Abstract
Felon re-enfranchisement statutes that condition the restoration of voting rights on the payment of legal financial obligations have been challenged under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To date, these challenges have been unsuccessful because felons are not a protected class, disenfranchised felons do not have a fundamental right to vote under existing case law, and these financial obligations have not been categorized as unconstitutional poll taxes. The most recent struggle to defeat a discriminatory felon re-enfranchisement statute is in Florida, where different advocacy groups are attempting to defend the integrity of Amendment 4, the Voting Rights Restoration Amendment. Amendment 4 promised to automatically restore the voting rights of returning citizens (persons convicted of felonies) upon the completion of their sentence, including probation and parole. After Floridians overwhelmingly approved Amendment 4 in 2018, the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 7066 (SB 7066), a statute defining the completion of sentence as encompassing the full payment of all court costs, fees, fines, and restitution. This Comment explores prior legal challenges to financially discriminatory re-enfranchisement schemes and the ongoing litigation over Amendment 4 and SB 7066.
Recommended Citation
Dalia Figueredo,
Affording the Franchise: Amendment 4 & the Senate Bill 7066 Litigation,
72 Fla. L. Rev.
1135
(2020).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol72/iss5/4