ATLANTA (CN) — A Florida law passed in 2019 that conditions felons’ voting rights on their payment of fines, fees and restitution does not unconstitutionally discriminate against low-income women of color, the 11th Circuit ruled Monday afternoon.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court found that two Sunshine State felons failed to show that Florida‘s Republican-controlled Legislature had any “discriminatory intent” in passing Senate Bill 7066, which requires felons to pay all fines and legal fees associated with their conviction before they can vote again.
The controversial law was passed just months after a supermajority of Florida voters approved a 2018 state constitutional amendment that would have automatically restored convicted felons’ voting rights upon completion of their sentences, including parole or probation.
SB 7066 immediately sparked legal challenges from voting rights groups who likened the legislation to a poll tax.
The en banc 11th Circuit largely put the issue to rest in a 6-4 decision last year, overturning a Florida federal judge’s injunction against the law and finding it did not violate felons’ 14th Amendment due process rights.
Although U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle had moved to block major portions of SB 7066 with the now-overturned injunction, he also found that the law’s pay-to-vote requirement was not discriminatory on the basis of gender.
Southern Poverty Law Center attorney Nancy Abudu, who represents plaintiffs Rosemary McCoy and Sheila Singleton, challenged that finding during a July hearing before the 11th Circuit. Abudu argued that Hinkle had incorrectly rejected their gender discrimination-based claims alleging that the law is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on poor Black women.
The plaintiffs argued that since their claim implicates the right to vote, the court should apply a different legal standard than would be applied to other equal protection actions.
Black women, Abudu said, are statistically unlikely to be able to satisfy their financial obligations under the law due to higher rates of unemployment and lower wages.
In an 11-page ruling issued Monday, U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor wrote that Hinkle applied the correct legal standard when he ruled against the plaintiffs’ claim that the payment requirement discriminates against women in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote and prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.
Pryor, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of discriminatory intent in the law.
“The equal protection gender discrimination claim McCoy and Singleton advanced can be sustained only upon a showing of discriminatory intent. Because McCoy and Singleton did not attempt to make this showing, their equal protection clause claim fails, and the district court was correct to reject it,” Pryor wrote.
A spokesperson for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, praised the ruling in a statement.
“Florida law applies equally to all eligible former felons, regardless of race, sex, or any other immutable characteristic,” press secretary Christina Pushaw said. “SB 7066 was not drafted or implemented with any intent to discriminate. Today’s ruling affirms that.”
A representative for the plaintiffs was not immediately available to comment on the ruling Monday afternoon.
The panel found that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the 19th Amendment contains an intentional discrimination requirement, the 11th Circuit is “not at liberty to craft a different rule for the 19th than the one the court has applied to the 15th.”
“Despite McCoy’s and Singleton’s well-crafted arguments why a 19th Amendment claim should not require a showing of intentional discrimination, given the current legal landscape they cannot succeed on this claim,” Pryor wrote.
Abudu said in a statement Tuesday that “this ruling unfortunately runs contrary to the constitutional principle that no one’s participation in our democratic process should be conditioned on their wealth.”
“During trial last year, experts demonstrated that women of color face economic disparities in unemployment and poverty rates. These economic realities mean women of color like the SPLC’s clients will remain shut out of the political process for likely the remainder of their lives. They will continue to be silenced from having a voice in the decisions that directly impact their communities,” Abudu said.
Pryor was joined on the panel by fellow Obama appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a Gerald Ford appointee.
Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Bay Area district attorney to face recall election April 15, 2024 -
