Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorro

(15,740 posts)
Mon Jul 20, 2020, 10:38 AM Jul 2020

On the eve of John Lewis's death, a cruel Supreme Court blow to his legacy

On the day before John Lewis died, the Supreme Court made clear that the life’s work of the Democratic congressman from Georgia remained unfinished. Lewis marched and protested and suffered brutal beatings to help make the vote available to all citizens; President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act of 1965 eight days after the young Lewis was clubbed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. In the years after, Lewis campaigned and lobbied and pressed to see that the right enshrined in that measure was translated into reality for millions who were disenfranchised. He made enormous progress — just not enough.

That cruel fact was brought home Thursday, when the justices rebuffed an effort to restore voting rights to nearly a million felons in Florida who have served their sentences and, under an amendment to the state constitution adopted in 2018, should have had their franchise restored. But the Florida legislature, backed up by the state Supreme Court, interpreted the amendment — which conditioned the restoration of voting rights “upon completion of all terms of sentence, including parole or probation” — to include payments of fines, fees and restitution.

A federal-district court barred Florida from enforcing the law while it was being challenged, allowing felons who had served their sentences to register to vote in November. The judge said the state’s “pay-to-vote system” requiring people to pay fines they could not afford amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. But the full 11th Circuit — where seven of the 12 active judges are Republican nominees, including six Trump-appointed judges, stepped in to lift that order, no explanation given. On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to get involved.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, stated the consequences clearly in the first sentence of their dissent: “This Court’s order prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Florida’s primary election simply because they are poor.” In short, they added, “Under this scheme, nearly a million otherwise-eligible citizens cannot vote unless they pay money.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-eve-of-john-lewiss-death-a-cruel-supreme-court-blow-to-his-legacy/2020/07/19/549a68d8-c9c4-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On the eve of John Lewis's death, a cruel Supreme Court blow to his legacy (Original Post) Zorro Jul 2020 OP
Should depend on severity of crime at140 Jul 2020 #1
What would it take? Can we fix this? RainCaster Jul 2020 #2
No taxation without representation. safeinOhio Jul 2020 #3
Calling Michael Bloomberg... FM123 Jul 2020 #4
Fines & fees - a tax on the poor for being poor. -nt CrispyQ Jul 2020 #5
Why isn't this considered the equivalent of a poll tax, which was made illegal by the... TreasonousBastard Jul 2020 #6
If you can't beat 'em, cheat' 'em" SOP! czarjak Jul 2020 #7
It's another form of a poll tax dlk Jul 2020 #8

safeinOhio

(32,690 posts)
3. No taxation without representation.
Mon Jul 20, 2020, 10:48 AM
Jul 2020

No local, state or federal taxes if you can’t vote. The history of that saying goes all the way back to the 1760s.

FM123

(10,053 posts)
4. Calling Michael Bloomberg...
Mon Jul 20, 2020, 10:49 AM
Jul 2020

You said you would do anything and everything you could to help, can you please take some of your 60 billion dollars and pay off these court fines so they can vote in the coming election?

dlk

(11,569 posts)
8. It's another form of a poll tax
Mon Jul 20, 2020, 02:54 PM
Jul 2020

The right to vote should never be contingent upon someone’s personal debts. Poll taxes are theoretically unconstitutional.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»On the eve of John Lewis'...