## Facts

- Florida’s 2018 Amendment 4 restored voting rights to most persons with felony convictions upon “completion of all terms of sentence,” excluding convictions for murder or felony sexual offenses.
- In 2019, Florida enacted SB 7066 (codified at Fla. Stat. § 98.0751), defining “completion of all terms of sentence” to include payment of all legal financial obligations (LFOs), including fines, fees, costs, and restitution imposed in the criminal judgment.
- Individuals with felony convictions who would otherwise qualify for reenfranchisement sued state officials responsible for administering voter registration and reenfranchisement, alleging that conditioning voting eligibility on LFO payment unlawfully barred those unable to pay.
- The registration process required applicants with felony convictions to affirm completion of all terms of sentence; the state could later screen registrations and remove individuals deemed ineligible.
- Individuals who voted without having completed their sentences faced potential criminal liability if they knowingly voted while ineligible.
- Evidence showed substantial administrative difficulty for individuals in determining what LFOs were owed and whether they had been satisfied.
- After a bench trial, the district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the LFO-payment condition in part, concluding it violated equal protection (as applied to inability to pay), was impermissibly vague, and (as to certain fees and costs) functioned as a poll tax.
- Florida appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit heard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning restoration of voting rights for persons with felony convictions on payment of all LFOs, without an ability-to-pay exception, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether requiring payment of LFOs as a precondition to voting constitutes a prohibited poll tax or other tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether uncertainty and administrative difficulty in determining LFO status, coupled with potential criminal liability for wrongful voting, violates due process or renders the scheme unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- The en banc Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s permanent injunction and upheld Florida’s LFO-payment requirement.
- The court held the LFO condition does not violate equal protection because rational basis review applies and the law is rationally related to legitimate state interests.
- The court held the LFO requirement is not a poll tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment because the obligations are components of a criminal sentence, not taxes imposed for voting.
- The court rejected due process and vagueness challenges, concluding the legal standard is sufficiently definite and that “knowing” voting requirements mitigate the risk of criminal liability for unavoidable mistakes.

## Legal Principles

- Because states may constitutionally disenfranchise persons with felony convictions, they have wide latitude to define conditions for reenfranchisement.
- Wealth is not a suspect classification, and individuals with felony convictions seeking reenfranchisement are not treated as exercising a fundamental right for equal protection purposes; rational basis review applies to conditions on restoration of the franchise.
- A state may rationally treat fines, fees, costs, and restitution imposed in a criminal judgment as “terms of sentence” that must be completed before voting rights are restored.
- The Twenty-Fourth Amendment’s ban on poll taxes applies to taxes imposed as a condition of voting; sentence-related financial obligations imposed because of criminal convictions are not “poll taxes or other taxes” within that meaning.
- Administrative difficulty in determining sentence status does not, by itself, make the governing eligibility standard unconstitutionally vague when the legal criteria are clear and criminal liability turns on a knowing violation.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida may condition reenfranchisement on completion of all terms of a felony sentence, including full payment of LFOs, and that this requirement survives equal protection, Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and due process/vagueness challenges under the court’s analysis.


Jones v. Governor of Fla., 975 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2020)