Hinkle did assert that the state can't deny someone’s right to vote if they cannot afford to pay the fines, fees and restitution. | Getty Judge hits Florida law limiting felon vote in limited ruling

TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge on Friday blocked a Florida law that puts restrictions on ex-felons seeking to have their voting rights restored, but only as it applies to the 17 people who challenged the law in federal court.

The decision means that the legal battle will churn on in the months ahead of the 2020 election in which President Donald Trump is seeking a second term in office.


U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle said there are sharp questions about whether or not the new law is unconstitutional, but said some questions will be resolved by the Florida Supreme Court or in a future federal trial.

Hinkle rejected a motion by Secretary of State Laurel Lee and Gov. Ron DeSantis to toss the lawsuit outright.

Voters last November passed Amendment 4, which restored voting rights to certain felons who had completed their sentences. Supporters anticipated that the measure would lead to 1.4 million former prisoners being added to the rolls in a battleground state where elections are typically decided on razor-thin margins.

But the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed a law this year that requires offenders to pay restitution owed to victims, as well as fees or fines imposed by the court, in order to be eligible to vote. Lawmakers said they were clarifying the amendment, but it triggered a wave of lawsuits from ex-felons and groups such as the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Florida.

A key part of the lawsuit was whether or not Amendment 4 required that felons pay all fines, fees and restitution before being allowed to vote. That’s a question that the state Supreme Court will soon decide and Hinkle said that courts would have the “last word” on the issue.

Hinkle, however, did assert that the state can't deny someone’s right to vote if they cannot afford to pay the fines, fees and restitution. A study presented by groups suing the state estimated that as many as 80 percent of felons eligible to vote under Amendment 4 still owed money.

“The state of Florida cannot deny restoration of a felon’s right to vote solely because the felon does not have the financial resources necessary to pay restitution,” Hinkle wrote. “And because, for this purpose, there is no reason to treat restitution differently from other financial obligations included in a sentence, Florida also cannot deny restoration of a felon’s right to vote solely because the felon does not have the financial resources to pay the other financial obligations.”

The judge said that does not mean that those who sued Florida are automatically entitled to vote, but that the state must establish a process that allows people to register and vote if it can be verified that people are “genuinely unable” to pay their outstanding financial obligation.

Lastly, Hinkle said that “Florida has not, of course, explicitly imposed a poll tax” with the new law despite the charge made by some critics. But he said that imposition of court fees could in fact run afoul of the constitutional prohibition. Yet he said he would not rule on that issue right now.

"The Court made crystal clear today that a returning citizen's vote cannot be conditioned on their wealth," said Nancy Abudu, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center which is representing a plaintiff in the case, Rosemary McCoy.

"While the decision only applies to the plaintiffs, the writing is on the wall for the Florida Legislature to correct the administrative chaos it created," Abudu said in a written statement.