In principle “you need to pay your court fines before you regain the right to vote as a convicted felon” doesn’t strike me as an especially egregious policy - I wouldn’t personally vote for it but I also wouldn’t have thought that it was worth it to expend political capital to fight it.
This pretty clearly demonstrates why this is a horrible rule in practice, though. It is absurd to put these people in a situation where they reasonably believe they can vote, not least because their applications were approved, and then get arrested and charged after the fact.
Democrats definitely pass laws that are more about virtue signaling than serious attempts at governance, but Republicans seem to do this way more. It’s like they’ve abandoned any attempt to seriously implement their policy goals in a way that is reasonable.
Two years ago there was a legal attempt to lift any monetary penalties for felons in Florida before they could vote under the Amendment 4 initiative. It was essentially struck down by a hung SCOTUS meaning that felons could still vote but only if they payed all of their fines and fees related to conviction. Critics have compared these fees to a poll tax, something that recalls Jim Crow laws, even though these were evenly applied and broadly affected everyone who would struggle to pay for a vote. I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether this is just.
Thanks for sharing this. I read a little bit of it and I was struck by the analysis that state ID fees are permissible even if the ID is a requirement to vote. I’m strongly against poll taxes of any kind and I find it difficult to believe this requirement passes muster for anyone. At least in NY a non-driver ID is totally free, but this is also a state with piss poor voter security.
Fun fact, when I was cleaning out my mom’s house I found a poll tax receipt from back during the Jim Crow days in Alabama. My brother framed it as a piece of Americana and symbol of how far we’ve come.
I’m still not sure how I feel about felons voting or not voting and I’m not a lawyer. None of our rights are absolute so I guess it’s a value judgment.
Yes, the poll tax analysis seemed like the judges torturing themselves by bending over backwards to avoid striking down this law. And wow! What a find re: the receipt!
> this country needs to put away its Revenge Boner
What a great line! I agree with your position completely, but I want to concede the difficulty people have in extending even a modicum of compassion to people like convicted sex offenders: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/how-much-punishment-is-enough
I really appreciate the kind words. I am someone who firmly believes that we have too many people in prison, but I try to be transparent about the most uncomfortable implications of my policy preferences. It doesn't help my cause if I'm caught hiding the ball or playing obfuscation games. I've encountered far too many activists on my side who parrot delusional claims about the system they're fighting, where the majority of people in jail are only there because of the drug war or private prisons.
What a delightful compliment to read, it's so affirming! I'd like to think I'm a persuasive advocate, and it seems to only help me if I blatantly and demonstrably avoid shying away from weak points in my edifice.
I noticed something similar at work, where some of my defense attorney colleagues are horrified by aspects of my approach. When I negotiate a client's case with prosecutors, I very often tell them what the strongest evidence against my client is. Also when I argue in court to a judge, I explain how my argument could be falsified. In the vast majority of the time, what I divulge is not really a surprise, but it's a nice flex because I get to demonstrate my willingness to proceed despite disclosing a handicap. Maybe it also gives my marginal arguments some credibility.
For online writing, I would want more people to take the long term view. Even if you have a pet issue you desperately want to see advanced, pretending counter arguments don't exist or are unworthy of consideration is a strategy with a terminally ill half-life. Not to mention the fact that it's always possible you're wrong.
In principle “you need to pay your court fines before you regain the right to vote as a convicted felon” doesn’t strike me as an especially egregious policy - I wouldn’t personally vote for it but I also wouldn’t have thought that it was worth it to expend political capital to fight it.
This pretty clearly demonstrates why this is a horrible rule in practice, though. It is absurd to put these people in a situation where they reasonably believe they can vote, not least because their applications were approved, and then get arrested and charged after the fact.
Democrats definitely pass laws that are more about virtue signaling than serious attempts at governance, but Republicans seem to do this way more. It’s like they’ve abandoned any attempt to seriously implement their policy goals in a way that is reasonable.
Two years ago there was a legal attempt to lift any monetary penalties for felons in Florida before they could vote under the Amendment 4 initiative. It was essentially struck down by a hung SCOTUS meaning that felons could still vote but only if they payed all of their fines and fees related to conviction. Critics have compared these fees to a poll tax, something that recalls Jim Crow laws, even though these were evenly applied and broadly affected everyone who would struggle to pay for a vote. I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether this is just.
The poll tax issue was addressed by the 11th circuit and their analysis was a fucking joke. You can read it yourself:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012003.enb.pdf (check around pg 16 & 38 & 45)
They basically say "this can't be a poll tax — as in paying a tax SPECIFICALLY to vote — because these felons don't have the right to vote anyways!"
Thanks for sharing this. I read a little bit of it and I was struck by the analysis that state ID fees are permissible even if the ID is a requirement to vote. I’m strongly against poll taxes of any kind and I find it difficult to believe this requirement passes muster for anyone. At least in NY a non-driver ID is totally free, but this is also a state with piss poor voter security.
Fun fact, when I was cleaning out my mom’s house I found a poll tax receipt from back during the Jim Crow days in Alabama. My brother framed it as a piece of Americana and symbol of how far we’ve come.
I’m still not sure how I feel about felons voting or not voting and I’m not a lawyer. None of our rights are absolute so I guess it’s a value judgment.
Yes, the poll tax analysis seemed like the judges torturing themselves by bending over backwards to avoid striking down this law. And wow! What a find re: the receipt!
> this country needs to put away its Revenge Boner
What a great line! I agree with your position completely, but I want to concede the difficulty people have in extending even a modicum of compassion to people like convicted sex offenders: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/how-much-punishment-is-enough
I really appreciate the kind words. I am someone who firmly believes that we have too many people in prison, but I try to be transparent about the most uncomfortable implications of my policy preferences. It doesn't help my cause if I'm caught hiding the ball or playing obfuscation games. I've encountered far too many activists on my side who parrot delusional claims about the system they're fighting, where the majority of people in jail are only there because of the drug war or private prisons.
What a delightful compliment to read, it's so affirming! I'd like to think I'm a persuasive advocate, and it seems to only help me if I blatantly and demonstrably avoid shying away from weak points in my edifice.
I noticed something similar at work, where some of my defense attorney colleagues are horrified by aspects of my approach. When I negotiate a client's case with prosecutors, I very often tell them what the strongest evidence against my client is. Also when I argue in court to a judge, I explain how my argument could be falsified. In the vast majority of the time, what I divulge is not really a surprise, but it's a nice flex because I get to demonstrate my willingness to proceed despite disclosing a handicap. Maybe it also gives my marginal arguments some credibility.
For online writing, I would want more people to take the long term view. Even if you have a pet issue you desperately want to see advanced, pretending counter arguments don't exist or are unworthy of consideration is a strategy with a terminally ill half-life. Not to mention the fact that it's always possible you're wrong.
Many thanks for your comment.