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.

On January 15, the Kentucky Senate State and Local Government passed SB 3 unanimously. It moves elections for Governor and the other statewide state elected offices from the odd year before a presidential election, to presidential election years. Assuming it passes the legislature this year, voters would vote on the idea in November 2020. The change would not take effect until after the 2023 gubernatorial election. If the voters pass it, the candidates elected in 2023 would get five-year terms temporarily, and the next gubernatorial election would be 2028.

The only other states that elect governors in odd years are Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Kentucky holds state legislative elections in even years.

On January 13, the Ninth Circuit set a briefing schedule for Thompson v Hebdon, 17-35019, the Alaska campaign finance case that the U.S. Supreme Court remanded on November 25, 2019. The first brief is due February 18, 2020, and all the briefs will be in by March 31.

This is the case that challenged the low limits on how much Alaska individuals may donate to candidates to state office, and to political parties. The case also challenges the Alaska law that makes it very difficult for out-of-state individuals to donate to Alaska parties or candidates. The Ninth Circuit had upheld the donation limits 3-0, and had upheld the barriers for out-of-state givers 2-1. Then the people who brought the lawsuit had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to hear it again. The U.S. Supreme Court remand suggested that the donation limits are too low, but didn’t say anything about the out-of-state issue.