You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

Felon rights, gambling ballot issues pass first Supreme Court hurdle


In a pair of high-profile issues that could go on the ballot next year, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday approved proposed constitutional amendments that would restore felons’ voting rights and restrict the expansion of gambling in the state.

The court’s approval of the measures is a critical initial step, but supporters still face the task of collecting hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to get the proposals on the November 2018 ballot.

RELATED: Complete Florida Legislature coverage

Groups backing both initiatives quickly said they will move forward with collecting and submitting the required 766,200 signatures to reach the ballot. Supporters of the gambling measure had submitted 74,626 signatures as of Thursday, while backers of the felon-voting initiative had submitted 71,209, according to the state Division of Elections.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has approved the language of this amendment and we can move forward with our efforts to ensure that Florida voters — not gambling industry influence and deal making — are the ultimate authority when it comes to deciding whether or not to expand gambling in our state,” said John Sowinski, chairman of Voters In Charge, a group spearheading the gambling measure.

The Supreme Court does not rule on the merits of proposed constitutional amendments but looks at issues such as whether ballot titles and summaries would be clear to voters and whether initiatives comply with a single-subject requirement.

The court unanimously signed off on the proposal that would automatically restore the voting rights of many felons after they have completed the terms of their sentences. The amendment would not apply to people convicted of murder and felony sexual offenses.

The issue of restoring felon rights has long been controversial in Florida, with critics of the state’s process comparing it to post-Civil War Jim Crow policies designed to keep blacks from casting ballots. A system approved in 2011 by Gov. Rick Scott and the all-Republican Cabinet required felons convicted of nonviolent crimes to wait a minimum of five years to have their rights restored, while others could wait up to 10 years before being eligible to apply.

That changed a policy instituted in 2007 by then Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and the bipartisan Cabinet, which allowed felons convicted of nonviolent crimes who had fulfilled their sentences to vote, hold public office, apply for occupational licenses and sit on juries without applying for clemency, a cumbersome process that can take years. The 2007 change also expedited the process for felons convicted of some violent crimes.

Before 2007, criminals convicted of lesser felonies could apply for their rights to be restored immediately, but others had to wait at least five years after completing their sentences before applying for a hearing before the board.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and other supporters of the current process have argued that the restoration of voting rights for felons should be earned and only after a sufficient waiting period.

But the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which is helping lead efforts to pass the ballot initiative next year, said the proposal would bring Florida in line with other states.

“Now the work of gathering signatures and mounting a successful campaign to change the Florida Constitution begins in earnest,” Kirk Bailey, ACLU of Florida political director, said in a prepared statement Thursday. “We look forward to Florida voters being given a chance to bring our state’s voting rules out of the 19th century and into the 21st.”

The Supreme Court was more divided about whether the gambling-related initiative should move forward. The measure was approved in a 4-2 decision, with Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Charles Canady in the majority and justices Ricky Polston and R. Fred Lewis dissenting. Justice Alan Lawson, who joined the court at end of December, did not take part.

If the amendment is approved in November 2018, it would give voters the “exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling” in the state. It would require voter approval of casino-style games.

Polston, in a dissenting opinion joined by Lewis, argued the proposal is misleading and violates the single-subject requirement. He contended, in part, that the proposal would not fully inform voters about its possible effects on a constitutional amendment passed in 2004 that authorized slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Under that amendment, local voters also had to approve the slot machines.

“The initiative is placing voters in the position of deciding between a preference for controlling the expansion of full-fledged casino gambling and Florida’s current legal gaming landscape,” Polston wrote.

But the majority rejected arguments that it should block the measure from going on the ballot.

“The opponents primarily argue that the initiative should not be placed on the ballot because it is unclear whether, if passed, the amendment would apply retroactively and what effect, if any, the amendment would have on gambling that is currently legal in Florida — including gambling that was previously authorized by general law rather than by citizens’ initiative,” the majority wrote. “However, as the sponsor points out, the opponents’ arguments concern the ambiguous legal effect of the amendment’s text rather than the clarity of the ballot title and summary.”

The Palm Beach Post contributed to this story.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Politics

Russian hackers who targeted Clinton appear to attack French candidate Macron
Russian hackers who targeted Clinton appear to attack French candidate Macron

  The campaign of the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been targeted by what appears to be the same Russian operatives responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials before last year’s U.S. presidential election, a cybersecurity firm has warned in a new report.   The report has heightened concerns...
Ivanka Trump goes to Berlin as Merkel seeks bond with White House
Ivanka Trump goes to Berlin as Merkel seeks bond with White House

One is a 62-year-old former physicist who grew up in a Lutheran parish house in East Germany. The other is a businesswoman whose billionaire property-developer father brought her from Manhattan to the White House.  While Angela Merkel and Ivanka Trump don't have a lot in common, Germany's chancellor is seeking out President Donald Trump's daughter...
The lawyer who will oversee the Russia inquiry has experience investigating the White House
The lawyer who will oversee the Russia inquiry has experience investigating the White House

As a young federal prosecutor in the 1990s, Rod J. Rosenstein played a key role in the highly charged independent investigation of the President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, over their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.  Rosenstein now is poised to take over another sensitive investigation: the FBI counterintelligence...
State Department website touts glittering history of Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate 
State Department website touts glittering history of Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate 

A State Department website that promotes travel to the United States included an article this month about the history and lavish furnishings of President Donald Trump's privately-owned Florida resort club Mar-a-Lago, opening questions about whether the federal government is improperly promoting Trump's moneymaking enterprises.   Sen. Ron...
Charge Philippine President Duterte with mass murder, lawyer tells the Hague
Charge Philippine President Duterte with mass murder, lawyer tells the Hague

A Filipino lawyer asked the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Monday to charge President Rodrigo Duterte and 11 other Philippine officials with mass murder and crimes against humanity in the killings of thousands of people over three decades.   The lawyer, Jude Josue Sabio, said in a 77-page complaint that Duterte was the &ldquo...
More Stories