Felon voting is not what case is really about Capital Curmudgeon Bill Cotterell, Tallahassee Democrat USA TODAY NETWORK – FLA. 2/23/2020 Political disputes that wind up in court are like porn cases, in that neither side can say what they really mean. Filmmakers can’t say, “There’s a good market for this stuff and we make a lot of money off it.” Prosecutors can’t counter, “Yeah, but standing up for morality is always good for me at election time.” So they both have to argue about artistic freedom, government censorship and that bothersome old First Amendment. Which brings us to Florida’s Amendment 4. That voter-approved mandate restoring voting rights for convicted felons is tied up in court, and both sides have to mask their motives. After nearly two-thirds of the voters approved it in 2018, the Legislature passed an implementing law last year requiring that ex-cons not only serve their time and comply with post-prison conditions of release, but pay all court-imposed fees or restitution requirements. Supporters of the amendment, including those who ran a successful public petition campaign to get it on the ballot, called that a modern-day poll tax. Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislative leaders contend that those fees are part of an inmate’s obligation, and that “completion of sentence” takes more than time. The governor asked the Florida Supreme Court for its opinion, which backed him up. But a federal district judge in Tallahassee ruled the state’s implementing rules violate the rights of former inmates and, last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in Atlanta agreed. The governor’s office said it will seek a ruling by the full court. If that doesn’t work, it’s on to Washington and the newly conservative U.S. Supreme Court. The circuit judges in Atlanta basically bought the “poll tax” and equalprotection arguments. They said the state could deny the right to vote for all convicted felons — as Florida did, going back to the Jim Crow era — but that when restoring the right, it couldn’t reenfranchise those who can pay and bar those who can’t. “The long and short of it is that once a state provides an avenue to ending the punishment of disenfranchisement — as the voters of Florida plainly did — it must do so consonant with the principles of equal protection,” the appellate panel ruled. The case didn’t involve the estimated million-plus former prisoners thought to be affected by Amendment 4 — just 17 offenders who were unable to comply with financial penalties. But there’s no reason to think the same concept wouldn’t apply to everyone else. The judges said “these plaintiffs are punished more harshly than those who committed precisely the same crime — by having their right to vote taken from them likely for their entire lives.” That will be hashed out by lawyers and judges, based on constitutional principles, statutes and past rulings. But it would be nice if both sides could say what they’re really up to. The conservative Republicans who run Florida have been here before – as recently as 2015, with same-sex marriage. The state had to maintain, with a straight face, that it was merely defending the will of people who’d voted for a “defense of marriage” amendment, and that there was some compelling state interest in denying licenses to couples whom it really wished would just go away. Alas, the state learned nothing from that experience and seems destined to lose again on voting. What’s that old line about how there’s no education in the second kick of a mule? But state lawyers go into court and say, “Look, your honor, we could have amended the Constitution years ago, if we wanted these folks voting. But our supporters don’t like criminals, and we don’t think many ex-cons will vote for us. So we need to keep whomping this dead horse at least through the next election.” And the Democrats should be able to tell it like it is, too. Maybe something like, “Look, you honor, we haven’t had any power in Florida for more than 20 years, and our only chance of winning anything is to keep posturing as champions of the poor and down-trodden.” Instead of raising the ante, at public expense, the state ought to toss in its cards. The voters approved Amendment 4 and now federal courts at two levels have ruled against the financial requirements. But if they really must fight on to the nation’s highest court, it’s too bad both sides can’t be bluntly honest about their motives. - - - Bill Cotterell is a retired Tallahassee Democrat Capitol reporter who writes a twice-weekly column. He can be reached at bcotterell@tallahassee.com.