On January 16, the Florida Supreme Court released an opinion in Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Implementation of Amendment 4, the Voting Restoration Amendment, SC19-1341. The opinion construes the initiative passed by the voters in November 2018, which ended the ban on ex-felons registering to vote.
The Governor had requested the Florida Supreme Court to construe the amendment. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the initiative does not let any ex-felon register until he or she has paid all fines, court costs, and restitution. One judge joined the majority opinion but expressed disagreement with the majority opinion on how such questions are to be decided, and whether the words in the initiative stand alone, or whether courts also need to look at the campaign materials to discern how to interpret an initiative.
The Florida Supreme Court opinion does not bear on the question of whether individuals unable to pay fines, court costs, and restitution can register anyway, under the U.S. Constitution. That question is pending in the Eleventh Circuit in Hand v DeSantis, 18-11388.
There is no such thing as an “ex-felon.” Ex con, yes – referring to someone who is no longer under conviction. But a felon is a felon. Only complicated legal action can expunge that from someone’s record.
Britland –
AFTER criminal punishment is done — person is restored to being Brit citizen — as BEFORE crime and conviction and punishment.
MAJOR slander/libel to refer to person as ex-criminal.
Brits have been citizens [not *subjects*] since about 1961 Brit law.
—
USA – nonstop slander/libel via SCOTUS junk perversions of 1 Amdt.
Result – Trump the lawless tyrant and his gangsters — private and public legis/exec/judic
I think “interpret” is a better word choice than “construe”. Construe can have a connotation of bias. Florida Constitution Article IV Section 1(c) uses interpret.
Article IV Section 10 provides that the AG shall request the opinion of the court as to the validitybof an initiative petition (e.g. are its terms clear to those who will be voting on it). During a hearing on the initiative, sponsors were repeatedly asked whether “terms of sentence” included fines and fees. The justices were assured that it was. This was the basis of the Labarga concurrence.
The governor in his inquiry quoted this text, but the majority went further, interpreting “all” to mean both durational penalties and financial penalties.
If you were defrauded by someone, you would likely be more interested in getting your money back than having them rot in prison. You aren’t going to get any money if they are making license plates. You would rather that they could be outside where they can earn some money.
Even if the lawsuits were to succeed, restitution and payment of fines and fees could be a condition of probation.
How about DE-CI-PHER.
English language is much too difficult for outer space judicial HACKS from another galaxy.
—
How many regimes charge prison inmates fees for food, clothing and shelter while in a modern slammer aka the olde gaol ??? — so some folks get out and rob a bank to pay off gaol fees.
Note the 13 Amdt exception clause.