1 stay, the state argued, that violated the Supreme Courtβs βrepeated admonitionβ that lower courts should normally not change the rules of an election in the run-up to that election. The stay, the state contended, βactuallyΒ quellsΒ the chaos created by the district courtβs unprecedented injunction.β
In a brief unsigned order on Thursday,Β the justices denied the votersβ requestΒ to lift the 11th Circuitβs stay. In her dissent, Sotomayor complained that the order βprevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Floridaβs primary election simply because they are poor.β This case, Sotomayor argued, meets all of the standards to lift a stay entered by an appeals court. Because the 2019 law will prevent βnearly a millionβ people from voting, she contended, it is βexceptionally importantβ and therefore βlikely to warrantβ the justicesβ review. There is no question that those voters will be irreparably harmed if they cannot or do not vote because of the 11th Circuitβs βconflicting orders or Floridaβs threat of prosecution,β Sotomayor continued. Moreover, not only was the 11th Circuitβs decision wrong, but its stay βhas created that very βconfusionβ and voter chillβ that the Supreme Courtβs cases counsel against.
More broadly, Sotomayor observed, the Supreme Courtβs failure to intervene in this case βcontinues a trend of condoning disenfranchisement.β βIronically,β she noted, the Supreme Court relied on the rule against making changes close to an election β known as theΒ PurcellΒ principle β βas a reason to forbid courts to make voting safer during a pandemic, overriding two federal courts because any safety-related changes supposedly came too close to election day.β But, she wrote, βfaced with an appellate court stay that disrupts a legal status quo and risks immense disenfranchisement β a situation thatΒ PurcellΒ sought to avoid β the Court balks.β
Oral argument in the 11th Circuit is scheduled for Aug. 18, the same day as the stateβs primary election. In a statement issued shortly after the courtβs order on Thursday, Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, which represented the voters in the case, described the ruling as βdeeply disappointingβ but indicated that the voters would continue the challenge βto fight for Florida voters so they can participate in the General Election in November.β
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.