Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

Database and records issues aside, it seems that the constitutional amendment was pretty clear:

"No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis."

If the fees are part of parole or probation, then the felons should be not be able to vote. Does florida not have a database of who is or isn't on probation?

If the fees are not part of parole or probation, the new law should be clearly unconstitutional.

View on HN

> Does florida not have a database of who is or isn't on probation?

Apparently not when it comes to fees owed as part of that.

> Tyson searched court records, first on his own, then with the help of a nonprofit legal advocacy group. They say that because Florida has no comprehensive system for tracking such fines, the documents don’t make clear what he owes. The records, viewed by Reuters, show potential sums ranging from $846 to a couple thousand dollars related to crimes he committed in the late 1970s and 1990s. Tyson says he won’t risk voting until Florida authorities can tell him for sure.

It's pretty ridiculous. If no government entity can give you a straight answer to the question "if I vote in the next election will I go to jail?", you are disenfranchised for all practical purposes.

>Apparently not when it comes to fees owed as part of that.

I think there is another more likely answer: Probation is tracked, fees have not traditionally been considered a requirement for probation completion, and the legislature is trying to shift the lines.

> ... fees have not traditionally been considered a requirement for probation completion ...

Is that the case? It seems like I've heard of cases where probation comes with requirements ("wear this tracking bracelet") that are provided by a private entity who bills the convict, and if the bill isn't paid, probation gets revoked.

My understanding of the article is it applies to those who completed probation, not those who's probation is ongoing or revoked.

> "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation"

I'm not a lawyer, but the word "including" typically isn't meant to preclude other items in a class; e.g. "all costs are specified in the bill including taxes" wouldn't typically be taken to mean that only taxes are specified. If court ordered fines and fees are considered a part of the "terms of their sentence" I don't see a contradiction.

I suspect (and I'm talking out of my bum here) that the verbiage is something along the lines of "...and any such sums required to conduct parole or probation...", then the service is outsourced to a private firm, and the private firm simply isn't monitored for due diligence in reporting accurate information to the state.

It seems like the legislature and Governor tried to skirt the intention of the electorate and in practice prevent people with convictions from voting.

I'm not sure how the law is actually skirting the constitutional amendment. It seems to actively conflicting with it. I updated my post to be more clear.

It's using a technicality (fees which are not tracked are "part of the parole") that is BS on its face, but taking it to court would take so long and be so not worth it, that the desired effect would occur anyways- which is continuing to deny felons who finish their sentences voting rights.

If parole is tracked and the felons are not on the list, then I'm not sure it even counts as a technicality.

I agree the desired effect is likely the same.

A factor here most people aren't aware of is that it's common for probation and parole to include 'supervision fees' charged to the probationer or parolee.

These can supposedly be waived in the case of someone not being able to afford them, but it's not unusual for judges to decide that any living situation short of literally living on the street (and sometimes even then) means the fees are 'affordable'.

Like my sibling point mentions, it's using a technicality and probably in bad faith to engage in voter suppression.

Whether the fees are a term of their sentence seems to be the most pertinent point.

The fact that Florida seems to be having so much trouble figuring out how many fees are still unpaid suggests that they should not be considered a part of the sentence.

I’m not sure how you made that jump. It’s surely a problem, but anything a person is sentenced to is part of their sentence. The law doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous here.

These fees aren’t a direct part of sentencing, I don’t believe, but a side effect.

If you’re sentenced to pay a fine, then you’re sentenced to pay a fine. There’s really nothing to debate about that, and I haven’t seen any specifics mentioned in this thread or elsewhere that would suggest anything else is going on, only a lot of outraged speculation.

That does seem to be the most defensible argument.

It really just seems to be a clearly stated requirement of the law.

So I found the law and you are correct that it is clear what fees are in and out of scope, despite the several articles i read to the contrary.

The relevant portion starts at line 1345:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/7066/BillText/er/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com